Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

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

3 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

Watch Company’s trade reputation” in the United States. 
Ibid.  By  contrast,  the  fact  that  Steele  “affixed  the  mark
‘Bulova’  in  Mexico  City  rather  than  here”  was  not  “mate-
rial.”  Id., at 287. 

B 
Following Steele, the Courts of Appeals developed various
tests, modeled after  Steele’s facts,  to address the Lanham 
Act’s extraterritorial reach.2  This Court also subsequently 
adopted a two-step framework for determining when a stat-
ute  can  apply  extraterritorially  to  foreign  conduct.    That 
framework  implements “a canon of statutory  construction
known  as  the  presumption  against  extraterritoriality.” 
RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, 579 U. S. 325, 
335  (2016).  The  presumption  reflects  the  “longstanding 
principle of American law that legislation of Congress, un-
less 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) 
(internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    That  is,  courts  pre-
sume that, “in general, ‘United States law governs domes-
tically  but  does  not  rule  the  world.’ ”    RJR  Nabisco,  579 
U. S., at 335 (quoting Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 
U. S. 437, 454 (2007)).

Under this framework, the Court first asks “whether the 
presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted” 
by “a clear, affirmative indication that [the statute] applies
extraterritorially.”  RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 337.  If the 
presumption  is  not  rebutted  at  that  first  step,  the  Court 
—————— 

2 See, e.g., Trader Joe’s Co. v. Hallatt, 835 F. 3d 960, 969 (CA9 2016); 
McBee v. Delica Co., 417 F. 3d 107, 111 (CA1 2005); International Cafe, 
S.  A.  L.  v.  Hard  Rock  Cafe  Int’l  (U. S. A.),  Inc.,  252  F. 3d  1274,  1278 
(CA11 2001); Aerogroup Int’l, Inc. v. Marlboro Footworks, Ltd., 152 F. 3d 
948 (CA Fed. 1998); Nintendo of Am., Inc. v. Aeropower Co., 34 F. 3d 246, 
250 (CA4 1994); American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Coopera-
tive Assn., 701 F. 2d 408, 414, n. 8 (CA5 1983); Vanity Fair Mills, Inc. v. 
T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 642–643 (CA2 1956).