United States v. Fawaz Yunis, A/K/A Nazeeh

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
288 U.S. App. D.C. 129, 924 F.2d 1086 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute a foreign national under U.S. criminal statutes for acts of hostage-taking and air piracy committed outside the United States, provided there is a clear congressional intent for extraterritorial application, such as when U.S. nationals are victims. Such statutory jurisdiction overrides any conflicting norms of customary international law.

Facts:

On June 11, 1985, Fawaz Yunis and four others, armed with assault rifles and grenades, hijacked Royal Jordanian Airlines Flight 402 in Beirut, Lebanon.
The passengers, which included two American citizens, were held captive.
The hijackers stated their goal was the removal of all Palestinians from Lebanon and demanded to be flown to Tunis for a meeting with the Arab League.
After being denied landing in Tunis and making several stops, the plane returned to Beirut.
In Beirut, the hijackers released the passengers, held a press conference, blew up the airplane, and fled.
In September 1987, FBI agents, operating undercover in an operation codenamed 'Operation Goldenrod,' lured Yunis onto a yacht in the Mediterranean Sea with the promise of a drug deal.
Once the vessel entered international waters, FBI agents arrested Yunis.

Procedural Posture:

Fawaz Yunis was arrested by FBI agents and brought to Washington, D.C. for trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court.
A grand jury returned a superseding indictment charging Yunis with conspiracy, hostage taking, and air piracy, among other offenses.
Yunis filed several pretrial motions, including motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and to suppress statements he made while in custody.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The district court initially granted a motion to suppress Yunis's statements, but this order was reversed on an interlocutory appeal by the government to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (in a decision known as Yunis I).
A jury convicted Yunis of conspiracy, hostage taking, and air piracy, while acquitting him of other charges.
Yunis (as appellant) appealed his convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a U.S. federal court have subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute a foreign national under the Hostage Taking Act and the Antihijacking Act for crimes committed entirely outside the United States, when the defendant was forcibly brought to the U.S. for trial?

Opinions:

Majority - Mikva, Chief Judge

Yes, a U.S. federal court has jurisdiction. The court held that domestic statutes with clear congressional intent for extraterritorial application, such as the Hostage Taking Act and Antihijacking Act, establish jurisdiction even for crimes committed by foreign nationals abroad. The Hostage Taking Act's plain language provides independent bases for jurisdiction, including where a U.S. national is a victim, which was satisfied here. The court's duty is to enforce U.S. statutes, which supersede any conflicting customary international law. Regarding the Antihijacking Act's requirement that an offender be 'found in the United States,' the court interpreted this to mean merely being physically present in U.S. custody, regardless of whether that presence is voluntary. Since Yunis was under arrest in the U.S. on other charges, he was properly considered 'found' here for the purpose of the Antihijacking Act. Finally, the court upheld the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, stating that the court's power to try a person is not impaired by the fact that he was brought into the jurisdiction by forcible abduction, absent shocking conduct like torture.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that U.S. criminal law can have a significant extraterritorial reach, particularly in combating terrorism and protecting American citizens abroad. It firmly establishes that in a conflict between a clear U.S. statute and a norm of customary international law, the domestic statute prevails in U.S. courts. The case also strongly reaffirms the Ker-Frisbie doctrine, making it exceedingly difficult for defendants to challenge personal jurisdiction based on the method of their capture and rendition to the United States. This provides federal law enforcement with broad authority to apprehend international fugitives and bring them to justice in American courts.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Fawaz Yunis, A/K/A Nazeeh (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"