This ruling affirmed the convictions of three men who had been prosecuted under the wire fraud statute for a scheme to evade Canadian excise taxes by smuggling alcohol into Canada from the United States. The Supreme Court's decision is correct in asserting that the wire fraud statute does not undermine any well-established revenue-rule principle that bars prosecution for a scheme to evade foreign taxes; however, the Court's ruling is ultimately flawed, because a scheme to evade foreign taxes does not properly fall within the scope of the wire fraud statute. The legislative history of the wire fraud statute weighs against the Court's ruling, since the statute was drafted with a focus on domestic schemes and domestic injuries that result from misuse of United States wires. Moreover, the Court's decision departs from the Court's long-held presumption that Congress ordinarily intends for its sentences and restitution awards from wire fraud convictions for smuggling schemes to be calculated based on the combined impact of the domestic and extraterritorial conduct. Absent a clearer directive from Congress, the Court's decision grants an unwarranted extension of the wire fraud statute to conduct whose ultimate harms are in foreign jurisdictions covered by foreign laws. 257 footnotes