Source: cases/18usc1962/f3d-917-229-roe-v-howard.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f3d/volume_917/0229_01/index.html
In short, § 1595 evinces the same relationship to its extraterritorial predicate offenses that RICO's substantive criminal provision does to its predicates, and is not subject to textual limitations like those found in RICO's private cause of action.
Justice Alito emphasized that the text of § 1964(c) limited its application to certain types of injuries, and thereby created a gap between the reach of § 1964(c) civil liability and § 1962 criminal liability.
Rather, civil liability under § 1964(c) is premised on § 1962 criminal liability, but - crucially - is not coextensive with § 1962 liability.
In that regard, § 1595 of the TVPA resembles § 1962 of RICO rather than the circumscribed text of § 1964(c).
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash1 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f3d/917/0229-01 name Roe v. Howard cite 917 F.3d 229 (2019) court United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit date 2019-02-25 url catalog/cases/f3d/volume_917/0229_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f3d_917.jsonl sha1=1e9b7dea386400d298cc8d4438c77901d2e51006 chars=50412 opinion op : majority by King @0..50412 controlling theory t1 : RJR Nabisco step one: a statute reaches foreign conduct to the extent it incorporates extraterritorial predicates theory t2 : RJR Nabisco Part IV: the § 1964(c) private remedy is limited to certain injuries and is not coextensive with § 1962 law 18usc1962 role comparator posture civil; TVPA suit (18 U.S.C. § 1595) by a housekeeper against a State Department employee for forced labor and sex trafficking in Yemen in 2007; jury verdict for plaintiff affirmed. No RICO claim was pleaded: § 1962 and § 1964(c), as construed in RJR Nabisco, are the yardstick for deciding that § 1595 applies extraterritorially result not-decided element racketeering : not-reached route _comparator theory t1 rule @28951..29251 [quoted] | The Court reasoned that "Congress's incorporation of [such] extraterritorial predicates into RICO gives a clear, affirmative indication that § 1962 applies to foreign racketeering activity - but only to the extent that the predicates alleged in a particular case themselves apply extraterritorially." held @35956..36206 | In short, § 1595 evinces the same relationship to its extraterritorial predicate offenses that RICO's substantive criminal provision does to its predicates, and is not subject to textual limitations like those found in RICO's private cause of action. gloss Added in triage: the comparison the court actually relies on. § 1962's incorporation of extraterritorial predicate offenses is the model for reading the TVPA civil remedy; nothing is decided about any RICO predicate. element injury : not-reached route _comparator theory t2 rule @34124..34333 | Justice Alito emphasized that the text of § 1964(c) limited its application to certain types of injuries, and thereby created a gap between the reach of § 1964(c) civil liability and § 1962 criminal liability. rule @33982..34123 | Rather, civil liability under § 1964(c) is premised on § 1962 criminal liability, but - crucially - is not coextensive with § 1962 liability. held @34867..34975 | In that regard, § 1595 of the TVPA resembles § 1962 of RICO rather than the circumscribed text of § 1964(c). gloss The court distinguishes RJR Nabisco's refusal to apply RICO's private cause of action abroad (the domestic-injury limit of § 1964(c)) as resting on textual limits that § 1595 lacks. No RICO injury is at issue in this case.