In this episode of The Rule of Law Brief, Nate Charles examines one of the most uncomfortable fault lines in U.S. law: the disconnect between domestic criminal jurisdiction and international legality.
Drawing on Supreme Court precedent stretching back to the late nineteenth century—including Ker v. Illinois and the Hatfields-and-McCoys case, Mahon v. Justice—Nate explains why U.S. courts have historically refused to dismiss criminal cases simply because a defendant was seized unlawfully.
He makes clear that he does not support Trump administration policy toward Venezuela and is not defending the wisdom of any hypothetical arrest of Nicolás Maduro. Instead, he walks through how U.S. criminal law has actually been applied in practice, particularly in the national-security context.
The episode also addresses:
* The origins of the Ker–Frisbie doctrine
* The Hatfields–McCoys feud as a foundational jurisdictional case
* Why forcible abduction can violate international law yet still leave a U.S. prosecution intact
* The role of U.S. Special Operations Forces in overseas captures
* Why post-9/11 courts have generally declined to scrutinize how defendants are brought into custody
* Why the doctrine is historically contingent, contested, and increasingly difficult to defend
This is not an endorsement of policy. It is an explanation of power, law, and institutional reality.
Clear analysis. No spin.
If you want to understand how U.S. law actually operates—especially where criminal law, national security, and international law collide—subscribe to The Rule of Law Brief for concise, unsparing legal commentary on the issues that matter.
