Supreme Court Bars New Causes of Action Under 1789 Alien Tort Statute and Spending-Clause Statutes

The six-justice majority issued two decisions Tuesday that eliminated judicial remedies for distinct categories of federal rights. In Cisco, Falun Gong plaintiffs alleging Cisco-enabled torture by China were told the 1789 statute covers only violations recognized at enactment. In Landor, a Rastafarian inmate denied damages against officers who shaved his dreadlocks despite a court order, because the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act imposes no personal liability on state employees. Both rulings treat the existence of a right as separate from any enforceable cause of action. The decisions extend a decade-long pattern visible in earlier cases limiting private enforcement of federal statutes. Spending-clause programs such as Medicaid and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act now face the same barrier: states accept funds under conditions that bind no one who actually administers them. Immigration protections addressed in Blanche v. Lau and a companion ruling similarly became non-justiciable guidelines rather than enforceable obligations. The institutional driver is the Court’s view that Congress alone may create new enforcement mechanisms, even when statutes already purport to supply them. This shifts power toward the political branches while insulating executive and corporate actors from damages suits. Lower courts will apply the holdings to pending human-rights and benefits litigation within months. Congress faces pressure to amend the Alien Tort Statute and multiple spending programs before the 2028 election cycle. Absent legislation, affected rights will remain declaratory only, with enforcement dependent on discretionary federal prosecution or state-level remedies that vary by jurisdiction.