The Supreme Court’s June decision in RJR Nabisco dropped a hidden bombshell. While nominally only a decision about the extraterritorial reach of RICO, the reasoning behind the Court’s denying recovery under RICO’s private cause of action provision for injuries incurred outside the United States might be equally applicable to virtually any federal statute. Doctrinally questionable, the Court’s decision nevertheless appears to implement an initially sensible policy distinction. The specific line the Court drew, however, misses the mark in implementing this policy and carries implications that the Court may not have fully recognized.