Do these new rules expand the claimed foreign jurisdiction of US federal courts or not?<p>The amended rules provide new authorities for issuing warrants when &quot;the district where the media or information is located has been concealed through technological means&quot;. In other words, the new rules seem to expand the authority of federal courts when there is a question of <i>which</i> district court has jurisdiction. But what do these new rules mean for cases in which the location of the information is clearly outside of the jurisdiction of <i>any</i> US federal district court, or when there is a question of whether it might be?<p>Apparently the rules were previously amended to remove the definition of &quot;district court&quot; [0], making this question still more subtle. Note also that the rules explicitly expand the jurisdiction of US federal courts without regard to sovereign geography in cases of terrorism, but not otherwise. (I am reminded why I decided not to pursue a legal career.)<p>0. See the note pertaining to Rule 1(b) of the 2002 amendment, at <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;rules&#x2F;frcrmp&#x2F;rule_1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.law.cornell.edu&#x2F;rules&#x2F;frcrmp&#x2F;rule_1</a>