Choice of Law in the American Courts in 2022
The thirty-sixth annual survey on choice of law in the American courts is now available on SSRN. The survey covers significant cases decided in 2022 on choice of law, party autonomy, extraterritoriality, international human rights, foreign sovereign immunity, foreign official immunity, the act of state doctrine, adjudicative jurisdiction, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign…
Continue ReadingD.C. Circuit Holds that Whistleblower Provision Does Not Apply Extraterritorially
In Garvey v. Administrative Review Board, the D.C. Circuit held that a whistleblower provision in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act did not apply to alleged retaliation against an employee in Hong Kong by a subsidiary of a U.S. investment bank. The opinion carefully applies the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for the presumption against extraterritoriality to the whistleblower…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court Grants Cert to Resolve Split Over Extraterritoriality of Civil RICO
Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted cert in Yegiazaryan v. Smagin and CMB Monaco v. Smagin and consolidated the cases for oral argument. The question in both cases is how RICO’s private right of action applies to intangible property, in this case a California judgment confirming a foreign arbitral award. As I previously noted on…
Continue ReadingStare Decisis and Extraterritoriality
In a recent post, Curt Bradley suggested that the hardest problem the Supreme Court faces as it revisits the geographic scope of the Lanham (Trademark) Act in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. is what to do about existing precedent. In Steele v. Bulova Watch Co. (1952), the Court held that the Act applies to…
Continue ReadingSupreme Court to Revisit Extraterritorial Scope of Trademark Law
On March 1, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., which concerns the extraterritorial scope of the Lanham (Trademark) Act. In resolving this case, the Court will need to decide what to do about an old precedent that appears to be inconsistent with the Court’s modern approach to…
Continue ReadingOral Argument in Doe v. Apple
Last week, the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument in Doe v. Apple, a case brought by victims of forced labor and human trafficking against five U.S. technology companies. The plaintiffs are children or family members of children who were injured or killed mining cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The defendants—Apple, Alphabet, Microsoft,…
Continue ReadingThrowback Thursday: United States v. Bowman
One hundred years ago, on November 13, 1922, Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Bowman, holding that a federal statute that made it a criminal offense to conspire to defraud a corporation owned by U.S. government applied extraterritorially to conduct on the high seas and in Brazil….
Continue ReadingSupreme Court to Decide Extraterritorial Reach of Trademark Statute
Today the Supreme Court granted review in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc. to consider when the federal trademark statute, known as the Lanham Act, applies extraterritorially. In Steele v. Bulova Watch (1952), the Court held that the act applied extraterritorially to the infringement of a U.S. trademark in Mexico. But lower courts have developed different tests for implementing Steele, creating a…
Continue ReadingSecond Circuit Again Limits Extraterritorial Reach of Commodity Exchange Act
In Laydon v. Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A., the Second Circuit once again held that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) does not apply to futures contracts traded on U.S. exchanges that are tied to the values of foreign commodities. Although the transactions in this case undoubtedly occurred in the United States, the court held that the claims…
Continue ReadingCert Petition Highlights Split on Extraterritorial Application of Civil RICO
In RJR Nabisco v. European Community (2016), the Supreme Court held that RICO’s civil cause of action requires a domestic injury to business or property. The Court noted, however, that “[t]he application of this rule in any given case will not always be self-evident, as disputes may arise as to whether a particular alleged injury…
Continue Reading