This month marks the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in RJR Nabisco v. European Community, 136 S.Ct. 2090 (2016), addressing the extraterritorial application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The RJR Nabisco decision introduced a new requirement in private civil litigation brought under RICO by holding that “a private RICO plaintiff … must allege and prove a domestic injury to its business or property.” The Supreme Court’s decision did not, however, provide clear guidance on the difference between a “domestic” and a “foreign” injury, which has required federal courts to further refine the governing standards of what constitutes a domestic injury.  

Over the last two years, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh circuits have addressed RJR Nabisco’s domestic injury requirement. The two decisions from the Second and Seventh circuits focused solely on where the injury was suffered, and can be read to establish two bright-line rules: (i) injury to tangible personal property physically located within the United States is a domestic injury and (ii) injury to intangible property that belongs to an individual located southside of the United States is not a domestic injury.