Page:Yegiazaryan v. Smagin.pdf/2

Syllabus

to plead a “domestic injury” as required by RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325, 346. Smagin’s Russian residency weighed heavily in the District Court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Rejecting the District Court’s rigid, residency-based approach to the domestic-injury inquiry, the Ninth Circuit instead applied a context-specific approach and concluded that Smagin had pleaded a domestic injury because he had alleged that his efforts to execute on a California judgment in California against a California resident were foiled by a pattern of racketeering activity that largely occurred in California and was designed to subvert enforcement of the judgment there.

Held: A plaintiff alleges a domestic injury for purposes of §1964(c) when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States. Pp. 5–14.

(a) The “domestic-injury” requirement for private civil RICO suits stems from RJR Nabisco, a case in which the Court was asked whether RICO applies extraterritorially. To answer the question, the Court applied the presumption against extraterritoriality, a canon of construction that provides “[a]bsent clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application.” 579 U. S., at 335. Guided by concerns of international comity and the reasonable discernment of congressional intent, the Court distilled the presumption against extraterritoriality into two steps. The first asks “whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.” Id., at 337. If the answer is “yes,” the presumption is rebutted, and the test ends. If the answer is “no,” the inquiry proceeds and step two asks whether the case involves a domestic application of the statute, which is assessed “by looking to the statute’s ‘focus.’ ” Ibid. Applying this framework, the Court assessed the extraterritoriality of RICO’s private right of action, §1964(c), and determined that it does not overcome the presumption at step one. Proceeding to step two, the Court held that “[a] private RICO plaintiff … must allege and prove a domestic injury to its business or property.” Id., at 346. Because the RJR Nabisco plaintiffs were not seeking redress for domestic injuries, the Court did not have occasion to explain what constitutes a “domestic injury.” Pp. 5–7.

(b) The parties advance competing approaches to the domestic-injury inquiry. Petitioners urge a bright-line rule that locates a plaintiff’s injury at the plaintiff’s residence. They argue that because a private RICO action remedies only economic injuries and a plaintiff necessarily suffers that injury at its residence where the economic injury is felt, any cognizable §1964(c) injury is necessarily suffered at the plaintiff’s residence. Alternatively, petitioners argue that at least when intangible property is concerned, common-law principles locate