We will hear argument this morning in case 24-856, Cisco Systems v. Doe. Mr. Shamigam?

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. Aiding and abetting liability

constitutes a significant expansion of a civil cause of action. For that reason, this Court has made

clear that it is generally not available absent clear

congressional direction.

The ATS contains no express cause of action at all, and the TVPA's cause of action

contains no language that provides for aiding and abetting.

And recognizing such a cause of action would raise substantial foreign policy concerns,

as in this case, which involves serious allegations

of wrongdoing in a foreign country by a foreign government. It is for Congress, not for this

court, to provide for aiding and abetting liability under these statutes, and it is not done so.

As to the ATS, respondents primarily rely on SOSA, which left open the possibility that courts could recognize new causes of action, drawn from modern international law under the ATS.

In light of this court's most recent cases concerning implied causes of action, the court should take this opportunity to clarify that implying new causes

of action under the ATS is impermissible. But even under SOSA, it would not be a proper exercise of

judicial discretion to recognize a categorical cause of action for aiding and abet it. Under Central

Bank, Congress's silence is sufficient to foreclose that

cause of action, and such a cause of action would pose grave harms to foreign policy and the

separation of powers, as the government's brief confirms. The Court has never created a new

cause of action under the ATS, and this should not be the first. As to the TBPA, the analysis

is straightforward. The statute contains no language mentioning aiding, abetting, assisting, facilitating,

or otherwise participating in another's conduct. To be sure, the statute imposes liability on a person

who subjects the victim to torture.

...