Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1043_7648.pdf
Page Number: 30.0

8 

ABITRON AUSTRIA GMBH v. HETRONIC INT’L, INC. 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment 

Court’s precedents command, the majority now requires a 
third step: an assessment of whether the “conduct relevant
to the focus” occurred domestically, even when the focus of 
the statute is not conduct.  Ante, at 9.  Making matters even
more confusing, the majority skips over the middle step of
this  new  framework,  concluding  that  it  is  unnecessary  to
discern the focus of the Lanham Act because “the conduct 
relevant to any potential focus” that “the parties have prof-
fered”  must  be  “use  in  commerce,”  since  that  is  conduct 
mentioned in the statute.  Ibid.3  In other words, under the 
Court’s  unprecedented  three-step  framework,  no  statute 
can reach relevant conduct abroad, no matter the true ob-
ject of the statute’s solicitude.

The Court’s novel approach transforms the traditional in-
quiry at step two into a conduct-only test, in direct conflict 
with this Court’s jurisprudence.  The Court has expressly
recognized  that  a  statute’s  “focus”  can  be  “conduct,”  “par-
ties,” or “interests” that Congress sought to protect or regu-
late.  WesternGeco LLC, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (in-
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted);  see  also  Morrison,  561 
U. S., at 266 (“the focus of the Exchange Act is not upon the 
place where the deception originated”).  After all, not every 
federal statute subject to an extraterritoriality analysis “di-
rectly regulate[s] conduct.”  Kiobel, 569 U. S., at 116. 

Because precedent does not support the Court’s recitation 
of the extraterritoriality framework, the majority retreats
to  a  distorted  reading  of  the  Court’s  past  decisions.    The 
majority relies on RJR Nabisco, see ante, at 9, but that case 
does not support the majority’s course.  The Court in RJR 
Nabisco noted that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act’s civil suit provision requires an “injury 

—————— 

3 Even more confusing still, “use in commerce” is all that matters under 
the  majority’s  conduct-only  analysis  even  though  other  conduct  is  also 
listed as actionable in at least one of the provisions at issue.  15 U. S. C. 
§1114(1)(a) (“the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any 
goods or services”).