Case 2:16-mj-01061-TJR Document 13 Filed 02/03/17 Page 12 of 29 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. [Morrison, 561 U.S. at 255] (internal quotation marks omitted); see also RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 579 U.S._,_, 136 S. Ct. 2090, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (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., _U.S._, 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1664, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) (quoting Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo, S.A., 353 U.S. 138, 147, 77 S. Ct. 699, 1 L.Ed.2d 709 (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, 111 S. Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) ("Aramco"); see generally Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Auto. Holdings SE, 763 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam). Id. at 210. The Second Circuit further explained that, when deciding whether the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to a particular act, a court must evaluate whether language in the relevant act indicates a congressional purpose to extend the coverage of such an act beyond places over which the United States has sovereignty or some measure of legislative control. Id. (citing Aramco, 499 U.S. at 248). "The statutory provision must contain a 'clear indication of an extraterritorial application'; otherwise, 'it has none.'" Id. (citing Morrison, 561 U.S. at 255). Based on the approach set forth in Morrison, the Second Circuit engaged in a twopart inquiry into the extraterritorial application of the SCA's warrant provisions. The court first analyzed whether the SCA's warrant provisions contemplate extraterritorial application, ultimately concluding that the statute does not indicate that it applies extraterritorially. Id. at 210-11. 7 The court noted that the plain meaning of the SCA supports this finding. Id. at 211. In 7 In Microsoft, the government acknowledged that the warrant provisions of the SCA do not contemplate or permit extraterritorial application. Id. at 210. 12