Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:59:08.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality After Morrison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

William S. Dodge
William S. Dodge*
Affiliation:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Harmony and Dissonance in Extraterritorial Regulation
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 105 , 2011 , pp. 396 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See generally Dodge, William S., Loose Canons: International Law and Statutory Interpretation in the Twenty-First Century, in International Law in the U.S. Supreme Court: Continuity and Change 547 (Sloss, David L., Ramsey, Michael D. & Dodge, William S. eds., 2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

2 Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949).

3 Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952).

4 Eeoc v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco), 499 U.S. 244 (1991).

5 Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993).

6 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877 (quotation marks omitted).

7 Id. at 2881.

8 Id. at 2883.

9 See Dodge, William S., Morrison’s Effects Test, 40 Sw. L. Rev. 687 (2011)Google Scholar.

10 Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 356 (1909).

11 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2884 (quoting Aramco, 499 U.S. at 255)Google Scholar.

12 Id.

13 See id. at 2878-81.

14 See Schoenbaum v. Firstbrook, 405 F.2d 200, 206-08 (2d Cir. 1968).

15 See Consolidated Gold Fields PLC v. Minorco, S.A., 871 F.2d 252, 262 (2d Cir. 1989).

16 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2879-80.

17 Id. at 2886.

18 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877 (quoting Aramco, 499 U.S. at 248). For a critique of other justifications, see Dodge, William S., Understanding the Presumption against Extraterritoriality, 16 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 85, 112-23 (1998)Google Scholar.

19 Indeed, in the antitrust context, Congress has expressly permitted anticompetitive conduct in the United States if its harmful effects are felt exclusively abroad. See, e.g., Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. §§ 6a & 45a(3).

20 See, e.g., F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Empagran S.A., 542 U.S. 155 (2004)Google Scholar; EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244 (1991)Google ScholarPubMed; Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281 (1949)Google Scholar. Effects on Americans abroad are not effects in the United States. See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law § 402 cmt. g (1987) (distinguishing passive personality principle).

21 See, e.g., Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764 (1993)Google Scholar; Steele v. Bulova Watch Co., 344 U.S. 280 (1952)Google Scholar. Morrison expressly distinguished both the antitrust and Lanham Act cases. Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2887 n.11.

22 631 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam).

23 2011 Wl 843957 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8).

24 Cedeño v. Intech Group Inc., 733 F. Supp. 2d 471, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). Cedeño, Norex, and European Community were all properly dismissed for this reason.

25 783 F. Supp. 2d 23 (D.D.C. 2011).

26 United States v. Philip Morris Usa, Inc., 449 F. Supp.2d 1, 867-72 (D.D.C. 2006).

27 Id. at 873.

28 For a pre-Morrison discussion of the question, see Dodge, William S., Alien Tort Litigation and the Prescriptive Jurisdiction Fallacy, 51 Harv. Int’l L.J. Online 35 (2010)Google Scholar.

29 See Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 715 (2004).

30 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 57, 59 (1795).

31 See Brief for the United States as Respondent Supporting Petitioner at 46-50, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (No. 03-339), 2004 WL 182581.

32 See Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp., 488 U.S. 428 (1989); Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197 (1993).

33 542 U.S. 692,713 (2004); see also id. at 743 (Scalia, J., concurring) (describing ATS as “purely jurisdictional”). If the presumption applies to the ATS, it would presumably apply equally to the federal diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and to the grant of subject matter jurisdiction over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. This would be contrary to common practice.

34 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b).

35 15 U.S.C. § 78aa.

36 It has since been amended by § 929P(b) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

37 Morrison, 130 S. Ct. at 2877.