The United States’ assertion of jurisdiction in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) raises profound legal and constitutional questions. The U.S. has sought to extend its criminal enforcement, particularly in drug interdiction, under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), beyond its territorial boundaries. However, this expansion of authority confronts substantial challenges under both the U.S. Constitution and international law. The core issue is whether Congress has the power to regulate conduct in EEZs under the Felonies Clause of Article I, Section 8, which permits Congress to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
EEZs, established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), extend 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline, giving states sovereign rights over natural resources but leaving navigation rights to other states. The United States, despite not ratifying UNCLOS, has adopted its provisions as customary international law, yet this raises an inherent contradiction: EEZs are not the “high seas” under international law, and thus, the constitutional basis for U.S. jurisdiction in these waters becomes dubious.
Opponents of the MDLEA’s extraterritorial application argue that EEZs, by definition, fall outside the scope of the high seas, meaning Congress cannot claim the authority to regulate criminal conduct there under the Felonies Clause. They invoke the historical intent of the Constitution, which presumably did not anticipate the creation of EEZs or the broader interpretations of sovereignty and jurisdiction that have emerged in modern international law.
Critics also highlight the MDLEA’s overreach, pointing to the prosecution of foreign nationals whose conduct bears no significant connection to the United States. This extraterritoriality challenges basic principles of due process, international comity, and jurisdictional limits. The statute’s reliance on ambiguous definitions, such as “stateless vessels,” further expands U.S. authority without firm grounding in either constitutional or international norms.
The government, however, contends that “high seas” should be interpreted as it was understood at the time of the Constitution’s framing—encompassing all waters beyond the immediate territorial sea. Furthermore, courts have supported the U.S. government’s position by invoking the protective principle of international law, which allows states to exercise jurisdiction over conduct threatening their security, even when such conduct occurs beyond their borders.
Yet the growing dissent among circuits, such as in United States v. Davila-Reyes, underscores that the constitutional grounding for such extraterritorial prosecutions is not secure. The First Circuit, in an exhaustive historical analysis, questioned whether the Felonies Clause could be stretched to cover modern EEZ prosecutions, suggesting that Congress’s power may indeed be limited by evolving international law definitions.
The legal complexities of this issue are not merely academic. They directly impact the fairness and reach of U.S. criminal law, as well as its adherence to international legal norms. Defendants prosecuted under the MDLEA face lengthy sentences for conduct that may have no clear nexus to the United States, raising profound questions about the limits of U.S. power in a globalized world.
Ultimately, resolution may come from the Supreme Court, but Congress could also intervene by revisiting the MDLEA’s scope, tethering U.S. jurisdiction more closely to conduct with a demonstrable U.S. interest. Alternatively, diplomatic engagement, including possible ratification of UNCLOS, could resolve these tensions and clarify the U.S.’s obligations under international law.
In short, the question of jurisdiction in EEZs encapsulates broader constitutional dilemmas about the reach of U.S. law in an interconnected world, where national borders and traditional notions of sovereignty increasingly intersect with global crime and enforcement efforts. This unresolved tension between domestic constitutional constraints and international legal principles promises to fuel litigation and debate for years to come.