Page:Yegiazaryan v. Smagin.pdf/11

Rh Applying this framework, the Court assessed the extraterritoriality of two of RICO’s substantive provisions and, as relevant here, its private cause of action. As to the substantive provisions, the Court held at step one that they apply extraterritorially to the same extent that RICO’s predicates do, making it unnecessary to proceed to step two. Id., at 340. Regarding RICO’s private right of action, §1964(c), however, the Court’s conclusion was different. The Court determined that §1964(c) does not overcome the presumption at step one because there is no “clear indication that Congress intended to create a private right of action for injuries suffered outside of the United States.” Id., at 349. “If anything,” the Court reasoned, by “cabining” the private cause of action to “injur[ies] to ‘business or property,’ ” “Congress signaled that the civil remedy is not coextensive with §1962’s substantive prohibitions.” Id., at 350. Accordingly, in reference 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.

In announcing this “domestic-injury” requirement, the Court did not have occasion to explain what constitutes a “domestic-injury,” because the plaintiffs in RJR Nabisco had stipulated that they were not seeking redress for domestic injuries. Id., at 354. The question now before the Court is whether Smagin has alleged a domestic injury.

The parties advance competing approaches to the domestic injury inquiry. Petitioners urge the Court to adopt a bright-line rule, akin to the Seventh Circuit’s, that locates a plaintiff’s injury at the plaintiff’s residence. Petitioners advance two different versions of this rule.