United States: 'Microsoft,' 'RJR Nabisco' And Extraterritorial Reach Of U.S. Law

Two recent decisions—one by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and one by the U.S. Supreme Court—highlight the extent to which the courts continue to grapple with the question of when to apply a U.S. statute beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States. Given the many cases, both civil and criminal, that involve at least some conduct overseas, how the courts answer this question has the potential to dramatically diminish or extend the impact of U.S. law on people, corporations and other entities around the world.

On July 14, 2016, the Second Circuit issued its decision in In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft, which arose in the context of a federal narcotics investigation. The government had sought and received from a federal magistrate a warrant, issued pursuant to Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, for the content of emails from the account of a Microsoft customer, having shown probable cause to believe that the account had been used in furtherance of narcotics trafficking.

While the warrant was served on Microsoft in the United States, the emails were stored in a facility in Dublin, Ireland, operated by a wholly owned Microsoft subsidiary. A subsequent motion by Microsoft to quash the warrant on the ground that it could not be compelled to obtain emails stored outside of the United States was denied, and Microsoft appealed to the Second Circuit. On appeal, the court reversed, after finding that the SCA did not apply outside the territorial United States and that execution of a warrant pursuant to the SCA in this context did not constitute a domestic application of the statute.

The Microsoft decision has received significant attention, as it is the latest of a series of cases involving the intersection of technology, privacy and the power of law enforcement to access personal information. But, as Judge Gerard Lynch pointed out in an incisive concurrence in the case, the outcome of the case was not so much a result of balancing of the competing interests of law enforcement and the right to privacy, as it was of the application of a framework that has emerged from recent Supreme Court jurisprudence for determining whether a given statute may reach conduct that takes place overseas.

That framework came into sharper focus just three weeks prior to the Microsoft decision, when the Supreme Court decided RJR Nabisco v. European Community, 579 U.S. __, 2016 WL 3369423 (June 20, 2016). In RJR, the court took up the question of whether another statute—the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)—applied outside the United States. RICO is the federal racketeering statute. It is a complex law, but essentially it criminalizes the control or operation of an "enterprise"— which can include, among other things, a corporation, or, less formally, an association of persons or other entities—through a pattern of criminal activity.

RICO was enacted in 1970, as part of the government's effort to combat the infiltration of businesses and labor unions by organized crime. But in the following 45 years, the statute has been applied far beyond this context, to prosecute all manner of corporations, associations and other entities alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct.

In addition to being a powerful tool used by the government to prosecute crime, the RICO statute includes a private right of action, whereby parties injured in person or property as a result of violations of the statute can bring civil suit and seek treble damages. In RJR, the European Community and 26 of its member states brought suit in the Eastern District of New York against RJR Nabisco and related entities, claiming that RJR, working with organized criminal groups in South America and Europe, was involved in a scheme to launder drug trafficking proceeds, violate international sanction regimes and commit other offenses.

The district court granted RJR's motion to dismiss the RICO claims on the ground that the statute did not reach the alleged conduct because it took place outside the United States. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed and, in a close vote, subsequently declined to grant en banc review. The Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to determine whether the RICO statute applied extraterritorially.

Recent Jurisprudence

In answering this question, the Supreme Court reviewed and synthesized its recent jurisprudence on the reach of U.S. law, in particular its decisions in Morrison v. National Australia Bank, 561 U.S. 247 (2010), and Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013). In Morrison, the court found that Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act, which prohibits fraud in the purchase or sale of securities, did not apply extraterritorially and thus was unavailable to a group of foreign plaintiffs suing an Australian bank whose shares were listed abroad. In Kiobel, the court similarly found that the Alien Tort Statute did not reach the alleged conduct of Royal Dutch Petroleum in a suit brought by Nigerian nationals living in the United States claiming that Royal Dutch had abetted crimes by the Nigerian government committed in Nigeria.

Writing for the court in RJR, Justice Samuel Alito discerned in Morrison and Kiobel a two-step framework that, while not specifically articulated as such, had been used by the court to analyze the statutes at issue in those cases. Noting a long-standing presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, the court found that courts must first ask whether the statute "gives a clear, affirmative indication that it applies extraterritorially." (Slip. Op. at 9). Only if Congress "has affirmatively and unmistakably instructed that the statute will apply" beyond U.S. borders, can the statute be applied to wholly foreign conduct. (Id. at 7). In Morrison and Kiobel, the court found no such clear indication, and thus concluded that the statutes at issue had only domestic application.

Justice Alito next described the second step in the framework, also foreshadowed in Morrison. Where there is no clear indication in the statute of extraterritorial application, courts must determine whether the conduct at issue has sufficient nexus to the United States, such that it is effectively domestic in nature, and thus reached by the statute. If conduct relating to "the focus of congressional concern" in enacting the statute occurred within the United States, then the statute may be applied to all of the conduct at issue, both foreign and domestic. (Id. at 8).

Applying this two-step approach in RJR, the court found clear indication that Congress intended the criminal RICO statute to apply abroad, as long as the statutes governing the crimes alleged as part of the pattern of racketeering activity themselves had extraterritorial application. However, as to the statute's civil private right of action, the court found no such indication and thus concluded that the presumption against extraterritoriality had not been overcome. With regard to the second step of the framework, the court noted that in the district court the plaintiffs had stipulated that they were waiving any damages claim for injuries sustained in the United States. In the court's view, there was accordingly insufficient domestic nexus and thus the claim had correctly been dismissed by the district court.

The Supreme Court's decision in RJR is important because, building on Morrison and Kiobel, it clarifies the manner in which courts are to assess the international reach of U.S. law, making clear that the two-step analysis is to be applied regardless of the type of statute at issue. A clear framework is crucial given that, over the last several years, prosecutors and plaintiffs have been using the laws of the United States to reach ever further beyond our borders. This is true not solely of statutes explicitly designed by Congress to do so, like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§78dd-1, et seq., but also of other laws that have historically had primarily domestic application, like the wire fraud statute.

Relatedly, the lines between domestic and foreign conduct have continued to blur, as technology and an integrated global financial system increasingly tie the United States to the rest of the world. It is now commonplace, for example, that a complex financial fraud will involve some conduct overseas, be it money laundering through foreign accounts or sheltering money offshore. Likewise, financial crimes hatched abroad will often have some U.S. nexus, whether through transmission of funds through U.S.- based correspondent accounts, use of U.S.-based email servers and phone lines, or travel through the United States in furtherance of the scheme.

Microsoft Case

Of course, a clearly articulated framework is one thing; the application of that framework to a particular statute and set of facts is another. Indeed, the difficulties lurking in the application of the framework described in RJR were highlighted in the Microsoft case. All three judges on the Second Circuit panel hearing Microsoft agreed that it was clear, under the first step of the framework, that the SCA did not apply extraterritorially.

With regard to the second step, two judges concluded that the focus of the SCA was protecting the privacy of stored electronic communications, and that, in this case, it was clear that the invasion of the customer's privacy interests by execution of the warrant would occur abroad, in Ireland. But Judge Lynch, writing separately, observed with respect to the second step of the framework that distilling a single focus of the SCA "may be impossible" and suggested that endeavoring to do so was not the wisest way to draw the line between domestic and extraterritorial application of a complex statute, like the SCA, that does not merely proscribe conduct, but sets forth the circumstances under which the government may access personal information, among other things. (Slip Op. at 14 (Lynch, J., concurring)). It seems likely that how best to draw that line will continue to vex litigants and courts, and eventually require further explication and refinement by the Supreme Court itself.

Previously published in the New York Law Journal – July 2016

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.