Aramco

1) Why did the court dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction? Wasn't there SMJ under federal question jurisdiction? Isn't the real problem that Boureslan failed to state a claim?

2) Isn't the presumption against extraterritoriality simply a vestige of 1st Restatement thinking about conflcits? How would this case have come out if one had applied interest analysis? What is Saudi Arabia's interest in applying its law? By the way, what is Saudi Arabia's law on the matter?

3) How might interest analysis in an international context diverge from interest analysis in a domestic context?

4) Is the real motivation for the court's application of the presumption against extraterritoriality in this case a hostility to employment discrimination law?

5) The court engages in interpretation of the language of the statute to determine whether it applies extraterritorially. Is there any reason to think that Congress thinks about the extraterritorial application of laws? Isn't the fact that legislatures don't think about choice of law the reason that we had to look to state interests in a domestic context?

6) Do you buy the court's argument concerning the alien exemption provision? Under Rehnquist's reading, does the provision serve any prupose?

7) Do you buy the argument about the statute's venue provision? Isn't there a difference between where a suit under a law may be litigated and where the law can apply?

Hartford

1) Once again, why does Souter put the issue as one of SMJ?

2) What happened to the presumption against territoriality? Is Hartford really the adoption of interest analysis?

3) What exactly is the relationship between sections 402 and 403 of the Third Restatement? Are they both requirements under international law? Or is 402 the real limit under international law and 403 a recommended  means of resolving international conflicts? Since federal statutes should be interpreted in accordance with int'l law unless Congress says otherwise, which interpretation one adopts matters.

4) Isn't section 403 basically like section 6 of the Second Restatement?

5) Souter claims that under section 403 of the Third Restatement, the only substantial question in the case is whether there is a true conflict between domestic and foreign law. How is he using the term "true conflict"? Is he right that under section 403 considerations of comity come into play only if there is a "true conflict" in this sense? Don't the considerations come into play under 403 in antecedently determining whether the exercise of legislative jurisdiction is reasonable?

6) How does comity come into play in interest analysis? Is it at all like the way Souter speaks of comity in international choice of law?

7) How is it that Scalia can conclude that it is unreasonable under 403 to apply US antitrust law to foreign actors whose actions were directed at the US market?