Baston v. United States
137 S. Ct. 850
| SCOTUS | 2017Background
- Damion St. Patrick Baston, a Jamaican national, was convicted under 18 U.S.C. §1591 for sex trafficking of K.L., an Australian citizen, based on conduct in Australia, the UAE, and the U.S. and was prosecuted in the Southern District of Florida.
- Section 1591 requires that the trafficking “affec[t] interstate or foreign commerce,” and §1596(a)(2) provides extraterritorial jurisdiction when the alleged offender is present in the U.S.
- At sentencing the district court ordered $78,000 in restitution for earnings K.L. received while prostituting in the U.S., but refused to include ~$400,000 she earned in Australia, concluding the Foreign Commerce Clause did not authorize extraterritorial restitution.
- The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, instructing the district court to include the $400,000, reasoning that the Foreign Commerce Clause (as courts have read it) permits regulation of foreign activity that substantially affects commerce between the U.S. and other nations.
- Justice Thomas dissented from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Supreme Court should grant review to clarify limits on Congress’s power under the Foreign Commerce Clause and criticizing lower courts for importing modern Interstate Commerce Clause doctrine abroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1591/§1593 restitution can include victim earnings from conduct wholly abroad (Australia) | Baston: Congress granted extraterritorial jurisdiction (§1596) and the offense affects foreign commerce, so restitution may include foreign earnings | Government/Eleventh Circuit: Foreign Commerce Clause permits Congress to regulate foreign activity that substantially affects U.S. foreign commerce; restitution for Australian earnings is authorized | Eleventh Circuit: Remanded to include the $400,000; Supreme Court denied certiorari (Thomas dissented urging review) |
| Proper scope of the Foreign Commerce Clause for conduct inside foreign sovereign territory | Baston/Government: Modern commerce precedents apply; substantial-effect test justifies extraterritorial reach | Thomas (dissent): Modern substantial-effects approach is unmoored from original understanding; cannot justify virtually plenary extraterritorial power | Denial of certiorari left the Eleventh Circuit rule intact; Thomas urged the Court to clarify limits on extraterritorial reach |
| Whether modern Interstate Commerce Clause doctrine should be imported to foreign context | Baston/Government: Yes — courts have analogized interstate commerce precedents to foreign commerce | Thomas: No — those precedents have drifted from original meaning and aren't dispositive for extraterritorial regulation of foreign conduct | Lower courts continue to apply interstate precedents abroad; Court declined to resolve tension |
| Practical limits on Congress’s power under Foreign Commerce Clause | Baston/Government: A rational basis that activity substantially affects foreign commerce suffices | Thomas: That test would allow regulation of virtually any global economic activity, which is unacceptable | Issue unresolved by Supreme Court; Thomas warned against expansive extraterritorial reach |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (discusses substantial-effects test under Commerce Clause)
- United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (limits Congress’s Commerce Clause power to three categories)
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ill. v. United States, 289 U.S. 48 (describes foreign commerce power as plenary in certain contexts)
- Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U.S. 427 (observes foreign-commerce power may be broader than interstate power in some settings)
- Japan Line, Ltd. v. County of Los Angeles, 441 U.S. 434 (addresses dormant Foreign Commerce Clause limits on states)
- United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (criticizes broad substantial-effects test; originalist concerns)
- Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (foundational Commerce Clause precedent cited for plenary foreign commerce power)
- Brolan v. United States, 236 U.S. 216 (earlier case referenced concerning foreign-commerce scope)
- United States v. Bollinger, 798 F.3d 201 (Fourth Circuit discussion of applying Lopez categories in foreign context)