Whether proof of jurisdictional facts is an element of an MDLEA offense

Questions Presented Petitioner Yency Nunez and the government agree that, although the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act makes proof of jurisdictional facts indispensable to a conviction, the record of Nufiez’s MDLEA prosecution does not establish those facts. Under this Court’s repeated holding that all facts (other than a prior conviction) necessary to a conviction are elements, Nufez’s conviction must be vacated. The Eleventh Circuit, however, affirmed the district court’s denial of Nufiez’s motion for vacatur. It reasoned that the circuit’s “prior panel rule” compelled adherence to a 2002 circuit case, repudiated by other circuits, which held that the missing proof, despite being indispensable to the conviction, does not pertain to an offense element. The panel disregarded Nufiez’s arguments without analysis because the court’s prior panel rule precludes any argument challenging circuit precedent, even precedent that conflicts with this Court’s constitutional holdings. The panel further held that the rule likewise “foreclosed” Nufiez’s novel arguments challenging the rule itself. The federal circuit courts are divided on these two important issues: I. Given that it is undisputed that proof of jurisdictional facts is indispensable to an MDLEA conviction, does such proof pertain to an element of an MDLEA offense? Il. Does the Eleventh Circuit’s “prior panel rule” (A) deny appellants due process of law on appeal by precluding all challenges to circuit precedent, even those raising well supported arguments never before considered or (B) violate Article III and the Due Process Clause by giving Supreme Court precedent unduly narrow scope and requiring circuit judges to stifle their independent judgment of an appeal’s merits and defer to an earlier panel’s holding, even when that precedent conflicts with this Court’s holdings? i