Bans on Travel

[Chris Alger]

Start with the two types of "jurisidiction" concerning individuasls, being (1) over the person and (2) concerning the subject matter of the crime or action. Personal jurisdiction concerns the court's ability to enter judgment against you, regardless of the reason. This is generally a matter of being in a state or within the state's (long) reach and has no inherent relationship with the subject of the dispute. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the nature of the crime or case, something you alluded to regarding Sharon in Belgium.

In the U.S., federal personal jurisdiction is a question of whether the individual has some "minimum contact" with the U.S. and receiving fair notice of the case. Residing, living, owning property or being in the U.S. could all provide the basis for a claim by the federal government against anyone. Of course, if they don't tell you about it, then you could later contest any judgment entered against you on grounds of insufficiency of due process.

Legislatures or central governments give courts their subject matter jurisdiction and they can pass laws over nearly any subject they please, subject to Constitutional limitations. Without this legislative (or constitutional) mandate, a court (especially a U.S. federal one) won't consider the case. Thus, comeone who violated Alabama law might not be subject to personnal jurisdiction in Alabama, but might be subject to personal jurisdiction in the U.S., meaning a federal court. But a federal court might not have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce Alabama law.

But I don't know the exact answer to your question, and I think HDPM man below is right. The US can pass a law governing your conduct in a foreign country and assert jurisdiction over you to enforce it if you come back to the US, or maybe in absentia if you retain citizenship. There's another form of jurisidiction called in rem which gives the government power over property in the U.S. I understand that if you renounce your citizenship, flee to another country, but leave your house behind, the government could (after due process) seize and levy against your property if your conduct abroad broke some U.S. rule, all without having jurisdiction over you at all.

Regarding the "ban on travel," there is in fact an implied constitutional "right of travel" under United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), and its progeny. This line of decisions has effectively prevented the U.S. from outright criminalizing vistis to Cuba (although not without trying). As a result, "travel" restrictions regarding Cuba are generally enforced by rules prohibiting spending U.S. money in Cuba. These rules can be strictly enforced, as the case of the Taylors reveals:

"When [Kip and Patrick Taylor] sailed to Cuba, they thought they had done everything right. Knowing that U.S. law prohibited spending funds in the country, they stocked their sailboat with enough provisions to last for the duration of their trip. It wasn’t until they left Cuba, in fact, that their troubles began.

Sailing from Cuba, their boat was struck by lightning that destroyed the mast. The Cuban Coast Guard rescued the Taylors, towing the boat back to port. But when they applied to the U.S. Representative for permission to repair it, they were told to abandon the boat - and their two dogs - and fly back to the U.S. After weeks of attempting to negotiate, unwilling to leave their dogs and befuddled by a decision that left assets in Cuba worth more than the costs of repairs, the Taylors had the boat fixed. For this - and for being honest upon their return - they were fined $2,000 each. For the next four and a half years, the Taylors - who are on a fixed income - requested a reconsideration. In April, 2001, Patrick Taylor’s tax refund, needed to pay for urgent medical expenses, was frozen and applied to the $3,200 they now owe."

The Taylors are being represented by the very excellent Center for Constitutional Rights, from which the above passage is taken.

[Cyrus]