Page:Yegiazaryan v. Smagin.pdf/10

6 There, the question before the Court was whether RICO applies extraterritorially. To answer that question, the Court employed the presumption against extraterritoriality, which “represents a canon of construction, or a presumption about a statute’s meaning, rather than a limit upon Congress’s power to legislate.” Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U. S. 247, 255 (2010). The presumption provides that “[a]bsent clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application.” RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 335.

Dual rationales support the presumption against extraterritoriality. On the one hand, it reflects concerns of international comity insofar as it “ ‘serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord.’ ” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U. S. 108, 115 (2013) (quoting EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U. S. 244, 248 (1991)). On the other hand, the presumption is informed by “the commonsense notion that Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.” Smith v. United States, 507 U. S. 197, 204, n. 5 (1993). In fact, consistent application of the presumption “preserv[es] a stable background against which Congress can legislate with predictable effects.” Morrison, 561 U. S., at 261.

RJR Nabisco distilled the presumption against extraterritoriality into two steps. The first asks “whether the statute gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially.” 579 U. S., at 337. If the answer is “yes,” then the presumption is rebutted, obviating any need to proceed to step two. If the presumption is not rebutted, however, then step two asks whether the case involves a domestic application of the statute, which is assessed “by looking to the statute’s ‘focus.’ ” Ibid.