The &quot;focus&quot; of a statute (RJR Nabisco v. European Community)
<p>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: </p>

<p>"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". </p>

<p>See: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-138_5866.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-138_5866.pdf</a></p>

<p>What exactly is meant by the "focus" of a statute? </p>

<p>As there is no any applicable special definition of "focus" in that context, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule" rel="nofollow noreferrer">plain meaning rule</a> applies: the "focus" of a statute is what the statute is <strong>focused on</strong>.</p>

<p>Any ordinary synonyms apply: <em>concentrated on</em>, <em>revolves around</em>, <em>addresses itself to</em>.</p>

<p>What exactly a statute is focused on is determined by way of its interpretation and analysis. This is part of what judges do.</p>

jurisdiction statutes