Exclusive Economic Zones Are “High Seas” for MDLEA Purposes: United States v. Quijije Mero, 22-11929 (11th Cir. 2025)

Introduction

In United States v. Nilson Olaya Grueso, José Junior Bailon Franco, and Luis Alberto Quijije Mero, the Eleventh Circuit once again addressed—and rejected—constitutional attacks on the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. §§ 70501 et seq. The three Ecuadorian defendants appealed their convictions for conspiring to possess with intent to distribute 964 kilograms of cocaine while aboard a go-fast vessel intercepted 140 nautical miles off Ecuador’s coast. They argued that:

Congress exceeded its Article I authority by defining “vessels without nationality” more broadly than customary international law allows;
The interdiction occurred in Ecuador’s Exclusive Economic Zone (“EEZ”), which they contended is not part of the constitutionally cognizable “high Seas”; and
The MDLEA impermissibly punishes foreign nationals absent any nexus with the United States, violating due-process principles.

The panel (Judges Jordan, Luck, and Kidd) summarily affirmed in a published per curiam opinion, relying heavily on its very recent decisions in United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024), and United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025). Those decisions collectively cement the Eleventh Circuit’s view that EEZs are “high seas” for purposes of the Felonies Clause and that Congress may criminalize extraterritorial drug trafficking absent any U.S. nexus.

Summary of the Judgment

The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss. Key holdings include:

EEZ = High Seas. Interdictions in a foreign state’s EEZ fall within Congress’s power “[t]o define and punish…Felonies committed on the high Seas” (Art. I § 8 cl. 10).
Stateless-Vessel Definition Upheld. Congress may deem a vessel “without nationality” when the claimed flag state cannot affirmatively confirm or deny registry (46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C)).
No Nexus Requirement. Universal and protective principles of international law justify MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach over foreign nationals with no U.S. connection.
Prior-Precedent Rule. Under binding circuit precedent (Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar), the defendants’ constitutional challenges were foreclosed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024).
- First Eleventh Circuit case squarely holding that “high Seas” in the Felonies Clause includes EEZs.
- Rejected argument that customary international law limits Congress’s power.
- Provided doctrinal foundation the panel simply applied here.
United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025).
- Extended Alfonso by upholding § 70502(d)(1)(C) against Felonies-Clause attacks.
- Explicitly rejected due-process “nexus” requirement.
- Declared that international law cannot curtail Congress’s choice of what counts as a “stateless vessel.”
Earlier MDLEA precedents (Campbell, Iguaran, etc.) establishing:
- Universal jurisdiction over maritime drug trafficking.
- Stateless vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction even absent nexus.

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning is compact yet layered:

Standard of Review. De novo review of jurisdictional dismissals and constitutional questions, but only “plain error” for new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
Application of the Prior-Precedent Rule. Once Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar resolved the EEZ, stateless-vessel, and nexus questions, the panel was bound to follow those results. There was no room to revisit or distinguish them.
Felonies Clause Interpretation. Drawing on founding-era meaning, the court reiterated that “high seas” historically meant waters beyond the territorial sea. Because an EEZ (200 nm) lies beyond the 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, it is part of the “high seas.” International-law developments after 1789 cannot shrink the Clause’s scope.
Stateless Vessels. The MDLEA’s “cannot confirm nor deny” language is a permissible legislative definition. The Constitution does not tie Congress to the exact contours of the 1958 High Seas Convention or the 1982 UNCLOS.
Due Process & Nexus. The court cited the universal-jurisdiction doctrine (piracy analogue) and the protective principle (threats to U.S. security) to hold that punishing maritime narco-trafficking requires no U.S. nexus.

Impact of the Judgment

Clarifies EEZ Jurisdiction. The Eleventh Circuit now has a trilogy (Alfonso, Canario-Vilomar, Quijije Mero) closing virtually every constitutional loophole for defendants interdicted in any EEZ within its geographical coverage.
Statutory Stability. The MDLEA, already the principal U.S. tool against maritime narcotics trafficking, gains further insulation from Felonies-Clause and due-process attacks.
Prosecutorial Guidance. Coast Guard and DOJ may treat EEZ interdictions identically to high-seas interdictions for jurisdictional purposes, reducing litigation risk.
International Relations. The decision quietly signals that the U.S. does not view EEZ sovereignty as limiting high-seas policing powers for drug crimes—a stance that could cause friction with coastal states but aligns with bilateral maritime agreements in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.
Future Litigation. Defendants within the Eleventh Circuit face an uphill battle; only an en banc reversal or Supreme Court intervention could unsettle this framework.

Complex Concepts Simplified

High Seas vs. Territorial Sea vs. EEZ
• Territorial Sea: 0–12 nautical miles (nm) from baseline—full sovereignty.
• Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): 12–200 nm; coastal state has resource rights, but the waters remain international for navigation and law-enforcement unless otherwise agreed.
• High Seas: All parts of the sea not included in a nation’s territorial sea. The Eleventh Circuit now equates EEZ water with high seas for Felonies-Clause purposes.

Felonies Clause (Art. I § 8 cl. 10)
Grants Congress power “to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.” The Clause furnishes constitutional authority for statutes such as the MDLEA.

Stateless (or “Vessel Without Nationality”)
A vessel is stateless when it: (1) sails without a flag, (2) lacks registration documents, or (3) cannot receive confirmation of nationality from the claimed flag state. Stateless vessels are subject to universal jurisdiction.

Prior-Precedent Rule
A three-judge panel must follow earlier published Eleventh Circuit decisions unless and until they are overruled by the Supreme Court or by the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc.

Conclusion

United States maritime-drug prosecutions frequently sprint from interdiction to plea because the jurisdictional terrain is well-settled. Quijije Mero extends that certainty: the Felonies Clause covers EEZs, Congress may deem a vessel stateless when a flag-state stays silent, and no nexus with the United States is constitutionally required. By anchoring itself to Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar, the Eleventh Circuit has erected formidable precedent that will govern MDLEA challenges for the foreseeable future, fortifying the United States’ global maritime interdiction strategy and clarifying the intersection of domestic constitutional power with evolving international maritime zones.