Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

that the Lanham Act extended to “all of [Abitron’s] foreign 
infringing conduct” because the “impacts within the United
States  [were]  of  a  sufficient  character  and  magnitude  as
would give the United States a reasonably strong interest 
in the litigation.”  10 F. 4th, at 1046. 

We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit split over the
extraterritorial  reach  of  the  Lanham  Act.  598  U. S.  ___ 
(2023). 

II 
A 
“It is a ‘longstanding principle of American law “that leg-
islation  of  Congress,  unless  a  contrary  intent  appears,  is 
meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United  States.” ’ ”  Morrison  v.  National  Australia  Bank 
Ltd.,  561  U. S.  247,  255  (2010).    We  have  repeatedly  ex-
plained that this principle, which we call the presumption
against extraterritoriality, refers to a “presumption against 
application to conduct in the territory of another sovereign.” 
Kiobel  v.  Royal  Dutch  Petroleum  Co.,  569  U. S.  108,  119 
(2013) (citing Morrison, 561 U. S., at 265).  In other words, 
exclusively  “ ‘[f]oreign  conduct  is  generally  the  domain  of
foreign law.’ ”  Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U. S. 437, 
455 (2007)  (alteration omitted).   The presumption “serves
to  avoid  the  international  discord  that  can  result  when 
U. S. law is applied to conduct in foreign countries” and re-
flects  the  “ ‘commonsense  notion  that  Congress  generally 
legislates with domestic concerns in mind.’ ”  RJR Nabisco, 
Inc.  v.  European  Community,  579  U. S.  325,  335–336 
(2016).

Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality in-
volves “a two-step framework.”  Id., at 337.  At step one, we
determine whether a provision is extraterritorial, and that
determination  turns  on  whether  “Congress  has  affirma-
tively  and  unmistakably  instructed  that”  the  provision  at
issue  should  “apply  to  foreign  conduct.”    Id.,  at  335,  337;