Did the US Have Jurisdiction Over Microsoft's Data Stored in Ireland?

B. Morrison and the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality

When interpreting the laws of the United States, we presume that legislation of Congress “is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” unless a contrary intent clearly appears.  Id. at 255 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 579 U.S. __, __, 2016 WL 3369423, at *7 (June 20, 2016).  This presumption rests on the perception that “Congress ordinarily legislates with respect to domestic, not foreign matters.”  Id.  The presumption reflects that Congress, rather than the courts, has the “facilities necessary” to make policy decisions in the “delicate field of international relations.”  Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1664 (2013) (quoting Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138, 147 (1957)).  In line with this recognition, the presumption is applied to protect against “unintended clashes between our laws and those of other nations which could result in international discord.”  Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Arabian American Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991) (“Aramco”); see generally Park Central Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings SE, 763 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam).

To decide whether the presumption limits the reach of a statutory provision in a particular case, “we look to see whether ‘language in the [relevant Act] gives any indication of a congressional purpose to extend its coverage beyond places over which the United States has sovereignty or has some measure of legislative control.’” Aramco, 499 U.S. at 248 (alteration in original) (quoting Foley Bros., Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 285 (1949)).  The statutory provision must contain a “clear indication of an extraterritorial application”; otherwise, “it has none.” Morrison, 561 U.S. at 255; see also RJR Nabisco, 579 U.S. at __, 2016 WL 3369423, at *7.

Following the approach set forth in Morrison, our inquiry proceeds in two parts. We first determine whether the relevant statutory provisions contemplate extraterritorial application. Id. at 261–65.  If we conclude that they do not, by identifying the statute’s focus and looking at the facts presented through that prism, we then assess whether the challenged application is “extraterritorial” and therefore outside the statutory bounds. Id. at 266–70.