EEZ Counts as “High Seas,” and a Claim of Nationality Triggers Statelessness Under the MDLEA: The Eleventh Circuit’s Summary Affirmance in United States v. Rai Martinez

Introduction

In a consolidated, unpublished per curiam decision on the Non-Argument Calendar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit summarily affirmed the convictions of Juan Rincon Puello and Rai Martinez under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). Both defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine on a vessel on the high seas subject to U.S. jurisdiction. On appeal, they sought to withdraw or vacate their pleas and dismiss the indictment on multiple constitutional and jurisdictional grounds.

The case squarely presented recurring challenges to the MDLEA’s reach: whether Congress’s Felonies Clause power is constrained by customary international law; whether a nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is part of the “high seas” for constitutional purposes; whether the MDLEA’s “vessel without nationality” provision, 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), is unconstitutional; whether a crew’s claim of nationality (rather than registry) triggers § 70502(d)(1)(C); and whether due process demands a “nexus” to the United States. The government moved for summary affirmance.

The panel—Judges Jordan, Jill Pryor, and Brasher—granted summary affirmance, holding that binding Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed every argument raised by Puello and Martinez.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, concluding there was “no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” thus meeting the standard for summary disposition under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis.

The court reaffirmed that the MDLEA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Felonies Clause power as applied to conduct on the high seas and that a nation’s EEZ is part of the “high seas” for Article I, § 8, cl. 10 purposes. Enforcement in EEZs is therefore proper. See United States v. Alfonso; United States v. Canario-Vilomar.
The court rejected the facial and as-applied constitutional challenges to 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C) (defining “vessel without nationality”), reaffirming that Congress’s definition need not mirror customary international law and that Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses arguments to the contrary. See Alfonso; Canario-Vilomar.
The court held that a claim of nationality suffices to trigger § 70502(d)(1)(C); the MDLEA treats “nationality” and “registry” as interchangeable. Thus, when the claimed nation cannot “affirmatively and unequivocally” confirm the vessel’s nationality/registry, the vessel is “without nationality” and within U.S. jurisdiction. See United States v. Gruezo; Alfonso.
The court reiterated that the MDLEA is constitutional without any “nexus” to the United States. See United States v. Cabezas-Montano.
Applying the prior-panel-precedent rule, the court explained that it remained bound by Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar, Gruezo, and Cabezas-Montano, and that pending or denied certiorari petitions do not alter binding circuit law. See In re Bradford; Gissendaner v. Commissioner.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis (5th Cir. 1969): Establishes that summary affirmance is appropriate when one party is “clearly right as a matter of law” or the appeal is frivolous. The panel invoked this to dispose of the appeal without full briefing or oral argument because Eleventh Circuit precedent already foreclosed the defendants’ contentions.
United States v. Alfonso (11th Cir. 2024), cert. denied (May 19, 2025): The seminal decision holding that “international law does not limit the Felonies Clause,” that an EEZ counts as “high seas,” and that the MDLEA’s application in EEZs is constitutional. Alfonso also recognized that a verbal claim of nationality subject to a flag state’s inability to confirm or deny renders the vessel stateless under § 70502(d)(1)(C).
United States v. Canario-Vilomar (11th Cir. 2025): Reinforces Alfonso, expressly rejecting the contention that Congress was constrained by international law in defining “stateless vessel” and the boundaries of the “high seas.” The court specifically rejected the ultra vires argument against § 70502(d)(1)(C) where the claimed nation neither confirms nor denies nationality/registry.
United States v. Gruezo (11th Cir. 2023): Clarifies that “nationality” and “registry” are interchangeable terms throughout § 70502. The statute’s operation under § 70502(d)(1)(C) depends on whether the named country affirmatively and unequivocally asserts the vessel’s nationality; if not, the vessel is “without nationality.”
United States v. Cabezas-Montano (11th Cir. 2020): Holds that the MDLEA is constitutional as applied to drug-trafficking on the high seas even without a “nexus” to the United States. This forecloses due-process-based nexus claims in the Eleventh Circuit for MDLEA prosecutions involving stateless or covered vessels.
Prior-Panel-Precedent Rule: The court relied on United States v. Golden, Smith v. GTE Corp., and In re Lambrix for the principle that a later panel cannot revisit, narrow, or disregard earlier panel holdings absent en banc or Supreme Court intervention—even if a later panel believes a prior panel erred or overlooked arguments.
Standards of Review: The panel noted de novo review for subject-matter jurisdiction and constitutional questions (Alfonso), and plain-error review where a constitutional challenge is raised for the first time on appeal (Moriarty; Lejarde-Rada). While the panel did not have to undertake a granular plain-error analysis here due to dispositive precedent, these standards frame how such arguments are evaluated on appeal.
Certiorari Principles: Relying on In re Bradford and Gissendaner, the court emphasized that grants or denials of certiorari do not themselves change the law; until the Supreme Court actually issues a decision that alters the controlling rule, Eleventh Circuit precedent governs.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning is straightforward and tethered to three anchors: binding circuit precedent, the prior-panel-precedent rule, and the summary affirmance standard.

Felonies Clause not limited by customary international law; EEZ is part of the “high seas.”
The defendants argued that applying the MDLEA in the Dominican Republic’s EEZ exceeded Congress’s Felonies Clause authority because, in their view, EEZs are not “high seas” under international law. The panel pointed to Alfonso’s historical analysis of the term “high seas” as used by the Founders, concluding that the constitutional term is not constrained by current customary international law and that EEZs fall within “the high seas” for Article I purposes. Canario-Vilomar reaffirmed this conclusion. Thus, enforcement of the MDLEA in EEZs is constitutionally proper.
Section 70502(d)(1)(C)’s “vessel without nationality” definition is constitutional.
The defendants mounted both facial and as-applied challenges to § 70502(d)(1)(C), arguing that Congress impermissibly expanded “statelessness” beyond its bounds under customary international law. The panel reiterated that Congress’s Felonies Clause power, as construed in Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar, is not controlled by customary international law; accordingly, Congress may define a “vessel without nationality” to include instances where a claimed nation does not “affirmatively and unequivocally” confirm nationality/registry. This approach—sometimes referred to as “constructive statelessness”—is within Congress’s authority for MDLEA purposes.
Claim of nationality triggers § 70502(d)(1)(C); “nationality” and “registry” are interchangeable under the MDLEA.
The appellants contended that only a claim of registry, not a claim of nationality, could invoke § 70502(d)(1)(C). The panel relied on Gruezo’s textual analysis, which treats “nationality” and “registry” as interchangeable in § 70502. The statute itself connects a “claim of registry” with the flag state’s confirmation of “nationality,” demonstrating that Congress does not distinguish the two in this context. As Alfonso illustrates, a verbal claim of nationality that a flag state cannot confirm or deny renders the vessel “without nationality.”
No “nexus” to the United States is required for MDLEA prosecutions on the high seas.
The panel reiterated Cabezas-Montano’s holding that the MDLEA is constitutional as applied to high seas drug-trafficking even without a demonstrable connection to the United States. This eliminates a due-process nexus requirement within the Eleventh Circuit for stateless or otherwise covered vessels under the MDLEA.
Prior-panel-precedent rule and summary affirmance.
The court emphasized it is bound by prior published panel decisions absent an intervening en banc or Supreme Court decision. Because Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar, Gruezo, and Cabezas-Montano settled the central challenges, the government’s position was “clearly right as a matter of law.” Under Groendyke, this justified summary affirmance without extended analysis or oral argument.

Impact

Although unpublished, this decision is a practical bellwether for MDLEA litigation in the Eleventh Circuit—a circuit that adjudicates a significant share of maritime drug prosecutions.

Operational certainty for maritime enforcement. By summarily affirming on the strength of Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar, Gruezo, and Cabezas-Montano, the court signals continued, robust MDLEA enforcement in Caribbean and Atlantic corridors, including within foreign EEZs, where interdictions commonly occur.
Statutory “statelessness” remains broad and readily satisfied. A verbal claim of nationality that elicits a “cannot confirm/deny” response from a named country will continue to render vessels “without nationality.” Practically, this keeps the jurisdictional bar low where flag documentation is absent or dubious.
No nexus requirement in the Eleventh Circuit. Defendants cannot rely on a due-process “nexus” argument where the MDLEA applies to conduct on the high seas. This forecloses a major line of extraterritoriality defense within the circuit.
Limited room for international-law-based challenges. The court’s reliance on the Founding-era meaning of “high seas” and its insistence that international law does not limit the Felonies Clause leaves little space for arguments that the MDLEA must track contemporary customary international law—at least in the Eleventh Circuit.
Procedural posture matters. Because new constitutional arguments on appeal face plain-error review and because the prior-panel-precedent rule is rigid, defendants who intend to preserve structural or constitutional challenges to the MDLEA must raise and develop them in the district court to avoid waiver and to create a robust record.
Path to change runs through en banc or the Supreme Court. The panel underscored that circuit law stands until overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court. Notably, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Alfonso (May 19, 2025), and while a petition was filed in Canario-Vilomar, pending petitions or denials do not alter governing law.

Complex Concepts Simplified

MDLEA (Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act): A federal statute criminalizing drug trafficking on vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, even when the conduct occurs outside U.S. territorial waters. It includes conspiracies to commit such offenses.
“Vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”: Includes a “vessel without nationality” among other categories. See 46 U.S.C. § 70502(c)(1)(A).
“Vessel without nationality” (46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C)): A vessel where the master makes a claim of nationality/registry, but the identified nation does not “affirmatively and unequivocally” confirm that nationality/registry. Under Eleventh Circuit law, “nationality” and “registry” are used interchangeably in this context.
Claim of nationality/registry: The master can assert a link to a nation, often verbally or via documents/flag. If the flag state cannot confirm or denies the claim, the vessel is deemed stateless under the MDLEA.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): Waters extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline, where that state has resource rights. For Eleventh Circuit constitutional purposes, an EEZ is part of the “high seas” under the Felonies Clause.
“High seas” and the Felonies Clause: The Constitution grants Congress power to define and punish felonies committed “on the high seas.” The Eleventh Circuit holds that this power is not limited by contemporary customary international law and includes EEZs.
Facial vs. as-applied constitutional challenges: A facial challenge asserts a statute is invalid in all or nearly all applications. An as-applied challenge attacks the statute’s application to the specific facts. The court found both forms of attack on § 70502(d)(1)(C) foreclosed by precedent.
Nexus requirement: Some due-process arguments contend a foreign offense must bear a connection (“nexus”) to the United States. The Eleventh Circuit rejects any nexus requirement for MDLEA prosecutions on the high seas.
Summary affirmance (Groendyke): An expedited appellate disposition used when the outcome is legally certain—e.g., where controlling precedent clearly forecloses the appellant’s claims.
Prior-panel-precedent rule: A later panel must follow a prior published panel’s holding unless overruled by the Eleventh Circuit en banc or by the Supreme Court, even if the later panel believes the prior panel erred.
Plain error: A stringent standard on appeal for unpreserved issues, requiring a clear error that affects substantial rights and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Absent on-point Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit authority, an asserted error is generally not “plain.”

Conclusion

United States v. Rai Martinez reinforces the Eleventh Circuit’s robust, text-and-history-based approach to the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach. The panel’s per curiam, unpublished summary affirmance relies on established precedent to:

Confirm that an EEZ is constitutionally part of the “high seas” under the Felonies Clause;
Reiterate that international law does not limit Congress’s Felonies Clause authority in this domain;
Uphold the MDLEA’s “vessel without nationality” definition, including where a claimed nation cannot confirm or deny nationality/registry;
Affirm the interchangeability of “nationality” and “registry” under § 70502;
Reject any requirement of a due-process “nexus” to the United States.

The opinion provides clear guidance to law enforcement and litigants: in the Eleventh Circuit, MDLEA prosecutions arising from interdictions in EEZs or on stateless vessels remain firmly grounded in binding precedent, and constitutional or international-law-based challenges of the sort raised here will not prevail absent en banc or Supreme Court intervention. For defense counsel, the decision underscores the importance of preserving issues below and recognizing the decisive force of the prior-panel-precedent rule on appeal.