Doe v. Cisco Systems, Inc. challenges the alleged role of Cisco Systems, Inc., a U.S. network technology corporation, in aiding and abetting serious human rights abuses against a group of Falun Gong practitioners in China. Cisco is alleged to have had a central role in the design and implementation of China’s “Golden Shield” project, a network security system used to facilitate the violent persecution of dissident groups. The plaintiffs were detained for visiting Falun Gong websites, discussing the practice of Falun Gong online, and sharing information about the widespread human rights abuses suffered by Falun Gong practitioners in China. While detained, they were beaten, deprived of sleep, forced to eat laundry detergent, electrocuted, drugged, and subjected to numerous other brutal human rights abuses. One of the plaintiffs was beaten to death while in custody, while another has disappeared and is presumed dead. The Center for Constitutional Rights filed two briefs of amici curiae in this case as part of our work to strengthen domestic accountability tools such as the Alien Tort Statute ("ATS").

Our 2026 brief was submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of twelve international human rights organizations from around the world. The groups establish that aiding and abetting liability is well-recognized as a general principle of law, and, as such, is actionable under the ATS. The Supreme Court is considering the scope and reach of the ATS — a statute from 1789 that permits non-U.S. citizens to bring tort actions in U.S. federal courts for well-established violations of international law — for the fourth time in just the last dozen years. The Center for Constitutional Rights pioneered the use of the ATS to seek redress for “law of nations” violations in the landmark case Filártiga v. Peña-Irala, and have relied on this statute to bring claims for victims of torture and other human rights violations from Burma to Nigeria to Palestine to Iraq, as in the ongoing case Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology. Our 2016 brief challenged the district court's dismissal under the "touch and concern" test established in the Supreme Court's 2013 Kiobel decision.