Page:Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc..pdf/32

10 The Court’s transformative approach thwarts Congress’ ability to regulate important “interests” or “parties” that Congress has the power to regulate. WesternGeco LLC, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 6). Some statutes may have a statutory focus that is not strictly conduct and that implicates some conduct abroad. Cf., e.g., ''F. Hoffmann-La Roche LtdLtd. [sic] v. Empagran S. A.'', 542 U. S. 155, 165 (2004) (recognizing the long-established view that U. S. antitrust laws “reflect a legislative effort to redress domestic antitrust injury that foreign anticompetitive conduct has caused” (emphasis deleted)). Under the Court’s new categorical rule, those statutes may not cover relevant conduct occurring abroad, even if that conduct impacts domestic interests that Congress sought to protect. At bottom, by reframing the inquiry at step two as a conduct-only test, the Court’s new rule frustrates a key function of the presumption against extraterritoriality: to discern congressional meaning and “preserv[e] a stable background against which Congress can legislate with predictable effects” to protect domestic interests, Morrison, 561 U. S., at 261, including those of U. S. trademark owners and consumers.

The Court’s analysis is also inconsistent with Steele.