The Second Circuit affirmed. It acknowl- edged, at the outset, that Wiley’s reading of Section
109(a), which “interpret[s] ‘lawfully made under this title’ to mean ‘lawfully made in the United States,’” is “certainly consistent with the text of [Section]
109(a).” Kirtsaeng Pet. App. 21a. But the court nonetheless believed that a “textual analysis alone is
not sufficient” because, in its view, the text “could plausibly be interpreted to mean any number of
things,” including “‘any work made that is subject to protection under this title’” and “‘lawfully made under this title had this title been applicable.’”