Expanding the High Seas: Eleventh Circuit Confirms Exclusive Economic Zone as “High Seas” Under the Felonies Clause – United States v. Lopez-Padilla

Introduction

In United States v. Belarminio Lopez-Padilla, No. 22-11047 (11th Cir. 2025), the Eleventh Circuit revisited the recurring constitutional challenges to the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). The appellant, a Dominican national interdicted approximately 80 nautical miles off the Colombian coast with 17 bales of cocaine, sought reversal of his conviction and 102-month sentence on four grounds:

That the offense did not occur on the “high seas” and thus fell outside Congress’s Felonies Clause power;
That the MDLEA, as applied, violated due process because the crime had no nexus with the United States;
That Congress exceeded its authority by treating the vessel as “without nationality” when international law considered it otherwise; and
That the sentencing judge relied on clearly erroneous facts, namely an assumption of importation into the United States.

The Eleventh Circuit—applying a non-argument calendar and issuing a per curiam opinion—rejected each contention, thereby cementing a line of recent precedents that collectively broaden federal reach over maritime drug trafficking.

Summary of the Judgment

The court affirmed both the conviction and sentence. Key holdings include:

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of a foreign state constitutes “high seas” for purposes of Congress’s Felonies Clause authority, as already articulated in United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024).
No nexus to U.S. territory or markets is required for MDLEA prosecutions—again echoing earlier precedent (Cabezas-Montano, Rendon).
Congress’s statutory definition of a “vessel without nationality” in 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C) is a constitutional exercise of the Felonies Clause power and is not cabined by customary international law (Lemus, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)).
A sentencing court’s isolated reference to “importing cocaine” did not constitute plain error; viewed in context, the judge’s remarks were imprecise rhetoric rather than a factual misunderstanding.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024)
First to hold expressly that EEZ waters fall within the Felonies Clause “high seas.” Lopez-Padilla adopts Alfonso’s reasoning wholesale, signaling the doctrine’s entrenchment.
United States v. Lemus, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025)
Confirmed Congress’s freedom to define “stateless” vessels without deference to international law. The present case mirrors Lemus factually; its citation emphasizes stare decisis.
United States v. Cabezas-Montano, 949 F.3d 567 (11th Cir. 2020) & United States v. Rendon, 354 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2003)
Both rejected a “nexus” requirement. By reaffirming them, the panel forecloses future due-process challenges premised on territorial connection.
United States v. Hernandez, 864 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2017) & United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014)
Held that criminal defendants lack standing to litigate international-law compliance; only sovereign states may raise such claims. Lopez-Padilla deploys this rule to neutralize the “statelessness” argument.
United States v. Waters, 937 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2019)
Discussed “slip of the tongue” errors at sentencing. The court extends Waters to maritime-drug cases, finding no plain error.

2. Legal Reasoning

Felonies Clause Autonomy
The panel reiterates that Article I, § 8, cl. 10 empowers Congress to “define and punish” felonies “on the high Seas,” and that the text contains no implicit incorporation of customary international law. Thus, whether international norms regard EEZs as “high seas” is immaterial.
EEZ as High Seas
Relying on Alfonso, the court distinguishes between sovereignty (EEZ ≠ territorial sea) and jurisdiction (Felonies Clause reach). Because coastal states possess only resource-related rights in the EEZ, U.S. interdiction there does not infringe foreign sovereignty.
No Nexus Requirement
The MDLEA’s extraterritorial application is explicit (46 U.S.C. § 70503(b)), and Eleventh Circuit precedent dismisses any due-process nexus requirement. The panel refuses to re-examine that holding.
Stateless-Vessel Definition
Section 70502(d)(1)(C)—treating a vessel as without nationality if a claimed flag state “does not affirmatively and unequivocally assert” its registry—is upheld as a valid statutory rule that simplifies interdiction protocols. The court treats international law objections as non-justiciable under § 70505.
Sentencing Observations
Applying the plain-error framework, the panel finds no “clear” error affecting substantial rights: the Guideline range was correct, § 3553(a) factors were considered, and the remarks about “importing” cocaine did not underpin the chosen sentence.

3. Potential Impact

The decision’s influence will be felt in three principal areas:

Strategic Litigation: Defense counsel will face steeper odds raising Felonies Clause, nexus, or international-law challenges within the Eleventh Circuit. The panel’s repeated invocation of stare decisis signals dwindling receptivity to such arguments.
Operational Latitude for Coast Guard: By confirming jurisdiction in EEZs and broad “statelessness” definitions, the ruling effectively grants U.S. interdiction forces a larger lawful operating theatre without fear of judicial retrenchment.
Alignment with Other Circuits & Potential Supreme Court Review: Circuits are not uniform on EEZ scope; however, the Eleventh Circuit now has a consistent line (>5 cases) endorsing expansive Felonies Clause power. This divergence may, in time, precipitate Supreme Court clarification.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Felonies Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Permits Congress to define and punish “Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas.” It is a textual grant separate from the Offenses and Piracies Clauses.
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A maritime band extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state where that state enjoys sovereign rights over natural resources, but not full sovereignty. Under this judgment, the EEZ counts as “high seas.”
Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA): A federal statute criminalizing drug trafficking aboard vessels “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” expressly applying extraterritorially.
Vessel without Nationality: Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d), a vessel is “stateless” if (i) it displays no flag and lacks registration documents, (ii) its master makes no claim of nationality, or (iii) a claimed flag state fails promptly to confirm registry—this last scenario being central to Lopez-Padilla.
Plain Error Review: An appellate standard requiring the appellant to show (1) error, (2) that is clear or obvious, and (3) affects substantial rights; even then, the court remedies the error only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Conclusion

United States v. Lopez-Padilla does not chart new doctrinal territory so much as it fortifies a growing wall of Eleventh Circuit authority. By reaffirming that (1) EEZ waters qualify as “high seas,” (2) no nexus to U.S. territory is necessary, (3) Congress may define “stateless” vessels free of international-law constraints, and (4) minor misstatements at sentencing rarely constitute plain error, the court broadens federal power to combat maritime narcotics trafficking and narrows available defense strategies. Unless and until the Supreme Court intervenes, the Eleventh Circuit’s vision of a robust, geographically expansive Felonies Clause will continue to shape maritime interdictions and prosecutions in one of the nation’s busiest drug-trafficking corridors.