EEZs as High Seas and Extraterritorial Reach of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act

Introduction

This commentary examines the Eleventh Circuit’s per curiam decision in United States v. Saul Emmanuel Becerra-Astudillo (and consolidated appeals), handed down on April 28, 2025. The appellants—Yeiner Herrera-Barroz, Gustavo Rafael Brito-Fernandez, and Saul Emmanuel Becerra-Astudillo—were convicted under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel on the high seas. They appealed on three primary grounds:

The MDLEA lacks authority to reach conduct in foreign Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), which appellants argued are not “high seas” under international law;
The MDLEA’s definition of “vessel without nationality” is overbroad and unconstitutional;
The MDLEA violates due process by imposing jurisdiction without any nexus to the United States.

The Eleventh Circuit granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance, holding that its prior precedents foreclose all three challenges.

Summary of the Judgment

The court resolved the appeals in three brief sections:

Jurisdictional Scope (EEZ as High Seas): Relying on United States v. Alfonso (104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024)) and United States v. Canario-Vilomar (128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)), the panel reaffirmed that under the Felonies Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, Congress may criminalize drug-trafficking felonies on the high seas, and that the high seas for those purposes include EEZs. International law imposes no limit on this constitutional power. Therefore, MDLEA enforcement in foreign EEZs is valid.
“Vessel Without Nationality” Definition: The court rejected appellants’ challenge to § 70502(d)(1)(C) because the appellants fell within § 70502(d)(1)(B) by failing to claim any nationality when requested. Thus, no constitutional infirmity arose.
Due Process and Nexus: The panel reaffirmed binding Eleventh Circuit precedent that MDLEA’s extra-territorial reach without a required U.S. nexus does not offend due process, given the universal and protective principles that support prosecuting maritime drug-trafficking.

Accordingly, the convictions were affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision rests squarely on two binding Eleventh Circuit precedents:

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024): Held that EEZs qualify as “high seas” under the Felonies Clause, and that Congress’s power to punish felonies on the high seas is not limited by international law.
United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025): Reinforced Alfonso, rejecting both the EEZ challenge and the argument that MDLEA jurisdiction requires a nexus to the United States.

Under the prior-panel-precedent rule, these decisions are binding and cannot be circumvented by raising new or variant arguments on the same statutory provisions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s approach unfolded in three steps:

It reaffirmed that Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 grants Congress power to define and punish felonies on the high seas, without restriction from international treaties or customary law.
It identified the MDLEA’s vessel-jurisdiction provisions (46 U.S.C. §§ 70502, 70503, 70506) and located appellants under § 70502(d)(1)(B)—vessels where masters fail to claim nationality. Because appellants made no competing nationality claim, the argument under § 70502(d)(1)(C) was inapposite.
It applied binding precedent that MDLEA does not require any territorial or nationality nexus to the United States, because the universal condemnation of maritime drug-trafficking suffices to uphold extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Impact

This ruling cements several key principles:

EEZs of foreign nations are conclusively part of the “high seas” for MDLEA prosecutions in the Eleventh Circuit.
Statutory definitions of “vessel without nationality” survive constitutional challenge when applied to those who fail to claim nationality on request.
Due process does not mandate a U.S. nexus for maritime drug-trafficking under the MDLEA.

Lower courts in the Eleventh Circuit will continue to apply Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar strictly, leaving little room for defendants to challenge MDLEA jurisdiction on EEZ or nexus grounds. Other circuits may look to this trilogy of cases when addressing similar statutory challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline, where the state has certain resource rights but not full sovereignty. For MDLEA purposes, EEZs count as “high seas.”
High Seas: Waters beyond any national territorial sea (12 nautical miles). Under U.S. constitutional law, the high seas for felony-punishment powers include EEZs.
Vessel Without Nationality: Under the MDLEA, a vessel can be stateless if its master refuses or fails to claim nationality upon a U.S. law-enforcement request, thus bringing it within U.S. jurisdiction.
Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Empowers Congress to “define and punish . . . Felonies committed on the high Seas.”
Nexus Requirement: A legal link between the crime and the prosecuting sovereign. The Eleventh Circuit holds that no such link is needed to prosecute maritime drug-trafficking under the MDLEA.

Conclusion

United States v. Becerra-Astudillo reaffirms the Eleventh Circuit’s robust interpretation of MDLEA jurisdiction: foreign EEZs are part of the high seas, vessel-jurisdiction provisions are constitutional when masters fail to claim nationality, and due process imposes no U.S. nexus requirement. This decision underscores the courts’ unwavering deference to congressional power under the Felonies Clause and closes off avenues for defendants to evade MDLEA enforcement on geographic or nexus grounds.