The Extraterritorial High-Seas Jurisdiction Principle Under the MDLEA

Introduction

United States v. Yeiner Herrera-Barroz, No. 24-10149 (11th Cir. Apr. 28, 2025), addresses the U.S. government’s authority to prosecute foreign nationals for drug-trafficking offenses committed on the high seas under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). The appellants—Yeiner Herrera-Barroz, Gustavo Rafael Brito-Fernandez, and Saul Emmanuel Becerra-Astudillo—were each convicted in the Southern District of Florida for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction. They challenged: (1) whether the MDLEA applies to conduct occurring in Colombia’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which they argue is not “high seas” under international law; (2) whether the statutory definition of “vessel without nationality” sweeps too broadly; and (3) whether the MDLEA violates due process by imposing jurisdiction absent any nexus to the United States. The Eleventh Circuit, relying on binding precedent, summarily affirmed the convictions.

Summary of the Judgment

The court granted the government’s motion for summary affirmance under Groendyke Transportation, Inc. v. Davis, concluding that the appellants’ challenges were foreclosed by prior Eleventh Circuit decisions. Key holdings:

Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) are part of the “high seas” for purposes of the Felonies Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution.
Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause is not limited by international law’s definition of high seas.
The MDLEA’s definition of a “vessel without nationality” under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B) applies when a vessel’s master fails to claim nationality on demand.
No due-process nexus to the United States is required because universal and protective jurisdictional principles support the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach.

Accordingly, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of the jurisdictional challenges and upheld the convictions.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024): Held that the MDLEA is a valid exercise of Congress’s Felonies-Clause power, that international law does not constrain the Felonies Clause, and that a nation’s EEZ counts as “high seas.”
United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025): Reaffirmed Alfonso, rejecting challenges to MDLEA jurisdiction over seizures in EEZs off Panama and Colombia. Held that prior-panel precedent binds subsequent panels absent en banc reversal or Supreme Court guidance.
United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014): Recognized that the MDLEA’s extra-territorial jurisdiction needs no nexus to U.S. territory or citizens, relying on universal and protective jurisdiction doctrines.
Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158 (5th Cir. 1969): Established the summary-affirmance mechanism when one party’s position is “clearly right as a matter of law.”

Legal Reasoning

The panel’s reasoning proceeded in three main steps:

Constitutional Authority under the Felonies Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress power to define and punish “Felonies committed on the high Seas.” The court held that this clause is not bound by international law’s geographic limitations on the high seas; rather, Congress may extend federal criminal jurisdiction to any waters it deems part of the high seas for constitutional purposes, including EEZs.
Definition of “Vessel Without Nationality”: The MDLEA defines a covered vessel as one “without nationality,” which includes any vessel whose master fails to claim nationality when asked by U.S. enforcement officers (46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B)). Brito-Fernandez and Becerra-Astudillo challenged the related provision for vessels whose claimed flag state does not affirmatively assert nationality, but their cases hinged solely on the “failure to claim nationality” ground. Thus, the challenge was moot and properly dismissed as frivolous.
Due Process and the Nexus Requirement: Relying on Campbell, Alfonso, and Canario-Vilomar, the court reaffirmed that the MDLEA’s extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign nationals does not violate due process because the offenses are governed by universal (e.g., piracy, drug-trafficking) and protective (e.g., safeguarding U.S. maritime interests) principles of international law.

Impact

This decision cements the Eleventh Circuit’s framework for MDLEA jurisdiction:

It confirms that EEZs—despite coastal states’ resource rights—are within the constitutional concept of “high seas” for purposes of felony prosecutions under Article I.
It underscores that statutory definitions of vessel nationality that rely on the vessel master’s failure to claim a flag admit no as-applied challenge where that ground alone triggers coverage.
It forecloses further due-process challenges to the MDLEA’s extraterritorial reach in this circuit, absent en banc or Supreme Court reversal.

Future defendants seized in EEZs off any coast and prosecuted under MDLEA will find this line of authority difficult to evade. The decision also signals to Congress that existing statutory language is constitutionally firm, leaving any legislative refinements—such as adding nexus requirements—to congressional prerogative.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A 200-mile coastal belt where a state has rights to resources but not full sovereignty. Under U.S. constitutional law, EEZs are treated as part of the “high seas” for felony prosecutions.
High Seas: Waters beyond any national territorial sea (generally beyond 12 nautical miles). For MDLEA purposes, EEZs are included in the high seas definition.
Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA): Federal statute (46 U.S.C. §§ 70501–70508) criminalizing drug offenses on vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction, including stateless vessels and those failing to claim nationality.
Universal Jurisdiction: The principle that certain crimes (e.g., piracy, drug-trafficking) may be prosecuted by any nation, regardless of where they occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.
Protective Jurisdiction: The principle allowing a state to legislate and prosecute extraterritorial conduct that threatens its security or governmental functions, such as smuggling into or through its ports.
Felonies Clause: Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the U.S. Constitution, granting Congress power to define and punish felonies on the high seas.

Conclusion

United States v. Yeiner Herrera-Barroz reaffirms the Eleventh Circuit’s commitment to broad federal maritime jurisdiction under the MDLEA. By treating EEZs as high seas, upholding the statutory definition of stateless vessels, and rejecting nexus-based due-process constraints, the court has solidified a uniform rule for prosecuting international drug-trafficking conspiracies at sea. This decision not only binds future Eleventh Circuit panels but also serves as persuasive authority in other jurisdictions grappling with MDLEA challenges. In the broader legal landscape, it underscores the enduring strength of extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction when backed by clear constitutional authority and recognized principles of international law.