Mullin v. Al Otro Lado · ¶168
Accepting that Congress did not clearly give either §1225(a) or §1158(a)(1) an extraterritorial scope, the presumption against extraterritoriality does not advance the majority’s case. This Court has held that “[t]he ultimate question regarding permissible domestic application turns on the location of the conduct relevant to the focus” of a statute. Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., 600 U. S. 412, 422 (2023). Here, all the relevant conduct is domestic, with CBP officials stationed inside the United States allegedly violating both their statutory duties and asylum seekers’ rights by physically blocking individuals at the border from entering and refusing to allow them to apply for asylum. Far from seeking to have U. S. law “‘rule the world,’” RJR Nabisco, 579 U. S., at 335, respondents’ position would simply hold U. S. officials stationed on the U. S. side of the border to…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.