Cisco on Remand: Plaintiffs Argue State-Law Claims Should Be Heard Under ATS

The Cisco Systems Inc. v. Doe case continues to have far-reaching implications for human rights claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in 2026 closed the door on modern human rights claims under the ATS, and lower courts are beginning to feel the effects.

On remand to the Ninth Circuit, the parties in Cisco have filed supplemental briefs addressing whether the plaintiffs' state-law tort claims may still proceed under the ATS's grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. The plaintiffs argue that their state-law claims fall within the ATS's grant of subject-matter jurisdiction and should be heard by federal courts.

The plaintiffs point out that the Supreme Court in Cisco reaffirmed that the ATS is a jurisdictional statute and that federal courts have a 'virtually unflagging obligation' to exercise the jurisdiction given to them by Congress. They also argue that the ATS's grant of subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law claims is consistent with the original understanding of the ATS, which was intended to create a federal forum for tortious conduct that violated international law.

The defendants argue that the plaintiffs forfeited their argument for subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law claims by not raising it before the district court. They also contend that reviving the state-law claims would contravene the Supreme Court's mandate on remand and violate Article III of the Constitution.