United States v. Yousef
750 F.3d 254
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Jamal Yousef, a foreign national, was indicted in the S.D.N.Y. for conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization based on an alleged arms-for-drugs scheme orchestrated in Honduras.
- After multiple superseding indictments and motions to dismiss (including claims the indictment lacked a U.S. nexus and that his transfer to the U.S. was improper), Yousef pled guilty unconditionally to one count under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B.
- Prior district-court rulings denied motions to dismiss; the court relied in part on allegations (and recorded conversations) suggesting the weapons were taken from a U.S. military arsenal and that Yousef believed he was supplying the FARC, a designated terrorist organization.
- Yousef appealed his conviction, arguing the indictment failed to allege the constitutionally required territorial nexus between his conduct and the United States, and that this nexus requirement is jurisdictional and therefore not waived by his guilty plea.
- The Second Circuit considered whether the territorial-nexus requirement implicates subject-matter jurisdiction (and thus survives a guilty plea) or is a non‑jurisdictional merits limitation that a guilty plea waives.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Due Process territorial-nexus requirement is subject-matter jurisdictional and thus not waived by a guilty plea | Yousef: nexus is jurisdictional; plea cannot waive the court's lack of power to hear extraterritorial conduct | Government: subject-matter jurisdiction is established by § 3231 and the indictment alleges statutory elements; nexus is a merits/limit on scope, waived by plea | The nexus requirement is not subject-matter jurisdictional; it is a merits limitation and was waived by Yousef's guilty plea |
| Whether the indictment charged a federal offense sufficient to confer § 3231 jurisdiction | Yousef: indictment did not sufficiently allege a U.S. territorial nexus | Government: the fourth superseding indictment plainly alleged all statutory elements of § 2339B, including knowledge of a designated organization and alleged material support (weapons) | The indictment alleged all statutory elements of the offense; § 3231 conferred subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether prior circuit decisions treating extraterritorial reach as jurisdictional control here | Yousef: prior Second Circuit language supports treating extraterritoriality as jurisdictional | Government: Supreme Court precedent (Morrison) and Cotton show extraterritorial reach is a merits question | Court: prior language was superseded by Supreme Court precedent; extraterritorial reach is a merits question, not jurisdictional |
| Whether any exception preserves Yousef's challenge post‑plea | Yousef: due process protects against arbitrary extraterritorial prosecutions and should survive plea | Government: no valid reason to doubt plea or court power; challenge waived | Court: due process nexus is a limitation on statutory reach but not within narrow subject-matter jurisdiction exceptions; challenge waived by unconditional guilty plea |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Al Kassar, 660 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2011) (discussed territorial-nexus requirement for extraterritorial application of criminal statutes)
- United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (earlier discussion of extraterritorial jurisdiction and nexus)
- Morrison v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (extraterritorial reach is a merits question, not subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002) (defects in an indictment that do not negate statutory elements do not deprive court of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 58 (1951) (§ 3231 confers jurisdiction to hear federal criminal offenses charged in an indictment)
- United States v. Rubin, 743 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2014) (narrow inquiry into whether indictment alleges statutory elements for § 3231 jurisdiction)
- Lamar v. United States, 240 U.S. 60 (1916) (distinguishing jurisdictional defects from merits issues in criminal prosecutions)