Whether Cisco Systems, Inc. may be held liable for aiding and abetting offenses under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Whether two of its executives may be held liable under the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA) for aiding and abetting torture. These questions arise from allegations that Cisco developed surveillance technology used by the Chinese Government to persecute religious minorities.

• The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that aiding-and-abetting liability exists under the ATS for the alleged torts.
• The TVPA does not provide a cause of action for aiding and abetting because it lacks express language to that effect.
• Creating such liability would intrude upon the prerogatives of the political branches regarding foreign policy.

• Aiding and abetting liability is sufficiently definite and universal to be a viable form of liability under the ATS.
• There are no prudential reasons, such as foreign relations concerns or deference to Congress, to decline recognizing this liability under the ATS.
• The term "subjects" within the TVPA is broad enough to encompass claims against those who aid and abet torture.

• Courts may not create new causes of action for violations of international norms under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS).
• The Court concludes that judicial authority to create ATS actions is nonexistent, effectively closing the door previously cracked by *Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain*.
• Creating such actions risks adverse foreign policy consequences, a danger magnified in the context of international norms (*Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.* and *Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC*).
• The power to create causes of action belongs to Congress under the separation of powers, particularly where Art. I, § 8, cl. 10 delegates authority to Congress to "defne and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations."
• Under current precedent, even a "single sound reason" to defer to Congress—such as the collateral consequences of making international rules privately actionable—precludes judicial creation of a remedy (*Egbert v. Boule*).
• The existence of an alternative remedial structure, specifically the TVPA, further precludes the creation of a new ATS cause of action (*Ziglar v. Abbasi*).
• Regarding the TVPA, the Court holds it does not provide for aiding-and-abetting liability because the statute does not expressly mention such liability, following the reasoning in *Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A.*.
• The term "subjects" in the TVPA requires a causal connection ("to cause to undergo or submit to"), whereas aiding-and-abetting liability sweeps more broadly than this language (*Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh*).