Supreme Court will take up Cisco’s bid to shut down lawsuit by Falun Gong

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a lawsuit alleging tech giant Cisco Systems provided technology used by Chinese authorities to persecute members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. The justices will hear arguments in spring following an appellate court ruling that would allow the case to proceed in U.S. courts.

The Trump administration had urged the Court to take up the case, filing a brief supporting Cisco’s position. The lawsuit sits at the intersection of corporate accountability, human rights, and international relations at a time of increasing tensions between the United States and China.

An Associated Press investigation last year revealed that American technology companies played significant roles in building China’s surveillance infrastructure. This development occurred with tacit approval from both Republican and Democratic administrations, despite warnings from human rights advocates that such technologies would be used to suppress dissent, persecute religious minorities, and target ethnic groups.

Documents leaked in 2008 showed that Cisco viewed China’s internet censorship program, known as the “Golden Shield,” as a business opportunity. In company materials, Cisco quoted a Chinese official describing Falun Gong as an “evil cult.” A company presentation from that period claimed its products could identify more than 90% of Falun Gong material on the internet.

Additional presentations reviewed by the Associated Press revealed that Cisco characterized Falun Gong content as a “threat” and helped develop a national information system to track adherents of the spiritual practice. This evidence formed the basis for the 2011 lawsuit, in which Falun Gong members alleged Cisco knowingly customized technology for Beijing that would be used to track, detain, and torture believers.

The Supreme Court will now determine whether an American company can be held liable under two specific laws for allegedly aiding human rights violations. Cisco contends it bears no liability under either the 18th-century Alien Tort Statute (ATS) or the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), which was first enacted in 1991.

“This case raises fundamental questions about corporate responsibility in international markets,” said Robert Chang, professor of international business law at Georgetown University, who is not involved in the case. “The Court’s decision could have far-reaching implications for how U.S. companies operate in countries with questionable human rights records.”

The lawsuit represents a challenging legal path for the plaintiffs. In recent years, both the Supreme Court and presidential administrations across party lines have expressed skepticism toward lawsuits seeking to use American courts as venues for addressing alleged human rights abuses by foreign governments, particularly when the actions occurred abroad.

To overcome this hurdle, the Falun Gong plaintiffs argue that a substantial portion of Cisco’s activities related to China occurred within the United States, potentially bringing the case within U.S. jurisdiction.

The case comes amid growing concerns about American companies’ involvement in technology that can enable surveillance and repression. Human rights organizations have increasingly called for greater accountability from tech firms operating in markets with authoritarian governments.

Falun Gong, a spiritual practice combining meditation, moral teachings, and qigong exercises, was banned by the Chinese government in 1999 after gaining millions of followers. Chinese authorities have conducted a sustained campaign against the group, which human rights organizations say has included arbitrary detention, torture, and forced labor.

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision by early summer, potentially establishing a significant precedent regarding corporate liability for overseas human rights abuses facilitated by American technology.