The Noriega prosecution from the early 1990s offers a possible blueprint for legal fights surrounding Nicolás Maduro. Key contested issues will include whether an unlawful transfer to U.S. custody bars prosecution and whether a sitting or declared head of state can claim immunity for alleged crimes. Experts say the case will raise complex constitutional and international-law questions and will not be a straightforward conviction for prosecutors.
How the Noriega Precedent Could Shape Maduro’s U.S. Legal Battle
President of Venezuela Nicolás Maduro, left, and former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega. - Getty Images/AP
More than three decades ago the United States carried out a dramatic operation to seize Panama’s military ruler, Manuel Noriega, and later tried and convicted him on drug-related charges. That episode — and the courts' handling of the resulting legal challenges — offers a potential roadmap for prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges confronting the case against Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro.
Background and Legal Parallels
Both Noriega and Maduro have been accused of facilitating large-scale drug trafficking that affected the United States. Noriega was removed in a U.S. military operation in Panama; U.S. prosecutors allege Maduro ran or enabled state-linked criminal networks that trafficked narcotics.
Defenses Likely To Be Raised
Noriega’s legal team immediately argued that the U.S. invasion violated international law and U.S. due process protections and also contended he enjoyed head-of-state immunity. Legal analysts expect Maduro’s defense team to press similar objections — including claims that any transfer to U.S. custody was unlawful (rendition) and that he is immune as a sitting head of state or for acts taken in an official capacity.
Steve Vladeck warned that prosecutors will face significant constitutional and international-law questions and that "the prosecution will be no slam dunk," especially on charges against Maduro himself.
How U.S. Courts Have Treated Similar Claims
In Noriega’s case, U.S. courts refused to let the legality of the invasion determine criminal jurisdiction. Courts have long followed the principle that the manner in which a defendant is brought before a U.S. tribunal — even if by force from foreign soil — does not automatically defeat jurisdiction. Noriega was ultimately convicted in 1991 and sentenced to 40 years; later proceedings recognized certain custody protections but did not overturn the conviction.
Prosecutors in a Maduro case could rely on that precedent and may also point to a controversial 1989 Office of Legal Counsel memo by William Barr arguing that a president may possess inherent authority to order seizures abroad. That memo remains debated among scholars and does not settle broader international-law concerns.
Immunity And Recognition Issues
One of the thorniest issues will be immunity. In Noriega’s situation the State Department did not recognize him as Panama’s legitimate head of state, which influenced courts’ willingness to reject his immunity claim. Maduro’s status is different: the Justice Department’s recently unsealed indictment described him as the 'de facto but illegitimate ruler' of Venezuela, a characterization that could complicate immunity arguments and invite new legal fights over recognition and official-act defenses.
What To Expect Going Forward
The case is likely to surface novel constitutional and international-law arguments, attract high-profile counsel, and produce intense litigation over jurisdictional and immunity doctrines. While precedent tends to favor prosecution despite irregular transfers, immunity and recognition issues give the defense plausible avenues to challenge the charges or the scope of U.S. jurisdiction.
Bottom line: Noriega’s prosecution provides important precedents, but differences in recognition and the political status of Maduro mean U.S. courts could face fresh, complex questions — and prosecutors should not expect an easy path to conviction.
Help us improve.
