The Court held that the Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute) does not apply extraterritorially and that a domestic application of the statute requires use of the trademark in domestic commerce. Regarding the presumption against extraterritoriality more broadly, the majority emphasized that conduct related to a non-extraterritorial statute's focus must occur in the United States, even if the focus itself is not about conduct.
Will the Supreme Court Resolve the Circuit Split on the Geographic Scope of Wire Fraud Statute?
The federal wire fraud statute is a workhorse for federal prosecutors. In 2021, there were more than 4,500 federal prosecutions for fraud, theft, or embezzlement, constituting 8% of federal criminal cases. The wire fraud statute is particularly important in transnational fraud cases, because communicating with people in the United States using U.S. wires is considered…
Continue ReadingThe New (Old) Presumption Against Extraterritoriality
The reach of U.S. law keeps changing. For decades—in fact, off and on for more than a century—U.S. courts have turned to the presumption against extraterritoriality to determine the geographic scope of federal statutes. When the presumption changes, so does the reach of U.S. law. And the presumption has changed a lot lately. Most recently,…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Roundup (October Term 2022)
During its 2022 Term, which ended four weeks ago, the Supreme Court decided five cases with important implications for transnational litigation. The questions included whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) applies to criminal proceedings; the standard for aiding and abetting under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA); whether states may exercise general personal jurisdiction over foreign…
Continue Reading