United States v. Yunis
681 F. Supp. 896, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1857, 1988 WL 20619 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A United States federal court may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over a foreign national for crimes of hostage-taking and aircraft piracy committed abroad under the universal and passive personality principles of international law, as well as under federal statutes explicitly extending jurisdiction when U.S. nationals are victims or when the offender is later found in the United States, regardless of how their presence was secured.
Facts:
- On June 11, 1985, Fawaz Yunis and several other men allegedly stormed Royal Jordanian Airlines Flight 402, a civilian aircraft, at the Beirut International Airport in Lebanon.
- The hijackers held approximately 50-60 passengers and crew hostage, a group which included three American nationals.
- Over a 30-hour period, the hijackers forced the aircraft to fly to various destinations around the Mediterranean Sea, including Cyprus and Sicily, but were denied landing rights in Tunisia and Syria.
- The aircraft's flight path was confined to the Middle East and Mediterranean; it never entered or flew over United States airspace, nor did it land on U.S. soil.
- On June 12, 1985, after returning to Beirut, the hijackers released all the hostages.
- Following the release of the hostages, Yunis allegedly held a press conference and read a political statement.
- The hijackers then destroyed the empty aircraft by blowing it up on the tarmac.
Procedural Posture:
- Fawaz Yunis was apprehended by United States agents in international waters and transported to the United States.
- On September 15, 1987, the United States charged Yunis in a multi-count indictment filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- After Yunis was physically present in the U.S., a superseding indictment was filed on October 1, 1987, adding four counts under the Destruction of Aircraft Act.
- Yunis filed a motion in the district court to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over crimes committed entirely outside of U.S. territory.
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 United States district court have subject matter jurisdiction to prosecute a foreign national for hostage-taking and aircraft piracy committed entirely outside the United States, aboard a foreign aircraft that never entered U.S. airspace, when several U.S. citizens were among the victims and the defendant was subsequently brought to the U.S. by government agents?
Opinions:
Majority - District Judge Barrington D. Parker
Yes. A United States district court has subject matter jurisdiction under both international law and domestic statutes. International law provides jurisdiction under the universal principle, which applies to heinous crimes like aircraft piracy and hostage-taking that are condemned by the world community, and the passive personality principle, which allows a state to prosecute offenses committed against its citizens abroad. The Hostage Taking Act (18 U.S.C. § 1203) explicitly grants extraterritorial jurisdiction when a U.S. national is taken hostage. Furthermore, the Destruction of Aircraft Act (18 U.S.C. § 32(b)) establishes jurisdiction over offenses against foreign aircraft when the offender is 'later found in the United States,' which applies even if the defendant was forcibly brought into the country. However, jurisdiction under § 32(a) of that same act, which requires a connection to 'foreign air commerce,' is improper because that term, as defined by the Federal Aviation Act, necessitates a territorial nexus to the U.S. that was absent in this case.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark decision affirming the broad extraterritorial reach of U.S. criminal law, particularly in the context of international terrorism. By endorsing jurisdiction based on the passive personality principle, the court solidified the government's authority to prosecute crimes committed against Americans anywhere in the world. The ruling's expansive interpretation of the phrase 'found in the United States' to include forcible abduction gives legal validation to proactive law enforcement operations to apprehend fugitives overseas. However, the court also imposed a meaningful limit on jurisdiction by narrowly construing 'foreign air commerce,' preventing an unchecked application of U.S. law to foreign flights with no direct connection to the U.S.
