Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 32

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

19 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

this country “has no constitutional rights regarding his ap-
plication”  (emphasis  added));  Kleindienst  v.  Mandel,  408 
U. S. 753, 762 (1972) (similar).

There is wisdom in our past restraint.  Situations where 
a foreign citizen outside U. S. Territory might fairly assert 
constitutional rights are not difficult to imagine.  Long-term
permanent residents are “foreign citizens.”  Does the Con-
stitution therefore allow American officials to assault them 
at will while “outside U. S. territory”?  Many international
students attend college in the United States.  Does the First 
Amendment permit a public university to revoke their ad-
mission based on an unpopular political stance they took on
social media while home for the summer?  Foreign citizens
who have never set foot in the United States, for that mat-
ter,  often  protest  when  Presidents  travel  overseas.  Does 
that  mean  Secret  Service  agents  can,  consistent  with  our 
Constitution,  seriously  injure  peaceful  protestors  abroad 
without any justification?

We have never purported to give a single “bedrock” an-
swer to these or myriad other extraterritoriality questions 
that might arise in the future.  To purport to do so today, in
a case where the question is not presented and where the 
matter is not briefed, is in my view a serious mistake. 

And there is no need to set forth an absolute rule here. 
Respondents have conceded that their foreign affiliates lack 
First Amendment rights of their own while acting abroad.
See ante, at 3.  If in spite of everything else, the majority 
considers this point material to its decision, all that need be
said is: “We accept respondents’ concession and proceed on 
that  basis.”  To  say  so  much  more  “run[s]  contrary  to  the 
fundamental principal of judicial restraint,” a principle that
applies  with  particular  force  to  constitutional  interpreta-
tion.  Washington State Grange v. Washington State Repub-
lican Party, 552 U. S. 442, 450 (2008); see also, e.g., Lyng v. 
Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U. S. 439,