USA v. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

Emmanuel also challenges his Torture Act convictions on the ground that
the Torture Act does not apply to the extraterritorial conduct of a United States
citizen. He is, once again, incorrect, because Congress has the power to regulate
extraterritorial conduct, and the requisite expression of congressional intent to do
so is found in the Torture Act.
It has long been established that Congress has the power to regulate the
extraterritorial acts of U.S. citizens. United States v. Plummer, 221 F.3d 1298,
1304 (11th Cir. 2000); see also United States v. Baker, 609 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir.
5
1980) (noting that “[s]ince an early date, it has been recognized that Congress may
attach extraterritorial effect to its penal enactments,” and that “a nation’s ‘power to
secure itself from injury may certainly be exercised beyond the limits of its
territory.’” (quoting Church v. Hubbart, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 187, 234 (1804)
(Marshall, C.J.)). As we have explained, however,
[w]hether Congress has chosen to exercise that authority . . . is an
issue of statutory construction. It is a longstanding principle of
American law that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent
appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the
United States.
Neiman v. DryClean U.S.A. Franchise Co., 178 F.3d 1126, 1129 (11th Cir. 1999)
5
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we
adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered before the close
of business on September 30, 1981.
44