## Facts

- Charles Emmanuel, a U.S. citizen, was indicted in the Southern District of Florida under the federal Torture Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2340A, for alleged torture committed in Liberia between 1999 and 2003.
- The indictment relied on § 2340A’s jurisdictional provisions covering torture committed abroad when the offender is a U.S. national or is later present in the United States.
- Emmanuel allegedly exercised authority over Liberian security forces and allegedly participated in torturing a victim in custody to obtain information about opposition groups during Liberia’s civil conflict.
- Alleged acts included forcing the victim to hold scalding water and administering electric shocks, among other severe abuses.
- Emmanuel moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that § 2340A was unconstitutional (facially and as applied) and unconstitutionally vague.

## Issues

1. Whether Congress had constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. § 2340A to criminalize torture committed outside the United States by a U.S. national (or a person later present in the United States), as a means of implementing the Convention Against Torture.
2. Whether § 2340A and its definitional provisions in § 2340 are unconstitutionally vague on their face or as applied to the charged conduct.

## Decision

- The court denied Emmanuel’s motion to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held that § 2340A is a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to implement a valid treaty through the Necessary and Proper Clause.
- The court concluded that the statute’s extraterritorial reach, limited to U.S. nationals and persons later present in the United States, is a reasonable means of carrying out treaty obligations to criminalize torture and establish jurisdiction.
- The court rejected the facial and as-applied vagueness challenges, holding that the statutory definitions give adequate notice and constrain enforcement discretion.
- The court found the charged conduct to fall within the core meaning of “torture” as defined by the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may enact criminal legislation necessary and proper to implement obligations arising from a duly ratified treaty, including by defining offenses and establishing jurisdiction consistent with the treaty’s requirements.
- A statute is void for vagueness only if it fails to provide fair notice to ordinary persons or is so standardless that it permits seriously discriminatory enforcement.
- The Torture Act’s elements—specific intent to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering, custody or control over the victim, and action under color of law—provide limiting criteria that support constitutional clarity.
- Where the alleged conduct is plainly covered by the statutory definition, an as-applied vagueness challenge fails.

## Conclusion

The court sustained the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 2340A as treaty-implementing legislation and held that its definition of torture is sufficiently definite, allowing the prosecution to proceed on allegations of severe, intentional abuse committed under color of law abroad by a U.S. national.


United States v. Emmanuel, 2007 WL 2002452 (S.D. Fla. 2007)