James v. Hanley

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting the strength USCA11 Case: 25-12999 Document: 33-1 Date Filed: 06/22/2026 Page: 3 of 3 25-12999 Opinion of the Court 3 of this Court’s prior-panel precedent rule
• reaffirming Alfonso’s holding that Congress was not constrained by international law in crafting the MDLEA, and rejecting the appellant’s argument that Congress could not reach his conduct because it occurred in an EEZ
• “[W]e reject [appellants’] contention that Congress was constrained by international law in crafting its defi- nition of a stateless vessel or in defining the boundaries of the high seas.”
• “[W]e reject [appellants’] contention that Congress was constrained by international law in crafting its definition of a state- less vessel or in defining the boundaries of the high seas.”
• “[W]e reject [appellants’] contention that Congress was constrained by interna- tional law in crafting its definition of a stateless vessel or in defining the boundaries of the high seas.”
• “[W]e reject [appellants’] contention that Congress was constrained by in- ternational law in crafting its definition of a stateless vessel or in defining the boundaries of the high seas.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).