Alito, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Nos. 22–381 and 22–383
ASHOT YEGIAZARYAN, AKA ASHOT EGIAZARYAN, PETITIONER
22–381v.22–381
VITALY IVANOVICH SMAGIN, ET AL.
CMB MONACO, FKA COMPAGNIE MONEGASQUE DE BANQUE, PETITIONER
22–383v.22–383
VITALY IVANOVICH SMAGIN, ET AL.
ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[June 22, 2023]
Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins, and with whom Justice Gorsuch joins as to Part I, dissenting.
These are the first cases in which we have been required to decide when injury to intangible property that a civil plaintiff attributes to a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) qualifies as a “domestic injury” and may therefore provide the basis for recovery under 18 U. S. C. §1964(c). See RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325, 346–354 (2016). This question has divided the lower courts, but the Court’s decision resolves very little. It holds only that ascertaining the site of intangible injuries for purposes of civil RICO requires a court to consult a variety of factors and that two factors it identifies show that respondent has suffered a domestic injury. This analysis offers virtually no guidance to lower courts, and it risks sowing confusion in our extraterritoriality precedents. Rather than take this unhelpful
