The &quot;focus&quot; of a statute (RJR Nabisco v. European Community) In the US Supreme Court's decision in RJR Nabisco v. European Community, the court utilizes a two-step framework for analyzing matters of extraterritoriality. In the second step of this framework, the court states: "If the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States, then the case involves a permissible domestic application even if other conduct occurred abroad; but if the conduct relevant to the focus occurred in a foreign country, then the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial application regardless of any other conduct that occurred in U. S. territory". See: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-138_5866.pdf What exactly is meant by the "focus" of a statute?
As there is no any applicable special definition of "focus" in that context, the plain meaning rule applies: the "focus" of a statute is what the statute is focused on. Any ordinary synonyms apply: concentrated on, revolves around, addresses itself to. What exactly a statute is focused on is determined by way of its interpretation and analysis. This is part of what judges do.
No. Imagine, for instance, that you're a dairy and poultry farmer in Ohio. You grow a small crop of wheat every year to feed your animals. From whatever is leftover, you take enough to make flour for yourself and your family. After that, you sell whatever is left to someone locally. You could argue that your wheat-related activities would not be interstate, that they would not be commerce, and that they would have at most indirect effects on interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court would reject that argument, as it did in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942). Even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as "direct" or "indirect." So the general rule is that any activity that has a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce -- by reducing demand, for instance -- is within the reach of the federal government's authority to regulate. While there continues to be controversy over this broad interpretation of Commerce Clause authority, it's a well-settled principle, and everyone recognizes that practically speaking, there's virtually no commercial activity that Congress cannot regulate.
Overview The list in this answer is not comprehensive merely listing some of the leading SCOTUS cases on point, but the approach taken, analyzing the way the term is used in a context specific, case by case approach, rather than trying to ascribe a trans-substantive meaning to it in all contexts is, I believe the correct approach. There are 30 SCOTUS cases that use the term discussing perhaps 15-20 treaties and statutes, and hundreds of circuit court cases that do so. It turns out that the term foreign national often paraphrases treaty language that is not identical when there is no ambiguity in the case before the court. The EO language is probably merely the product of sloppy drafting since the statute uses the word "alien". In many contexts where "foreign national" is used to paraphrase the exact treaty language, the term is relevant because it is used in a context where a relationship between the person and their nation is at issue in some respect as in the VCCR below and the Public Vessels Act. So, in those contexts, the term would often exclude "stateless persons". But, there is really no way to know in the absence of context whether dual citizens are or are not intended to be included in the term. The VCCR: Paraphrase One place that the term "foreign national" is used is Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) which gives a foreign national a right to diplomatic assistance in the criminal justice process. See Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon, 548 U.S. 331 (2006). The same section of the same treaty was at issue in Torres v. Mullin, 540 U.S. 1035 (2003). In this context, a stateless person is clearly not a foreign national, as a stateless person has no ambassadors or counsels from the country in which the stateless person is a foreign national to seek recourse. The term "foreign national" also paraphrases the treaty language which actually uses the phrase "nationals of the sending state" (where the "sending state" is the country with diplomats in the territory of the "receiving state") which could in a plain reading include dual citizens. Specifically it says: 1.With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State: (a) consular officers shall be free to communicate with nationals of the sending State and to have access to them. Nationals of the sending State shall have the same freedom with respect to communication with and access to consular officers of the sending State; (b) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this subparagraph; (c) consular officers shall have the right to visit a national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention, to converse and correspond with him and to arrange for his legal representation. They shall also have the right to visit any national of the sending State who is in prison, custody or detention in their district in pursuance of a judgement. Nevertheless, consular officers shall refrain from taking action on behalf of a national who is in prison, custody or detention if he expressly opposes such action. The Trading With the Enemy Act: Paraphrase The term was also used in a case discussing the Trading with the Enemy Act, as amended by the First War Powers Act of 1941, and Executive Order 9095, as amended, which allowed for an "Alien Property Custodian" to seize property of a foreign national (in this case a German) in connection with World War II. See Silesian-American Corp v. Clark, 332 U.S. 469 (1947). It isn't clear, however, that this case has continuing legal validity and relevance. And, the "foreign national" terminology in this case appears to be a paraphrase of the phrase "enemy or ally of enemy" that appears in the underlying text of the authorizing statute. U.S-Mexico Extradition Act and 4th Amendment: Synonym For Alien The term was used in the case of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), in which a Mexican citizen was kidnapped in Mexico by U.S. agents and tried in the U.S. on drug trafficking charges without regard to the U.S.-Mexico extradition treaty, which Judge Kennedy uses the term synonymously with "alien" in his concurring opinion in a case involving facts where any definition of the two terms applies. Hague Service Convention: Concept Not Used In Treaty The term was used in the case of Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) interpreting the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965 (Hague Service Convention), [1969] 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638 which governs service of process of foreign nationals to determine if it applies to service of process on foreign nationals within the United States. The treaty language of the Hague Service Convention itself, however, makes no reference at all to the nationality of the person served and depends entirely upon whether the person is served abroad in the territory of a signatory or not. Under the plain language of the treaty itself, a U.S. citizen in France has to be served pursuant to the Hague Service Convention, although a U.S. court would usually be in a better position to compel compliance from its own national than it would be from a foreign national. In a nutshell the facts and circuit splitting legal issues presented by the service of process in a product liability case in a state court in the United States in Chicago were as follows: VWAG, a corporation established under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, has its place of business in that country. VWoA is a wholly owned subsidiary of VWAG. Schlunk attempted to serve his amended complaint on VWAG by serving VWoA as VWAG's agent. VWAG filed a special and limited appearance for the purpose of quashing service. VWAG asserted that it could be served only in accordance with the Hague Service Convention, and that Schlunk had not complied with the Convention's requirements. FWIW, SCOTUS held that the treaty did not apply to service of process within the territory of the country whose courts issued the process. The Public Vessels Act: Context Specific Usage In United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164 (1976), per the official syllabus: Prior to 1960, the Suits in Admiralty Act authorized suit against the United States in cases involving vessels owned by, possessed by, or operated by or for the United States, if such suit could have been maintained had the vessel been a private one, and provided further that such vessel was employed as a merchant vessel. In 1960, Congress amended the Act by deleting.the latter proviso. The Public Vessels Act authorizes suit against the United States in cases involving "a public vessel of the United States," but bars such a suit by a foreign national unless it appears that his government [96 S.Ct. 1321] allows a United States national to sue in its courts under similar circumstances. Respondent, a Philippine corporation, alleging jurisdiction under both Acts, sued the United States to recover damages resulting from the sinking of its fishing vessel after a collision with a United States naval destroyer. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that, since the destroyer was a "public vessel of the United States," the suit was governed by the Public Vessels Act, that therefore respondent was subject to that Act's reciprocity provision, and that, since there was no such reciprocity, the suit was barred. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the suit, although involving a public vessel, was maintainable under the Suits in Admiralty Act, as amended in 1960 to delete the "employed as a merchant vessel" proviso, free from the restrictions, including the reciprocity requirement, imposed by the Public Vessels Act. Held: Claims within the scope of the Public Vessels Act remain subject to its terms after the 1960 amendment to the Suits in Admiralty Act, and, since respondent's claim falls within the Public Vessels Act, the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that that Act's reciprocity provision did not apply. Here the focus is on the relationship of the foreign national to a home state court which may or may not offer reciprocity. The statute is 46 U.S.C. § 781. The case at issue involved a Philippine corporation owned mostly by Americans, which was held to be Philippine nationality and the reciprocity of Philippine courts applied. Presumably in this case a dual national would count as an American and a stateless person would not.
No The importance of following precedent, and the principle of stare decisis were inherited by the early US legal system from the British Common Law system, and have been taken as part of the natural order of the legal system by US courts ever since. This extends even to a court overruling itself. US Courts are notoriously reluctant to overrule their past decisions, even when current court members agree, However they will do so from time to time. The US Supreme Court in particular will flatly overturn previous decisions, especially on Constitutional issues, when it thinks there is no other way to achieve a proper outcome, although it often prefers to distinguish the prior decision without actually overruling it. I think the fastest and most extreme case where the US Supreme Court overruled itself was that of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), the second flag-salute case. (This was also a particularly significant case.) This reversed Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) a case on the exact same issue, only three years previously, and a vote of 8-1 on the first case became a vote of 6-3 the other way, with only one new Justice on the Court. Only Justice Frankfurter, the author of the fist decision, issued a dissenting opinion in the Barnette case, and no other Justice formally joined that opinion.
united-states But what is that legal reason? Why would an organization not be able to state their position with respect to the issue, such as &quot;We believe we acted correctly, but this will be decided in court&quot;? Is there a law saying that commenting a court case is illegal? Who does this apply to? Or is this just some guideline or established advice to avoid problems (which ones)? Legal Ethics Considerations There are circumstances when commenting publicly on litigation violates the ethical rules for lawyers related to trial publicity See Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (the numbering system for professional conduct rules for lawyers is uniform nationally in the U.S. although the substance of the rules can differ in detail from state to state - Colorado's rule is fairly typical). Mostly this rule calls for avoiding statements that could prejudice a jury unless the other side has already done so and those statements need to be rebutted. This rule states (in its Colorado version): (a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) and Rule 3.8(f), a lawyer may state: (1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved; (2) information contained in a public record; (3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress; (4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation; (5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information necessary thereto; (6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and (7) in a criminal case, in addition to subparagraphs (1) through (6): (i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of the accused; (ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and (iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or agencies and the length of the investigation. (c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) and Rule 3.8(f), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. (d) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a). Statements such as &quot;We believe we acted correctly, but this will be decided in court&quot; are allowed and are not terribly uncommon. But, making a comment about something that can be easily inferred from the publicly available documents filed in court provides little or no positive advantage for a litigant. Also, one doesn't have to say much to create at least a colorable Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 issue that a mediator can raise in settlement talks, or that a judge can be forced to analyze. Even if the claim of unethical trial publicity ultimately doesn't hold water, it still muddies the waters and distracts lawyers and litigants from dealing with the substance of the dispute. The Risk That A Statement Will Be Used Against You Usually, the main concern is similar to the concern about talking to police: Anything you say can and will be used against you at trial. For example, this week former President Trump's public statement about his knowledge of classified documents, which are the subject of an ongoing federal criminal investigation of him, seriously harmed his position legally. (His statement was made quite a while ago in a semi-private forum, but at a time when the possibility of a criminal investigation still should have been on his radar screen.) In the civil rape-defamation case against him (as noted, for example, in this Law.SE answer), Trump's decision to continue to speak publicly about matters that were the subject of active litigation against him in an earlier case resulted in an extended statute of limitations and an opportunity to refile the case without having to worry about Presidential immunity from liability for statements he made while in office. It isn't just former President Trump that does things like this, but his conduct provides good textbook examples of what lawyers worry about when their clients talk about cases that are being litigated. Social media statements about pending cases by litigants routinely provide powerful evidence against them in trials. Some clients (particularly politicians and many senior executives of big and medium sized businesses, but also more ordinary people with big egos) are &quot;forces of nature&quot; who can't resist running their mouths, usually to their detriment, when given the least leave to do so. It is easier to teach them to say &quot;no comment&quot; across the board about pending litigation, than to transmit the depth of understanding necessary to comment without saying something potentially harmful. Lawyers spend many hours and sometimes days preparing their clients for depositions for a reason. Avoiding Annoyance To Opposing Counsel, Parties, And Judges Making a comment about pending litigation has the potential to aggravate opposing counsel and can emotionally influence non-lawyer opposing parties with whom a negotiated settlement will be reached 90%+ of the time (only about 1-2% of civil cases go to trial, but some are resolved by default judgments or on motion practice as opposed to by settlement). It can also irritate a judge who frequently prefers to be out of the public spotlight when necessary, even when the statements made aren't prohibited, and judges in the U.S. have lots of discretionary authority.
Yes More exactly, nations will not regard places outside of their physical limits as outside of their jurisdictions. Overview Traditionally, a nation has regarded any ship flying its flag as under its jurisdiction, and a place where it may enforce its laws. More recently, many nations will undertake to enforce laws in cases where their citizens are the victims, or in some cases the perpetrators of crimes even within other nations, and more freely on the high seas outside the physical limits or territorial waters of any country. Historically, all nations undertook to enforce laws against piracy wherever they might be committed. Several countries, including the UK and the US, now treat the UN Law of the Sea convention as part of their national law, which defines as piracy: &quot;illegal acts of violence or detention ... against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft&quot; This would include the situation described in the question. Therefore such actions could and quite likely would be prosecuted by any of several countries, depending on the registry of the vessel and the nationalities of those involved. Sources 18 U.S. Code § 7 provides that: The term “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States”, as used in this title, includes: (1) The high seas, any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, and any vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States or any citizen thereof, or to any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof, when such vessel is within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and out of the jurisdiction of any particular State. ... (7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States. (8) To the extent permitted by international law, any foreign vessel during a voyage having a scheduled departure from or arrival in the United States with respect to an offense committed by or against a national of the United States. This US DOJ page says: Among the offenses within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States are the crimes of murder, manslaughter, maiming, kidnapping, rape, assault, and robbery. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 7(1) there is also jurisdiction over such offenses when they are committed on the high seas or any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States that is out of the jurisdiction of any particular state. See JM 9-20.000 et seq. The page &quot;Maritime Offenses&quot; from the law offices of Trombley and Hanes says: The Federal government also exercises jurisdiction over certain maritime offenses. There is Federal jurisdiction for offenses committed on American vessels in the territorial waters, harbors and inland waterways of foreign nations. See United States v. Flores, 289 U.S. 137 (1933). ... A number of Title 18 sections specifically declare certain conduct to be a Federal crime if committed “within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” See, e.g., murder, 18 U.S.C. § 1111. In some instances, the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, is also applicable. See also, 15 U.S.C. § 1175; 15 U.S.C. § 1243; 16 U.S.C. § 3372. 18 U.S. Code § 1111 (b) provides that: (b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life; Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. The Britannica Article on &quot;Piracy&quot; says: Because piracy has been regarded as an offense against the law of nations, the public vessels of any state have been permitted to seize a pirate ship, to bring it into port, to try the crew (regardless of their nationality or domicile), and, if they are found guilty, to punish them and to confiscate the ship. The UN page on Piracy says: The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides the framework for the repression of piracy under international law, in particular in its articles 100 to 107 and 110. The Security Council has repeatedly reaffirmed “that international law, as reflected in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (‘The Convention’), sets out the legal framework applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as other ocean activities” (Security Council resolution 1897 (2009), adopted on 30 November 2009). Article 100 of UNCLOS provides that “[a]ll States shall cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State.” The General Assembly has also repeatedly encouraged States to cooperate to address piracy and armed robbery at sea in its resolutions on oceans and the law of the sea. For example, in its resolution 64/71 of 4 December 2009, the General Assembly recognized “the crucial role of international cooperation at the global, regional, subregional and bilateral levels in combating, in accordance with international law, threats to maritime security, including piracy”. The UK Piracy Act of 1837 defined as a crime: Whosoever, with intent to commit or at the time of or immediately before or immediately after committing the crime of piracy in respect of any ship or vessel, shall assault, with intent to murder, any person being on board of or belonging to such ship or vessel, or shall stab, cut, or wound any such person, or unlawfully do any act by which the life of such person may be endangered, shall be guilty of felony... The more modern UK law, the Merchant Shipping and Maritime Security Act of 1997 embodies the UN law of the Sea convention, including its article 101, which says: Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed— (a) (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (a) (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
The country where the accused person was arrested would extradite that person to one of the countries where the crimes had been committed. The extradition treaties or the law of the arresting country might have a rule to define how to choose which country took precedence. (Perhaps the earlier crime, or the more serious crime if they were different, or the closer ally might get priority.) Once the accused was extradited, s/he would be tried, and if convicted, sentenced. Once the sentence was completed, that person would be turned over to the second country for trial and possible sentence there. Sometimes, particularly if the sentence is long, an accused will be turned over to the second country for trial soon after conviction in the first country, under an agreement that the person would be returned to serve the sentence in the first country after the trial was over, whatever the outcome, and then sent back to the second country to serve any sentence imposed there. Or the second country could choose to count time served in the first country against its sentence, but I believe that this is not usual. Consider the case of Frank Abagnale who was sought by some 12 different countries when he was arrested in France. He was convicted and served time in France, then extradited to Sweden, where he was also tried, convicted and served time. Italy had requested his extradition, but he was deported to the US, where he was also tried, convicted, and served time.
This is known as the rule of lenity. A common formulation of the rule of lenity is as follows: If a federal criminal statute is grievously ambiguous, then the statute should be interpreted in the criminal defendant's favor. Importantly, the rule of lenity does not apply when a law merely contains some ambiguity or is difficult to decipher. As this Court has often said, the rule of lenity applies only when “ ‘after seizing everything from which aid can be derived,’ ” the statute is still grievously ambiguous. The rule “comes into operation at the end of the process of construing what Congress has expressed, not at the beginning as an overriding consideration of being lenient to wrongdoers.” Kavanaugh J., concurring, in Wooden v. United States, 595 U.S. ___ (2022), citing Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. 282, 295, n. 8 (2016), internal citations removed.