This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Petitioners argue that any injury cognizable under § 1964(c) is necessarily suffered at the plaintiff’s residence, adopting a bright‑line rule similar to the Seventh Circuit’s approach.
Petitioners further rely on the principle of mobilia sequuntur personam, which they say generally locates intangible property at the domicile of its owner, thereby locating Smagin’s alleged injury at his residence.
According to Vincent Levy, vincent Levy cites RJR Nabisco, noting that the Court held private plaintiffs may sue under civil RICO for treble damages if they suffer a domestic injury.
According to Mr. Levy, levy also argues that the Court should look to the Restatement rules to determine where the injury was found and where it occurred.
Nicholas O. Kennedy points out that Mr. Smagin’s RICO claim is based on alleged injury to his California property, and that a domestic injury is one that arises in the United States.
The Court, applying its extraterritoriality framework, held that § 1964(c) does not overcome the presumption that RICO’s private cause of action applies only to domestic injuries because Congress gave no clear indication it intended to create such a right for injuries abroad.
- [1] 603d2c17217bccd44297-r1-039f6a39d2c22c8a.pdf, p. 12
- [2] 603d2c17217bccd44297-r1-039f6a39d2c22c8a.pdf, p. 16
- [3] 3b529e16e803c13d87bc-r1-3637675ef23b2e24.pdf, p. 5
- [4] 3b529e16e803c13d87bc-r1-3637675ef23b2e24.pdf, p. 24
- [5] 3b529e16e803c13d87bc-r1-3637675ef23b2e24.pdf, p. 37
- [6] 603d2c17217bccd44297-r1-039f6a39d2c22c8a.pdf, p. 11
Background and question before the Court
The case concerns whether the private right of action under § 1964(c) of the RICO Act applies extraterritorially when the alleged injury occurs outside the United States.
What each side argues
Petitioners (Yegiazaryan et al.)
Petitioners contend that any injury under § 1964(c) is necessarily suffered at the plaintiff’s residence, advocating a bright‑line rule that locates the injury at the plaintiff’s domicile.
According to Petitioners, they rely on the principle of mobilia sequuntur personam to locate intangible injury at the owner’s domicile.
According to Mr. Levy, vincent Levy argues that the Court should apply the Restatement rules to determine the location of the injury.
According to Vincent Levy, levy cites RJR Nabisco, stating that private plaintiffs may sue under civil RICO for treble damages if they suffer a domestic injury.
Defendant (Smagin)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
What happened at oral argument
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts announced the hearing of the case.
According to Vincent Levy, vincent Levy referenced the RJR Nabisco decision that private plaintiffs may sue under civil RICO for treble damages if they suffer a domestic injury.
Justice Thomas asked how the party would treat real property under the domicile‑based approach.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned whether the argument relied more on precedent than statutory text.
Justice Alito raised a comity question about allowing a RICO claim when both parties are foreign.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The Court’s holding clarifies that the private right of action under § 1964(c) does not extend to injuries that occur outside the United States unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.
Terms to know
- domestic injury
- An injury that arises in the United States.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 3b529e16e803c13d87bc-r1-3637675ef23b2e24.pdforal argument transcript
- 603d2c17217bccd44297-r1-039f6a39d2c22c8a.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.