Enacted through congress, the MDLEA establishes that it is illegal for anyone on board a vessel belonging to the United States or within their jurisdiction to deliberately produce or disseminate psychotropic substances.

[3] The United States, in an effort to control these drug-related crimes, implemented a series of acts which focus on the reduction of both supply and demand.

Such acts have been accomplished via the creation of bilateral maritime agreements, allowing the United States to enforce U.S. law against vessels of foreign registry.

Additionally, in other cases individuals were able to escape liability by remaining in international waters and transferring drugs into small speed boats that were not as easy to catch.

In 1986 the United States found it imperative to implement this legislation in an effort to overcome the problems of law enforcement and jurisdiction over international waters.

[8] This case concerned a number of defendants who on April 14, 2015, were found attempting to smuggle 550 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from Columbia and Ecuador.

On July 5, 2017, Defendant Sanchez's motion to dismiss charges under the MDLEA was denied by the Southern District of New York for a lack of jurisdiction.

[10] However, Sanchez proposed that, although within the MDLEA conspirators can be prosecuted, that conspiracy provisions only reach individuals operating within the United States or on board the vessel.

[2] This case, settled in 2002, concerned Defendant Nestor Suerte, a Philippine citizen residing in Colombia who captained a Malta registered freight ship property of an infamous Venezuelan/Colombian drug trafficking ring.

[13] Relying on two former cases to support its reasoning, the D.C. court upheld that individual conspirators, regardless of whether they are operating "on board" a vessel or in a foreign country can be prosecuted under the MDLEA.

The Carvajal case thus became notable for the court's controversial analysis due to their lack of consideration when resolving issues surrounding the application of conspiracy clauses.

The courts of appeals are undecided on whether applying the MDLEA to a defendant that has no connection to the United States and who was seized on international or foreign waters is unfair and inconsistent with the normal judicial system.

[15] By extending the statute to reach these foreign conspirators, the United States is depriving offenders the opportunity of due process, a suitable forum, and correct notice.

[15] Historically, cases regarding the MDLEA have lacked consistency in determining whether a nexus is required for the United States to apply extraterritorial jurisdiction.