Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application, applied in the context of the U.S. Copyright Act, creates a jurisdictional bar

QUESTION PRESENTED In Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006), this Court held that a statutory requirement was not jurisdictional because Congress had not clearly indicated that it was. In Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010), this Court applied Arbaugh’s clear-statement rule, holding that copyright’s registration requirement was non-jurisdictional. In Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010), this Court observed that, in the context of a securities law, the presumption against extraterritorial application is also non-jurisdictional. This case involves the presumption against extraterritorial application but now in the context of the U.S. Copyright Act. Here, the Ninth Circuit held that dismissal based on the presumption against extraterritorial application was a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Thus, the question presented is: Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application, applied in the context of the U.S. Copyright Act, creates a jurisdictional bar.