Opinion of the Court
As their primary position, petitioners argue that any injury cognizable under §1964(c) is necessarily suffered at the plaintiff’s residence because “the private cause of action remedies only economic injuries, and a plaintiff necessarily suffers that injury at its residence” where the economic injury is felt. Brief for Petitioners 2. In the alternative, petitioners argue that, at least when the alleged injury involves intangible property, such as the judgment here, relevant common-law principles locate the intangible property at the plaintiff’s place of residence, such that the injury is also located there. Id., at 2–3, 43–44. On either version of petitioners’ rule, Smagin cannot allege a domestic injury because he lives in Russia.
Smagin, in contrast, defends a contextual approach that considers all case-specific facts bearing on where the injury “arises,” not just where it is “felt.” Brief for Respondent 9. In the context of this suit, Smagin argues that he has stated a domestic injury because he has alleged that he was injured in his ability to enforce a California judgment, against a California resident, through racketeering acts that were largely “designed and carried out in California” and were “targeted at California.” Id., at 3, 21.
C
The Court agrees with Smagin and the Ninth Circuit that “determining whether a plaintiff has alleged a domestic injury [for purposes of RICO] is a context-specific inquiry that turns largely on the particular facts alleged in a complaint.” 37 F. 4th, at 570. Specifically, courts should look to the circumstances surrounding the alleged injury to assess whether it arose in the United States. In this suit, that means looking to the nature of the alleged injury, the racketeering activity that directly caused it,[1] and the injurious
- ↑ The alleged RICO violation must have proximately caused the injury in order for the plaintiff to be able to sue under §1964(c). See Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U. S. 258, 268 (1992);
