AID AND ABET

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe I

Issues

Do the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act support a judge-made private cause of action for aiding and abetting liability?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (“TVPA”) allow individuals to sue someone for aiding and abetting the commission of an international human rights violation. The ATS allows foreign nationals to sue in U.S. federal courts for violations of international law or U.S. treaties, while the TVPA allows individuals to sue for damages caused by torture. Cisco Systems, Inc. argues that neither the ATS nor the TVPA provides a valid cause of action for aiding and abetting, and that the current judicial landscape does not allow for creating a new cause of action under these statutes. Fourteen unnamed members of the Falun Gong (referred to as “Doe”) argue that aiding and abetting is a universal norm in international law, which the ATS was intended to enforce, and that the language of the TVPA allows for an aiding and abetting claim. This ruling could have impacts on U.S. foreign relations and foreign direct investment by U.S. corporations, and on the accountability for U.S. corporations’ involvement with countries committing human rights violations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

Falun Gong is a religious practice that emerged in China in the early 1990s. Doe I v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos

Issues

Can the Mexican government hold U.S. firearm manufacturers legally responsible for cartel violence injuries in Mexico based on claims of proximate cause and of aiding and abetting illegal trafficking?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Mexican government has sufficiently justified its lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers based on Mexican cartel violence. Smith & Wesson argues that proximate cause necessitates a direct cause, and that Mexico’s injuries are too attenuated to satisfy proximate cause. The Mexican government claims that Smith & Wesson can be held liable for aiding and abetting illegal firearm sales under the predicate exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The outcome of this case has significant implications for corporate liability under tort law and the legal standard of plausibility pleading. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the proximate cause of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico; and (2) whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

Despite Mexico’s strict firearm laws, Mexico has the third-most firearm-related deaths in the world. Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. (“First Circuit”) at 516. From 2003 to 2019, the number of firearm deaths increased from 2,500 to 23,000. Id. The increase in firearm-related violence in Mexico coincided with a growth in firearm production in the United States.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Heise for his insights into this case. 

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to AID AND ABET