Plain-English summary
Affirms that RICO claims require a domestic injury for suit in U.S. courts
The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that a foreign bank's RICO claims failed because it did not sufficiently allege a domestic injury. The decision applies the Court’s RJR Nabisco framework for distinguishing domestic from foreign injuries under RICO.
Why this matters
The ruling clarifies that civil RICO suits in U.S. courts are limited to plaintiffs who allege injuries that are domestic in location. That restricts the ability of foreign plaintiffs to use U.S. racketeering law to seek damages for harms occurring overseas, affecting where transnational fraud and corruption cases can be litigated.
Who may feel it
- Foreign corporations and banks seeking to sue in U.S. courts under RICO
- Defendants accused of international fraud or racketeering
- U.S. courts handling transnational civil litigation
- Lawyers advising clients on where to bring or defend RICO claims
Key questions
- Does a foreign plaintiff need to plead a domestic injury to bring a civil claim under RICO? (Answered: Yes.)
- How should courts determine whether an alleged injury is domestic or foreign under RJR Nabisco? (Applied to facts of this case; Court found the bank’s injuries were not domestic.)