Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

4 

AGENCY FOR INT’L DEVELOPMENT v. ALLIANCE FOR 
OPEN SOCIETY INT’L, INC. 
Opinion of the Court 

Comm’n,  800  F. Supp. 2d  281,  286–289  (DC  2011),  aff ’d, 
565 U. S. 1104 (2012).  And so too, the Court has ruled that, 
under some circumstances, foreign citizens in the U. S. Ter-
ritories—or in “a territory” under the “indefinite” and “com-
plete  and  total  control”  and  “within  the  constant  jurisdic-
the  United  States—may  possess  certain 
tion”  of 
constitutional rights.  Boumediene, 553 U. S., at 755–771.  
But the Court has not allowed foreign citizens outside the 
United States or such U. S. territory to assert rights under 
the U. S. Constitution.  If the rule were otherwise, actions 
by  American  military,  intelligence,  and  law  enforcement 
personnel against foreign organizations or foreign citizens 
in foreign countries would be constrained by the foreign cit-
izens’ purported rights under the U. S. Constitution.  That 
has never been the law.  See Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S., 
at  273–274;  Eisentrager,  339  U. S.,  at  784.*    To  be  sure, 
Congress may seek to enact laws that afford foreign citizens 
abroad statutory rights or causes of action against miscon-
duct by U. S. Government officials, or laws that otherwise 
regulate the conduct of U. S. officials abroad.  See Verdugo-

—————— 

* As Justice Jackson stated for the Court in Eisentrager: 

  “If  the  Fifth  Amendment  confers  its  rights  on  all  the  world  . . . ,  the 
same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none 
of  them  is  limited  by  its  express  terms,  territorially  or  as  to  persons.  
Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irrec-
oncilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and ‘werewolves’ could re-
quire the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, 
and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the 
Second, security against ‘unreasonable’ searches and seizures as in the 
Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amend-
ments. 
  “Such  extraterritorial  application  of  organic  law  would have  been  so 
significant an innovation in the practice of governments that, if intended 
or apprehended, it could scarcely have failed to excite contemporary com-
ment.  Not one word can be cited.  No decision of this Court supports such 
a view.  Cf. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244.  None of the learned com-
mentators on our Constitution has even hinted at it.”  339 U. S., at 784–
785.