Fuld°hard word v. PLO°hard word ⚙️ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-20_f2bh.pdf is out. While I don't°hard word like the decision, it is hard to make an argument that they could have ruled°hard word any other way.
The PSJVTA°hard word’s personal°hard word jurisdiction°hard word provision°hard word does not°hard word violate°hard word the Fifth Amendment°hard word’s Due Process Clause°hard word because the statute°hard word reasonably°hard word ties the assertion°hard word of jurisdiction°hard word over the PLO°hard word and PA°hard word to conduct°hard word involving°hard word the United States and implicating°hard word sensitive°hard word foreign°hard word policy°hard word matters within°hard word the prerogative°hard word of the political branches.
The primary°hard word reason why the statute°hard word should fall is that the United States inherently°hard word doesn't°hard word have jurisdiction°hard word over a quasi-state°hard word entity°hard word halfway°hard word around the world°hard word. But, this isn't°hard word based°hard word in a concept°hard word of "due process". If anything°hard word, by asserting°hard word a right to due-process°hard word, the PLO°hard word does implicitly°hard word consent°hard word to jurisdiction°hard word, in a way that "not°hard word ceasing°hard word a policy°hard word" does not°hard word.
The "foreign°hard word policy°hard word" note is more concerning°hard word. There is a 🔥 far-right°hard word theory of government that would hold that the Constitution°hard word only governs°hard word how the federal°hard word government interacts°hard word with US citizens°hard word, and does not°hard word bind°hard word its external°hard word actions 💡 other than a few enumerated°hard word exceptions°hard word, such as°hard word "participating°hard word in the slave°hard word trade". I disagree°hard word with this; and I generally feel that the blanket exception°hard word various°hard word courts are working towards is a loophole°hard word large enough to drive a truck through.
But, the limits of American power will remain evident°hard word. A court can issue°hard word as°hard word many universal°hard word injunctions°hard word as°hard word it wants, but the PLO°hard word will not°hard word act based°hard word on it. And the ever-increasing°hard word fines based°hard word on foreign°hard word activity°hard word by a kangaroo-court°hard word will impugn°hard word the United States more than they will ever°hard word punish°hard word the PLO°hard word. When Russia fines Google°hard word an amount so large the TV°hard word announcer°hard word cannot°hard word pronounce°hard word it ⚙️ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxvnwkl5kgo , it is dismissed°hard word as°hard word the folly°hard word of a rogue°hard word state. 💡 Clarence°hard word Thomas°hard word, in his concurrence°hard word, spells it out more thoroughly°hard word. That Congress°hard word may override°hard word general principles°hard word of international°hard word law does not°hard word imply°hard word that it should, but instead that the relevant°hard word considerations°hard word are not°hard word constitutional°hard word ones. If you view international°hard word law as°hard word superseding°hard word the constitution°hard word on certain matters, it should not°hard word be surprising°hard word that the Constitution°hard word does not°hard word incorporate°hard word these restrictions°hard word.