When Courts Stay in Their Constitutional Lane

The Supreme Court’s decision today in Cisco Systems v. Doe may not generate the public attention given to other high profile cases, but it represents an important reaffirmation of constitutional government. At its core, the case is not primarily about China, persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, or even international human rights litigation. Rather, it concerns a more fundamental question. Who possesses authority to create legal causes of action in our constitutional republic?

The plaintiffs alleged that Cisco assisted the Chinese Communist regime in its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners by providing technology that facilitated surveillance and repression. The allegations are serious. They involve claims of religious persecution and human suffering. Yet the Supreme Court did not decide whether the alleged conduct occurred or whether it was morally reprehensible. Instead, the Court addressed a threshold issue of constitutional significance. May federal courts create causes of action that Congress itself has not authorized? The Court answered no.

Justice Barrett’s majority opinion concludes that federal courts lack authority to create new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute. In doing so, the Court declared that it was closing the door that Sosa v. Alvarez Machain had previously left slightly open. For many years, litigants and scholars debated whether Sosa permitted federal judges to recognize new claims based upon evolving international norms. The Court has now made clear that such authority belongs to Congress rather than the judiciary.

The decision also reflects the Court’s growing skepticism toward the proposition that international norms may become domestic federal law through judicial recognition alone. For many years, advocates of expansive Alien Tort Statute litigation urged federal courts to derive causes of action from evolving principles of customary international law. The Cisco majority rejected that approach. Its reasoning reflects the constitutional principle that international norms do not automatically become enforceable federal law absent authorization from the Constitution or an act of Congress. In doing so, the Court reinforced the foundational premise that the American people govern themselves through their Constitution and elected representatives rather than through the evolving preferences of international institutions.

This conclusion reflects a foundational principle of constitutional governance. Government officials may exercise only those powers lawfully delegated to them. The Constitution does not establish a system in which judges possess authority to pursue whatever outcomes they believe desirable. Rather, it creates separate institutions with distinct responsibilities. Congress legislates. The Executive executes the law. Courts decide cases under existing law.

The genius of the American constitutional system lies not merely in its protection of liberty but also in its division of power. Human beings are imperfect. Because power tends toward abuse, the Constitution disperses authority among separate branches and levels of government. This structure serves as a safeguard for freedom.

The Cisco decision illustrates why constitutional limits matter. Few would question the moral wrongness of religious persecution. Yet a commitment to the rule of law requires more than identifying a worthy objective. It also requires asking whether a particular institution possesses lawful authority to pursue that objective. Constitutional government demands both justice and jurisdiction.

This principle reflects a truth that extends beyond constitutional law. A biblical worldview recognizes that all human authority is delegated authority. Civil government has legitimate responsibilities, but those responsibilities are neither unlimited nor self defining. Just as individuals are accountable to God for the exercise of authority entrusted to them, governmental institutions are accountable to the constitutional boundaries established for them. The Court’s decision therefore serves as a reminder that good ends do not justify constitutional overreach. The temptation to expand governmental power often arises in response to genuine problems. Yet liberty is preserved when public officials remain faithful to the limits imposed upon them.

The majority opinion also underscores another important reality. The existence of an injustice does not automatically create a judicial remedy. In our constitutional order, the creation of new causes of action ordinarily belongs to the people’s elected representatives. If Congress believes additional remedies are necessary, Congress possesses the authority to enact them. Federal judges do not.

The significance of Cisco ultimately reaches beyond the specific facts of the case. The decision reaffirms that constitutional structure matters. Separation of powers is not a technicality. It is a protection for liberty. By insisting that courts remain within their proper sphere, the Supreme Court strengthened a principle essential to self government and the rule of law. When government officials remain within their delegated authority, constitutional freedom is preserved. When they do not, liberty is endangered. The Court’s decision in Cisco reminds us that the path to justice must always travel through the Constitution.