Plain-English summary
Court affirms that the injury’s location determines whether a private RICO claim is 'domestic'
The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that a private RICO plaintiff meets RJR Nabisco’s "domestic-injury" requirement when the circumstances surrounding the injury show it occurred within the United States. The decision remands the case for further proceedings consistent with that view.
Why this matters
The decision clarifies how courts determine whether a civil RICO suit can reach foreign conduct by applying RJR Nabisco’s requirement that the plaintiff suffer a domestic injury. That test limits—and in some cases permits—U.S. RICO suits that involve cross-border wrongdoing, affecting access to U.S. courts for plaintiffs and exposure to liability for defendants in transnational disputes.
Who may feel it
- Private plaintiffs bringing RICO (civil) claims
- Defendants accused of racketeering in cross-border schemes
- U.S. courts deciding extraterritoriality questions
- Businesses and individuals involved in international torts or frauds
Key questions
- What legal test determines whether a private plaintiff’s RICO injury is "domestic" under the presumption against extraterritoriality?
- Does the inquiry focus on where the defendant’s conduct occurred (including predicate acts) or on where the plaintiff suffered the concrete economic harm?