A recent 5th Circuit decision, U.S. v. Posligua, 2025 WL 927324, No. 22-40393, (5th Cir. March 27, 2025), provides a nuanced look at whether judges must make a determination as to jurisdiction prior to taking certain actions (i.e. a change of plea) in MDLEA cases.
Posligua, an Ecuadorian fisherman, was interdicted by the Coast Guard on a “low-profile” vessel in international waters. The vessel lacked any identifying nationality markings and the passengers didn’t provide any documentation confirming their nationality. During right of approach questioning, Posligua claimed the vessel was Colombian, but Colombian authorities could neither confirm nor deny this assertion. As such, the vessel was treated as a vessel without nationality pursuant to 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(C).
After looking at current case law concerning subject matter jurisdiction for the MDLEA, including the Dávila-Reyes decision, the 5th Circuit ruled that under the MDLEA, subject matter jurisdiction exists if the vessel predicating the MDLEA charge is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And, as we all know, a vessel without nationality is an “international pariah” that doesn’t have a recognized right to navigate freely on the high seas; thus, it is subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Next the court aggressed the defendant’s argument that the district court’s failure to explicitly confirm its jurisdiction before accepting his guilty plea invalidated the proceedings. The 5th Circuit, while acknowledging the importance of a preliminary jurisdictional determination, rejected this interpretation:
“…the MDLEA makes clear that ‘[j]urisdictional issues … are preliminary questions of law to be determined solely by the trial judge,” and we have stated that this “preliminary determination … is a prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction.’ Of course, ‘[w]ithout jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all.’ But read in context, these statements do not support the contention that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over an MDLEA charge unless and until it expressly declares otherwise. Congress added the ‘preliminary questions of law’ language in 1996 to make clear that jurisdictional issues are ‘not issues of fact to be decided by the jury.’”
Posligua, 2025 WL 927324, at *5 (internal citations omitted and emphasis in original). The court clarified that the jurisdictional requirement does not necessitate a procedural formality, but rather it is a prerequisite in that the vessel in question must indeed be subject to U.S. jurisdiction:
“This preliminary determination is not a prerequisite to the court’s jurisdiction in the sense that the district court must complete some formalistic procedure before it is imbued with judicial power. Rather, it is a prerequisite in the sense that the vessel predicating an MDLEA charge must have been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for the district court to have subject matter jurisdiction over the charge. Whether the vessel was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not dependent on the timing of the district court’s determination.”
Posligua, 2025 WL 927324, at *5. The 5th Circuit went on to say that determining jurisdiction does not prevent the court from taking actions prior to that determination. In defendant’s case, the vessel’s statelessness placed it under U.S. jurisdiction, and the district court’s failure to make a formal determination prior to the change of plea hearing was harmless error because it did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. Posligua, 2025 WL 927324, at *6 (“…we see no basis for concluding that the outcome would have been any different if the district court had confirmed its jurisdiction before accepting Posligua’s plea and entering its judgment.”)
Take-away: While the MDLEA Blog typically addresses boarding teams, this decision offers valuable guidance for prosecutors and judges, which is best articulated by the 5th Circuit: “[p]ractically, a district court should and usually will ‘mak[e] the required jurisdictional determination’ before taking certain actions, typically at the Government’s request. Doing so enhances judicial efficiency by eliminating the need for us to order a limited remand ‘permit[ting] the district court to determine, in the first instance, whether it has jurisdiction.’” Posligua, 2025 WL 927324, at *5.
The full decision can be found here: 22-40393.1.