“High-Seas” Jurisdiction Embraces the Exclusive Economic Zone:
A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Jose Junior Bailon Franco (11th Cir. 2025)

1. Introduction

United States v. Jose Junior Bailon Franco, decided together with the appeals of Nilson Olaya Grueso and Luis Alberto Quijije Mero (collectively, “the Defendants”), represents the Eleventh Circuit’s latest and most unequivocal statement that the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) validly applies in a coastal State’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and that Congress may classify “vessels without nationality” more broadly than customary international law might otherwise permit. The Court’s holding—reaffirming and extending the recent panels 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)—cements a powerful doctrine: the Felonies Clause need not be tethered to evolving international norms, and a drug-trafficking vessel in an EEZ may be treated as if on the “high seas” for U.S. criminal jurisdiction.

The Defendants—foreign nationals apprehended 140 nautical miles west of Manta, Ecuador—challenged the constitutionality of the MDLEA on multiple grounds. They argued that (1) Congress exceeded its authority in defining stateless vessels, (2) the EEZ is not “high seas,” and (3) due process requires a domestic nexus before the United States may prosecute foreign nationals. The Eleventh Circuit, applying its own burgeoning jurisprudence, rejected each contention and affirmed the convictions.

2. Summary of the Judgment

In a brief, unanimous per curiam opinion, the panel (Judges Jordan, Luck, and Kidd) held as follows:

• Consistent with Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar, Congress’s power under the Felonies Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 10) is not constrained by customary international law; therefore, Congress may criminalize conduct in a foreign EEZ.
• The MDLEA’s definition of a “vessel without nationality,” 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C), which captures a vessel whose claimed flag State “cannot confirm or deny” registration, is constitutional even if it sweeps more broadly than the international-law concept of statelessness.
• Due-process challenges premised on the absence of a U.S. nexus are foreclosed by circuit precedent because the MDLEA rests on universal and protective principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction.
• Accordingly, the district court correctly denied the Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the guilty pleas and sentences stand.

3. Analysis

a. Precedents Cited

The panel relied heavily on a trilogy of Eleventh Circuit cases, each progressively expanding MDLEA reach:

• United States v. Alfonso, 104 F.4th 815 (11th Cir. 2024) – First square holding that a coastal State’s EEZ is part of the “high seas” for Felonies-Clause purposes. It decoupled constitutional interpretation from modern international-law distinctions.
• United States v. Canario-Vilomar, 128 F.4th 1374 (11th Cir. 2025) – Confirmed Alfonso and tackled three additional arguments: (i) the ultra vires claim about stateless-vessel definitions, (ii) the due-process nexus challenge, and (iii) the incompatibility with international law. The Bailon Franco panel treated it as controlling.
• United States v. Campbell, 743 F.3d 802 (11th Cir. 2014) – Earlier authority holding that MDLEA offenses require no nexus to the United States.

Other supporting citations—Iguaran, Cabezas-Montano, White, and Lee—reinforced standards of review and the “prior-precedent rule.”

b. Legal Reasoning

1. Constitutional Authority under the Felonies Clause
   The panel re-echoed Alfonso that the Founders’ concept of “high seas” encompassed all waters beyond a coastal nation’s territorial sea (traditionally three nautical miles, now twelve). An EEZ, though granting resource rights to the coastal State, remains outside its territorial sovereignty, making it constitutionally equivalent to the high seas. Thus, Congress may legislate criminal jurisdiction there.
2. Stateless-Vessel Definition
   Section 70502(d)(1)(C) classifies a vessel as “without nationality” when its claimed flag State neither confirms nor denies registry. The defendants invoked international law, which would treat such a vessel as of “undetermined” rather than “stateless” status. The Eleventh Circuit, however, held that Congress may adopt a broader domestic definition to serve enforcement needs; international law does not limit congressional power in this sphere.
3. Due Process and Nexus
   Even assuming “foreign defendants, foreign waters, no U.S. destination,” MDLEA prosecutions satisfy due process under the “universal” (piracy-like) and “protective” (threat to national security) principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Prior MDLEA cases treat high-volume drug trafficking as an offense subject to universal repression.
4. Stare Decisis Application
   Under the Eleventh Circuit’s prior-precedent rule, panels are bound by earlier panel decisions that directly address the issue. Because Alfonso and Canario-Vilomar were on point and not overruled by the Supreme Court or the court sitting en banc, the panel could not revisit the underlying merits even if it doubted them.

c. Impact of the Decision

• Broader Prosecutorial Reach: The ruling fortifies DOJ and Coast Guard authority to interdict and prosecute drug traffickers intercepted anywhere within 200 nautical miles of most coastlines, so long as the vessel is “stateless” (using the MDLEA’s expansive definition).
• Reduced Litigation over International Law: By declaring that customary international law does not cabin the Felonies Clause, the Eleventh Circuit minimizes future arguments that international norms circumscribe Congress’s maritime jurisdiction.
• Potential Circuit Split: Other circuits (notably the Ninth) tread more carefully with international-law constraints. If those courts refuse to equate the EEZ with the high seas, a split could invite Supreme Court review.
• Flag-State Diplomacy Concerns: Under § 70502(d)(1)(C) the burden effectively shifts to the asserted flag State to respond promptly or risk U.S. enforcement. Coastal States may perceive this as pressure and could adjust registry procedures.
• Drug-Interdiction Strategy: The Coast Guard can treat equivocal flag claims as void, board instantly, and proceed with U.S. prosecutions, streamlining operations. Traffickers lose the tactical advantage of claiming a flag within an EEZ to evade U.S. law.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Felonies Clause (Art. I, § 8, cl. 10): Gives Congress power to define and punish three categories of offenses: piracy, felonies on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations. Think of it as Congress’s maritime criminal-law authority.
• Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ): A belt of ocean extending up to 200 nm from a coastal State’s baseline, where the State has sovereign rights over natural resources but not full sovereignty as on land or in territorial seas.
• Stateless (or “vessel without nationality”): A ship that flies no flag, has no valid registration, or whose claimed flag State disavows or cannot confirm its registry. Such vessels have no legal protection from boarding by any State.
• Universal & Protective Principles: Doctrines of international law allowing any nation to prosecute certain egregious crimes (universal) or offenses threatening its security (protective) even absent a territorial or nationality nexus.
• Prior-Precedent Rule: Eleventh Circuit doctrine requiring a three-judge panel to follow earlier panel decisions on the same legal question unless overruled by the en banc court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

5. Conclusion

United States v. Jose Junior Bailon Franco confirms and entrenches a significant expansion of U.S. maritime drug-enforcement jurisdiction. By treating a foreign EEZ as part of the “high seas” and sustaining an aggressive definition of stateless vessels, the Eleventh Circuit removes two of the most common defenses raised in MDLEA prosecutions. The opinion underscores that congressional power under the Felonies Clause stands independent of contemporary shifts in international law and renders a nexus to the United States unnecessary.

Practitioners should anticipate fewer successful jurisdictional challenges in MDLEA cases within the Eleventh Circuit and should watch for potential inter-circuit tension that may ultimately prompt Supreme Court clarification. For now, the rule is clear: if a drug-laden vessel operates beyond the territorial sea, lacks confirmed nationality, and is intercepted by U.S. agents, federal courts within the Eleventh Circuit will almost certainly have criminal jurisdiction.