{"title":"Containing the Uncontainable: Drawing RICO's Border with the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality","authors":"Miranda Lievsay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2719853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. the Supreme Court disseminated a two-step test to determine the extraterritorial reach of all federal statutes, radically shifting the application of U.S. laws. Nowhere has this decision caused more upheaval than in the context of analyzing claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): while courts have reached broad agreement that RICO does not apply extraterritorially, courts disagree over the proper standard to determine when a RICO case is domestic or foreign. This Note explores RICO’s origins, the statute’s legislative history, and the evolution of RICO’s extraterritorial application in Morrison’s shadow. This Note then sifts through the conflicting approaches employed by courts faced with RICO cases involving foreign elements before ultimately advocating an alternative approach that accurately applies the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision and faithfully embodies RICO’s legislative history and intent.","PeriodicalId":47517,"journal":{"name":"Fordham Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fordham Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2719853","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd. the Supreme Court disseminated a two-step test to determine the extraterritorial reach of all federal statutes, radically shifting the application of U.S. laws. Nowhere has this decision caused more upheaval than in the context of analyzing claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): while courts have reached broad agreement that RICO does not apply extraterritorially, courts disagree over the proper standard to determine when a RICO case is domestic or foreign. This Note explores RICO’s origins, the statute’s legislative history, and the evolution of RICO’s extraterritorial application in Morrison’s shadow. This Note then sifts through the conflicting approaches employed by courts faced with RICO cases involving foreign elements before ultimately advocating an alternative approach that accurately applies the Supreme Court’s Morrison decision and faithfully embodies RICO’s legislative history and intent.
在莫里森诉澳大利亚国民银行案(Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd.)中,最高法院推广了一种两步测试法,以确定所有联邦法规的治外法权,从根本上改变了美国法律的适用范围。在分析根据《受敲诈勒索影响和腐败组织法》(RICO)提出的索赔时,这一决定引起的动荡最大:虽然法院已达成广泛共识,认为RICO不适用治外法权,但法院在确定RICO案件是国内案件还是国外案件的适当标准上存在分歧。本文探讨了RICO的起源,法规的立法历史,以及RICO在莫里森阴影下的域外适用的演变。在最终倡导一种准确适用最高法院莫里森判决并忠实体现RICO立法历史和意图的替代方法之前,本文将筛选法院在面对涉及外国要素的RICO案件时所采用的相互冲突的方法。
期刊介绍:
The Fordham Law Review is a scholarly journal serving the legal profession and the public by discussing current legal issues. Approximately 75 articles, written by students or submitted by outside authors, are published each year. Each volume comprises six books, three each semester, totaling over 3,000 pages. Managed by a board of up to eighteen student editors, the Law Review is a working journal, not merely an honor society. Nevertheless, Law Review membership is considered among the highest scholarly achievements at the Law School.