United States v. Yimmi Bellaizac-Hurtado
700 F.3d 1245
11th Cir.2012Background
- MDLEA challenged as applied to conduct abroad under the Offences Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 10).
- Coast Guard observed Panamanian-flag vessel in Panamanian waters; vessel carried approximately 760 kg of cocaine.
- Panamanian authorities arrested the defendants; Panama consented to U.S. prosecution.
- Indictment for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine aboard a vessel subject to U.S. jurisdiction; motions to dismiss based on jurisdiction and constitutionality.
- District court denied the motion; defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy; sentences imposed.
- Appeals consolidated; central issue is whether Congress may proscribe drug trafficking in foreign territorial waters under the Offences Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offences Clause scope limited by customary international law | Government: Offences Clause allows defining/punishing offenses against Law of Nations. | Bellaizac-Hurtado: conduct not an offense against the Law of Nations. | Limited by customary international law; not all conduct can be punished. |
| Offences Against the Law of Nations equals customary international law | Government: Law of Nations = customary international law. | Bellaizac-Hurtado: limits should apply. | Yes; the phrase is synonymous with customary international law. |
| Whether drug trafficking was a founding-era or current customary international-law violation | Government: drug trafficking may violate customary international law today. | Bellaizac-Hurtado: not a founding-era or current norm. | Not a violation at founding or today. |
| Whether universal jurisdiction could authorize such prosecutions | Government: drug trafficking condemned universally justifies universal jurisdiction. | Bellaizac-Hurtado: no universal-jurisdiction basis for this conduct. | No universal jurisdiction basis; MDLEA unconstitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Smith, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 153 (Supreme Court 1820) (Offences Clause limited to preexisting law of nations; defines, not creates.)
- Furlong, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 184 (Supreme Court 1820) (Piracy definition and high seas jurisdiction discussed.)
- Arjona, 120 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court 1887) (Whether an offense is against the law of nations depends on the conduct.)
- Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1942) (Founding-era view of offenses against the law of nations.)
- Flores v. S. Peru Copper Corp., 414 F.3d 233 (2d Cir. 2003) (Customary international law requires state practice and opinio juris.)
- Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (Supreme Court 2004) (Treats law-of-nations concepts in context of customary international law.)
- United States v. Saac, 632 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir. 2011) (Discussed extraterritorial drug-law authority under high seas clause.)
- Lopez v. United States, 514 U.S. 549 (Supreme Court 1995) (Enumerated powers and limits on federal authority.)