The presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted with respect to certain applications of RICO's substantive prohibitions.
Irrespective of any extraterritoriality of the law''s substantive provisions, a private right of action does not overcome the presumption against extraterritoriality and thus a private plaintiff must allege and prove a domestic injury.
We will have more decisions. This case plays out as 4-3 in the end. This was the last case from the March sitting.
In the RJR case, the EC was trying to sue RJR in US courts for its alleged role in an international money-laundering scheme.
This is complicated, but it appears that there are 4 votes for the portion of the opinion holding that the private right of action does not authorize suit for injuries abroad, even though some portions of the substantive provisions of RICO apply extra territorially.
Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, per Breyer.
The decision of the Federal Circuit is affirmed.
Crowds on both sides today (photos by Jennifer Prohov).
There is some division among the Justices w/r/to the main opinion. Thomas concurs; Alito concurs in part and dissents in part, joined by Sotomayor.
RJR involves a general extension of the fight over whether plaintiffs can use U.S. Courts to sue about harms that happen abroad. The holding is that RICO does govern harms that occur abroad -- the U.S. can file a suit about those -- but suits by private plaintiffs are not permitted.
A provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act bars the challenge to the Patent Office's decision to institute inter partes review.
All the justices agree about the first part (that the Act covers foreign harms) but the Court is split 4-3 about the second part. Justice Sotomayor was recused, and that's probably a big deal, because the case split directly along the familiar divide.
We will have more. And it could be from Breyer or anyone more senior than him: Ginsburg, Thomas, Kennedy, or the Chief Justice.
The question in Cuozzo involves the standard of review to be used in deciding whether to invalidate a patent.
Not sure about the boxes, sorry, because I am not in the press room.
We are waiting on the next decision -- impossible to know which it will be.
Here's Lyle with the next opinion.
Justice Thomas has the opinion. Utah Supreme Court is reversed.
Justice Sotomayor dissents, joined by RBG as to Parts 1-3; Kagan dissents, joined by Ginsburg.
The evidence seized by the police incident to arrest based on an application of the attentuation factors from Brown v. Illinois.
In this case, there was no flagrant police conduct, so the discovery of a valid arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional stop and the evidence seized pursuant to the arrest.
This was a case in which a police officer stopped a man unconstitutionally, but then discovered that there was a valid warrant out for his arrest and arrested him; the arrest revealed drug paraphernalia and methamphetamines. The question was whether the evidence seized as a result of the arrest was tainted because the initial stop was illegal.
We will have more decisions.
If this was by Thomas, we could hear from him again, Kennedy, or the Chief Justice. We won't hear from Ginsburg today, apparently.
commenters pointing out that the opinions today make it unlikely that either Justice Thomas or Alito is writing the opinion in Whole Woman's Health.
Here's Lyle with the next opinion -- the last one.
Encino Motorcars v. Navarro.
Kennedy for the Court. Decision of the Ninth Circuit is vacatedd and remanded. Ginsburg concurs, joined by Sotomayor; Thomas dissents, joined by Alito, so -2.
Holding: The Fair Labor Standards Act must be construed without placing controlling weight on the Labor Department's 2011 regulation.
This was a case involving the interpretation of the FLSA's overtime exemption.