The Supreme Court on Tuesday shut down multiple pathways for accountability, blocking a lawsuit against Cisco Systems over technology allegedly used to persecute religious minorities in China while making it easier for the government to deport green card holders and denying homeowners fair compensation in tax foreclosure cases. The decisions, part of a wave of 6-3 ideological splits, underscore a court increasingly divided along partisan lines as it reshapes fundamental protections for vulnerable communities.
Corporate Accountability Blocked
In a decision with far-reaching implications for corporate human rights accountability, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the court "close the door" that it slightly opened in 2004 when it suggested that some human-rights claims might be viable under the Alien Tort Statute. "In truth, this class is a null set," Barrett wrote, while acknowledging such cases "frequently involve heinous and inhumane acts." Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the court "closes the courthouse doors not just to respondents, but to virtually every future litigant seeking redress for a violation of international law under the ATS."
The case centered on allegations that Cisco tailored technology for Beijing that it knew would be used to track, detain and torture members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement. In 2008, documents leaked to the press showed Cisco saw the "Golden Shield," China's internet censorship effort, as a sales opportunity. The company quoted a Chinese official calling the Falun Gong an "evil cult." A Cisco presentation reviewed by the AP from the same year said its products could identify over 90% of Falun Gong material on the web. Other presentations reviewed by the AP showed that Cisco represented Falun Gong material as a "threat" and built out a national information system to track Falun Gong believers. In 2011, Falun Gong members sued Cisco, alleging the company tailored technology for Beijing that it knew would be used to track, detain and torture believers. At arguments in April, Sotomayor said Cisco "knew that those people will be tortured." A lawyer for the company said, "Cisco vigorously disputes those allegations."
Homeowners Lose Tax Foreclosure Fight
The Supreme Court also rejected an effort to change tax foreclosure sales to let homeowners keep more money when their property is sold to recoup unpaid taxes. The court ruled against a sweeping argument from a Michigan family whose house was sold for less than half its open-market value to cover an unpaid tax bill of just over $2,000. They argued the foreclosure violated their rights because the house would have fetched a higher price of nearly $200,000 if sold through typical real-estate channels.
The Supreme Court unanimously found that people aren't entitled to recoup a "hypothetical fair market value" of homes sold at auction to cover unpaid taxes. Auctions are designed to be a relatively quick way to collect unpaid taxes, and requiring local governments to get the higher fair-market value might make them unworkable, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. "The traditional rule, under which the taxpayer receives only the difference between the auction sale price and unpaid taxes, is 'just,'" he wrote. The sale, though, must be conducted fairly, he wrote. The court sent the Pung family's case back to lower courts to reassess the process used by Isabella County.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Neil Gorsuch, wrote separately to raise doubts about the constitutionality of the foreclosure process. Larry Salzman, vice president for litigation at the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the family, said, "The case isn't over." He said, "The Pungs won the right to continue their fight in the lower courts." The case comes about three years after another major foreclosure case where the justices ruled against local governments. The court found counties can't keep tax sale proceeds beyond what the owner owes in unpaid taxes. That case centered on a 94-year-old Minnesota woman whose county government kept about $40,000 in proceeds from the sale of her condominium after she failed to pay about $2,300 in taxes.
Immigration Protections Weakened
In an immigration case dealing with green card holders, the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Tuesday in a case over the government's power over green card holders accused of crimes. The 6-3 decision centers on an immigration officers' 2012 decision to put lawful permanent resident Muk Choi Lau on immigration parole when he returned from a short trip to China because he had been accused of a counterfeiting crime. Lau argued that the officer overstepped their authority, and the decision wrongly allowed the Department of Homeland Security under then-President Barack Obama an easier path to removal after he pleaded guilty to selling counterfeit clothes in New Jersey.
"Border officers did not have the burden to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Lau had committed a crime involving moral turpitude," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the opinion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing that the decision to put Lau on immigration parole effectively sentenced him to "immigration limbo" before he'd been convicted of any crime. "I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check," she wrote in the dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues. The liberal group Alliance for Justice said the ruling could provide an expanded path for revoking green cards. The court also split 6-3 in a decision that will make it easier for the government to deport green card holders who are convicted of certain crimes.
Partisan Divide Deepens
The Supreme Court hit an inauspicious milestone Tuesday as it raced to finish its most divisive pending cases by the end of the month: It has already handed down more 6-3 decisions along ideological lines than it did for the entire term that ended last year. As it navigates a charged political atmosphere during President Donald Trump's second term and endures sharp criticism from the left and right, the court has already split into conservative and liberal camps in seven decisions this year — one more than last year — before it even gets to major cases on presidential power and transgender rights.
The most significant 6-3 decision so far this term was the court's April ruling that gutted the Voting Rights Act's power over redistricting disputes. The decision, and several that followed from it, helped Republicans quickly redraw congressional district in Southern states like Louisiana and Alabama to give the GOP an advantage in this year's midterm elections. And those numbers do not take into account rulings on the court's emergency docket, where the liberal and conservative wings have split more frequently.
The court's tendency to decide important cases along 6-3 partisan lines is a serious problem for the court's legitimacy, said David Cole, a Georgetown Law professor who frequently argued before the court as the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "The justices are supposed to be guided by law, not politics," Cole said. "Even if many divides reflect differences in legal worldview, not politics, the more they divide along party lines, the less credibility the court has as an institution," he said.
The high court has decided more than half of its 46 decisions so far this term unanimously, a slightly higher share than last year by the end of June. But the biggest and most complicated decisions delivered in the final days of a term are rarely unanimous. With a dozen cases still waiting for a ruling this year, the share of unanimous cases will likely plummet. From 2020 to 2024, nearly 14% of the court's merits decisions were split along ideological lines, according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog.
"Courts are apolitical," liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court's most junior justice, said last month. "We have to be scrupulous about sticking to the principles and the rules that we apply in every case and not look as though we're doing something different in this kind of context." Jackson's point echoed a dissent she wrote in an emergency docket case days earlier involving Louisiana's ability to quickly redraw its congressional districts. Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court's conservative wing, responded in a brief concurring opinion by describing Jackson's points as "trivial at best" and "baseless and insulting."
Over the next week, the court is expected to rule on Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship as it has been understood for more than a century as well as the president's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. But also pending are cases dealing with the president's power to fire the leaders of other independent agencies, turn away asylum seekers at the border and cancel temporary deportation protections for Haitian and Syrian nationals. The court is considering an important Second Amendment case over a Hawaii law that makes it harder to carry guns into private property open to the public, like retail stores. And it is weighing two cases dealing with laws enacted by West Virginia and Idaho that ban transgender girls from competing on girls' sports teams. All of those are candidates for splitting the court 6-3.
Why This Matters:
These decisions collectively narrow avenues for accountability and protection for some of society's most vulnerable populations. By closing the door on human rights lawsuits against corporations, the court eliminates a critical tool for holding businesses accountable when their products are used to facilitate torture and persecution abroad. The tax foreclosure ruling, while procedurally unanimous, leaves families facing the loss of substantial home equity over relatively small tax debts, a burden that disproportionately affects low-income homeowners who may lack resources to navigate complex foreclosure prevention programs. The immigration decisions expand executive power to detain and deport lawful permanent residents based on accusations rather than convictions, creating what Justice Jackson described as "immigration limbo" that undermines due process protections. The court's growing pattern of 6-3 ideological splits, particularly on cases affecting voting rights, immigration, and civil liberties, raises fundamental questions about institutional legitimacy at a moment when public trust in democratic institutions requires courts to appear impartial. As Georgetown Law professor David Cole noted, when justices consistently divide along party lines, "the less credibility the court has as an institution." With major cases on birthright citizenship, asylum policy, and transgender rights still pending, the court's ideological divisions threaten to further erode protections for marginalized communities while expanding unchecked executive and corporate power.