{"id":3842,"date":"2023-03-06T17:29:32","date_gmt":"2023-03-06T17:29:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cornelllawreview.org\/?p=3842"},"modified":"2023-03-06T17:29:32","modified_gmt":"2023-03-06T17:29:32","slug":"the-borderline-of-crime-the-case-for-reevaluating-united-states-v-bowman-vigorously-applying-the-presumption-against-extraterritoriality-to-federal-criminal-statutes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/2023\/03\/06\/the-borderline-of-crime-the-case-for-reevaluating-united-states-v-bowman-vigorously-applying-the-presumption-against-extraterritoriality-to-federal-criminal-statutes\/","title":{"rendered":"The Borderline of Crime: The Case for Reevaluating United States v. Bowman & Vigorously Applying the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality to Federal Criminal Statutes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Part I, this Note will provide background information on extraterritoriality. This Note will define extraterritoriality and expand upon the crucial role of the presumption against extraterritoriality in determining the jurisdictional reach of federal statutes. This Note will also expand on the unique history of extraterritoriality in federal statutory jurisprudence. Furthermore, this Note will identify the tension of the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Bowman <\/em>with the Supreme Court\u2019s later decisions about federal statutes and the presumption against extraterritoriality. In Part II, this Note will analyze the approaches that other circuit courts have taken regarding the issue of extraterritoriality and federal criminal law. Then, this Note will break down the D.C. Circuit\u2019s analysis in Garcia Sota<\/em>. It will also expand upon the D.C. Circuit\u2019s interpretation of the statutory history of \u00a7 1114 before the statute\u2019s revision in November 2021.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To conclude, in Part III, this Note will argue that, although the D.C. Circuit\u2019s opinion stands apart from the other circuits and has been criticized by Congress and the media, the D.C. Circuit\u2019s analysis for federal criminal statutes conforms with the Supreme Court\u2019s strict adherence to the presumption against extraterritoriality. Lastly, this Note will argue that the Supreme Court should consider clarifying the contours of Bowman <\/em>and reexamining its continued relevance in the field of federal criminal statutory interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To read this Note, please click here: The Borderline of Crime: The Case for Reevaluating <\/a><\/em>United States v. Bowman<\/a><\/i> & Vigorously Applying the Presumption Against Extraterritoriality to Federal Criminal Statutes<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Part I, this Note will provide background information on extraterritoriality. This Note will define extraterritoriality and expand upon the crucial role of the presumption against extraterritoriality in determining the jurisdictional reach of federal statutes. This Note will also expand on the unique history of extraterritoriality in federal statutory jurisprudence. Furthermore, this Note will identify…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,46,54],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-issue-1-print-volume-108","category-notes","category-print-volume-108"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3842"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3842\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/publications.lawschool.cornell.edu\/lawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}