| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

15-138 RJR NABISCO, INC. V. EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DECISION BELOW: 764 F.3d 129 Justice Sotomayor took no part. CERT. GRANTED 10/1/2015 QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, or to what extent, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") applies extraterritorially. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 11-2475-cv
The case of RJR Nabisco Inc. v. European Community in 2015 revolved around the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), a federal law designed to combat organized crime in the United States. The European Community, along with 26 member states, accused RJR Nabisco (a large tobacco company) of participating in a global money-laundering scheme involving various criminal organizations. They alleged that this activity violated several provisions of RICO and caused them financial harm. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether RICO could be applied to conduct occurring outside U.S borders and if private parties could seek damages under the act for injuries suffered abroad. In a complex ruling, the court held that certain provisions of RICO do apply extraterritorially if they involve violations of U.S laws which themselves apply beyond national boundaries but stressed that such cases must have a domestic foundation or impact on American commerce. However, it also ruled against allowing recovery for foreign injuries by private plaintiffs under civil RICO suits unless there is direct harm to their business or property within the United States.
In the dissenting opinion for RJR Nabisco Inc. v. European Community, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was too narrow. She contended that Congress intended for RICO to have extraterritorial application in order to combat international organized crime effectively. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's assertion that applying RICO extraterritorially would lead to unexpected and potentially disruptive consequences in foreign relations, arguing instead that such concerns were speculative at best. Additionally, she noted that other countries had not objected to U.S.'s enforcement of its laws against foreign enterprises engaged in harmful conduct abroad when it has a substantial effect within U.S., suggesting there is an international consensus supporting this approach.