In general, the Supreme Court has said that a United States law should be presumed not to apply abroad unless Congress has clearly said it does. On subjects like securities fraud and human rights abuses, the court has limited the power of American courts to hear cases based on foreign activities.

Justice Alito said parts of the racketeering law overcame that presumption. The law requires proof of violations of underlying state and federal laws, he wrote, and at least some of those laws apply to conduct abroad. At least one applies only abroad, he wrote, referring to the crime of killing a United States national outside the United States.

“Short of an explicit declaration,” Justice Alito wrote, “it is hard to imagine how Congress could have more clearly indicated that it intended RICO to have (some) extraterritorial effect. This unique structure makes RICO the rare statute that clearly evidences extraterritorial effect despite lacking an express statement of extraterritoriality.”

All seven justices hearing the case agreed on that analysis. But they parted ways about whether the part of the racketeering law authorizing private civil suits, as opposed to ones brought by the United States government itself, applied to conduct abroad. The majority said no.

“It is not enough to say that a private right of action must reach abroad because the underlying law governs conduct in foreign countries,” Justice Alito wrote. “Something more is needed, and here it is absent.”

Image Pall Malls, an R.J. Reynolds brand. Credit... Simon Dawson/Bloomberg

“There is a potential for international controversy that militates against recognizing foreign injury claims without clear direction from Congress,” he added.