Whether the three ways to identify nationless vessels enumerated in 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1) are exhaustive

QUESTION PRESENTED The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act authorizes the United States to prosecute certain drug crimes committed aboard a “covered vessel.” 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a). One way the government can prove that a vessel is “covered” and thus subject to the Act is by showing that the vessel is “without nationality, ”or nationless. Id. § 70502(d)(1). The Act specifies three scenarios in which a vessel can be classified as nationless. Id. In two of the scenarios, the master or individual in charge of the vessel must affirmatively claim nationality (which can be done in one of three ways), and the nation being claimed must then deny or fail to corroborate the claim. Id. §§ 70502(d)(1)(A) & (C), 70502(e). The third and final scenario arises when the master or individual in charge fails to make a claim of nationality in response to an officer’s “request” for such a claim to be made. Id. § 70502(d)(1)(B). The Second Circuit holds that those three enumerated ways of establishing jurisdiction are exhaustive. Thus, if nobody on the vessel makes a claim of nationality or registry and federal law enforcement officers don’t ask for one, the prosecution cannot establish jurisdiction. But the Eleventh Circuit here “reached the opposite conclusion,” App. 17a, joining the First and Third Circuits in holding that the three enumerated scenarios are merely examples. In those courts’ view, customary international law provides the jurisdictional test. The question presented is whether the three ways to identify nationless vessels enumerated in § 70502(d)(1) are exhaustive.