Opinion ID: 1238971
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Presumption Against Extraterritoriality

Text: The Supreme Court and this court have adhered to the longstanding principle of American law that legislation is presumed to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless the contrary affirmative intention of Congress is clearly expressed. ARC Ecology v. U.S. Dep't of the Air Force, 411 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir.2005) (citing EEOC v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) (hereinafter  Aramco )); see also Smith v. United States, 507 U.S. 197, 203-04, 113 S.Ct. 1178, 122 L.Ed.2d 548 (1993) (holding that the presumption applied to preclude application of the Federal Tort Claims Act's (FTCA) waiver of sovereign immunity for a claim arising in Antarctica). Under this presumption, a law passed by Congress is generally assumed to apply only to regulate conduct occurring within the boundaries of the United States. See Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 452 F.3d 1066, 1077-79(9th Cir.2006); Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v. Massey, 986 F.2d 528, 530-31 (D.C.Cir.1993). The presumption serves to protect against unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord. Aramco, 499 U.S. at 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227 (internal quotation marks omitted). In order to overcome the presumption, a party must show a clear expression of congressional intent to apply a statute beyond American soil. Id. at 258, 111 S.Ct. 1227. In Aramco, the centerpiece of the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on the presumption, the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not apply to a United States citizen working for an American company in a foreign country. Id. at 249, 111 S.Ct. 1227. Despite administrative interpretations to the contrary, the Court held that it must assume that Congress legislates under the presumption that a statute is primarily concerned with domestic conditions. Id. at 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227. The Court further held that the presumption was not overcome because Congress did not make a clear statement suggesting that Title VII should apply to conduct occurring in a foreign country. Id. at 258, 111 S.Ct. 1227.