## Facts

- Jerry D. Mitchell, a U.S. citizen, captured 21 Atlantic bottlenose dolphins in 1974 within the three-mile territorial sea of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas.
- Mitchell conducted the captures while working for the owner of a Bahamian marine attraction and held a Bahamian work permit authorizing the activity.
- The dolphins were taken for use in Nassau, Bahamas, with plans that some might later be exported to Great Britain.
- None of the dolphins were imported into the United States.
- Before the captures, U.S. officials cautioned Mitchell that the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) moratorium prohibited U.S. citizens from taking marine mammals and advised him to seek legal guidance.
- The United States prosecuted Mitchell in federal district court for criminal violations of the MMPA and implementing regulations, based solely on the foreign-territorial takings.

## Issues

1. Whether the MMPA’s criminal prohibitions on the “taking” of marine mammals apply to a U.S. citizen’s conduct occurring wholly within the territorial waters of a foreign sovereign.
2. Whether an implementing regulation could extend the MMPA’s criminal reach to takings in foreign territorial seas without a clear statutory statement authorizing such extraterritorial application.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the conviction.
- The court held that the MMPA’s criminal prohibitions did not reach conduct occurring in the territorial waters of a foreign sovereign.
- The court rejected reliance on agency regulations to expand criminal jurisdiction beyond what Congress clearly authorized.
- The judgment of conviction was vacated because Mitchell’s dolphin captures occurred in Bahamian territorial waters under Bahamian authorization and involved no U.S. importation.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal statutes are presumed not to apply extraterritorially unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to do so.
- General statutory purposes favoring broad conservation goals do not, without clear text, overcome the presumption against applying U.S. criminal law within another nation’s territorial sea.
- Courts construe ambiguous statutes to avoid unnecessary conflict with foreign sovereignty and principles of international comity.
- An agency regulation cannot, by itself, expand the geographic scope of criminal liability beyond the limits authorized by Congress.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit concluded that, absent an unmistakable congressional statement, the MMPA’s criminal moratorium could not be applied to a U.S. citizen’s taking of dolphins within Bahamian territorial waters, and an implementing regulation could not supply the missing authorization for such foreign-territorial criminal enforcement.


United States v. Mitchell, 553 F.2d 996 (5th Cir. 1977)