## Facts

- Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was prosecuted in federal court for two sets of terrorist crimes: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a separate conspiracy to bomb twelve U.S. commercial airliners operating in Southeast Asia.
- The World Trade Center bombing involved a truck bomb detonated at the complex in New York City, killing six people and causing extensive damage; Yousef and Eyad Ismoil were tried for their involvement.
- The airliner conspiracy (often called the “Bojinka” plot) involved a plan for multiple conspirators to board aircraft on Southeast Asian routes, assemble bombs during flight, and exit at an initial layover; the targeted flights were bound for U.S. cities.
- The conspirators tested aspects of the method on other flights, including a flight traveling from the Philippines to Japan.
- Philippine authorities uncovered evidence after a fire started in an apartment used by Yousef and Abdul Hakim Murad; investigators found bomb components and a laptop containing planning materials.
- Murad and another conspirator were arrested in the Philippines; Yousef fled, was later apprehended, and extradited to the United States.
- In the Southern District of New York, Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy presided over two separate jury trials: one for the airliner conspiracy (Yousef and Murad among the defendants) and one for the World Trade Center bombing (Yousef and Ismoil).
- The juries returned guilty verdicts; sentences included life imprisonment and consecutive terms totaling 240 years for Yousef and Ismoil, and a life sentence for Murad.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts had statutory and treaty-based jurisdiction to try defendants in the United States for an overseas conspiracy to destroy U.S.-linked commercial aircraft.
2. Whether customary international law limited Congress’s power to criminalize extraterritorial conduct or required narrowing otherwise applicable federal statutes.
3. Whether prosecution and trial procedures violated due process or other fair-trial guarantees, including claims related to evidentiary rulings and joinder/severance.
4. Whether the extremely lengthy, consecutive sentences violated the Eighth Amendment or otherwise exceeded lawful sentencing authority.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences in all material respects.
- It held that federal statutes covering destruction or attempted destruction of aircraft within the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States provided jurisdiction over the substantive aviation offenses and, by extension, jurisdiction over related conspiracy charges.
- It concluded the prosecution was consistent with, and supported by, U.S. treaty obligations addressing unlawful acts against civil aviation, including the Montreal Convention as implemented in U.S. law.
- It rejected the contention that customary international law displaced or overrode otherwise valid federal statutes; where Congress has spoken clearly, federal statutes control.
- It found no due process or fair-trial violation from trying defendants in the United States given the substantial connection between the charged conduct and U.S. interests, and found no reversible error in challenged trial management decisions.
- It upheld the sentences, concluding the aggregate terms and consecutive structure did not violate the Eighth Amendment given the gravity and intended mass-casualty nature of the offenses.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts may exercise criminal jurisdiction over extraterritorial conduct when Congress has provided a statutory basis and the charged conduct has a substantial U.S. nexus, including direct targeting of U.S.-linked aircraft and U.S. destinations.
- Where a federal court has jurisdiction over substantive extraterritorial offenses, it may exercise jurisdiction over related conspiracy charges derived from those substantive crimes.
- Aviation security treaties and their implementing legislation can support and confirm U.S. jurisdiction over offenses threatening civil aviation, including offenses planned abroad but aimed at U.S.-linked aircraft operations.
- Customary international law operates chiefly as an interpretive principle; it does not negate the application of a federal criminal statute when congressional intent is clear.
- Due process is satisfied where defendants could reasonably foresee being prosecuted in the United States because their conduct intentionally targeted U.S. interests.
- Extremely severe and consecutive sentences for terrorism offenses may be constitutional under the Eighth Amendment when proportionate to the seriousness and risk of mass harm.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit sustained terrorism convictions arising from the World Trade Center bombing and an overseas airliner-bombing conspiracy, holding that federal statutes and aviation treaties supported extraterritorial jurisdiction, customary international law did not override clear U.S. law, the trials were constitutionally fair, and the severe consecutive sentences were lawful.


United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003)