Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 31

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

9 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

to business or property.”  579 U. S., at 354.  The Court then 
concluded that there is a domestic application of that provi-
sion so long as there is a “domestic injury.”  Ibid.  In other 
words, the Court held that the focus of the statute had to 
occur domestically.  It did not require a third step.

The  Court  also  repeatedly  quotes  from  cases  where  the
Court  has  said  that  a  domestic  application  requires  that
“the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the 
United States.”  Ante, 4–5, 10.  In those cases, however, the 
Court  first  concluded  (or  assumed  without  deciding)  that
the  focus  of  the  provision  at  issue  was  conduct,  and  only
then proceeded to consider whether the relevant conduct oc-
curred  domestically.    In  WesternGeco,  for  example,  the 
Court  considered  the  extraterritorial  application  of 
§271(f )(2)  of  the  Patent  Act,  which  formed  “the  basis  for 
[the plaintiff ’s] infringement claim.”  585 U. S., at ___ (slip
op.,  at  7).  The  “focus”  of  that  provision,  the  Court  con-
cluded,  is  the  “act  of  ‘suppl[ying]  in  or  from  the  United 
States,’ ” so the conduct “relevant to that focus” was the de-
fendant’s  “domestic  act  of  supplying  the  components  that
infringed [the plaintiff ’s] patents.”  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at 7–8); see also Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe, 593 U. S. ___, ___– 
___ (2021) (slip op., at 4–5) (assuming without deciding that 
“the ‘focus’ of the [statute] is conduct that violates interna-
tional  law”  and  then  concluding  that  conduct  relevant  to 
that focus “occurred in Ivory Coast”).  In other words, the 
Court  looked  to  whether  the  focus  of  the  statute  at  issue 
occurred domestically. 

In sum, none of the cases upon which the majority relies 
establish categorically that there must be domestic conduct
in order for there to be a domestic application of a statute.
Calling  this  requirement  “straightforward,”  “established
precedent” does not make it so.  Ante, at 10–11.4 

—————— 

4 Relying on RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325