When deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro makes his first appearance in a New York courtroom on Monday to face U.S. drug trafficking charges, his case is expected to reignite a long-standing legal debate over sovereign immunity for foreign leaders—a debate last tested during the trial of Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega.
Maduro was captured on Saturday, 36 years to the day after Noriega was removed by U.S. forces, drawing immediate legal parallels. As in Noriega’s case, Maduro’s lawyers are expected to challenge the legality of his arrest, arguing that he is immune from prosecution as a sitting head of state, a principle deeply rooted in international and U.S. law.
However, legal experts say this argument is unlikely to succeed, noting that U.S. courts previously rejected similar claims during Noriega’s prosecution. Crucially, the United States does not recognize Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate leader, a factor that significantly weakens his immunity defense.
“There’s no claim to sovereign immunity if we don’t recognize him as head of state,” said Dick Gregorie, a retired federal prosecutor who indicted Noriega and later investigated corruption within Maduro’s government. He noted that both Republican and Democratic administrations have labeled Maduro’s elections fraudulent.
While President Donald Trump’s decision to order the operation in Venezuela raises constitutional questions—particularly because it was not authorized by Congress—legal analysts say American courts are expected to allow the prosecution to proceed.
Legal precedent and ‘forcible abduction’
The Noriega case relied on a 1989 Justice Department opinion, authored by then–Assistant Attorney General William Barr, which argued that the UN Charter does not bar the United States from conducting “forcible abductions” abroad to enforce domestic law. That opinion, alongside Supreme Court rulings dating back to the 1800s, upheld U.S. jurisdiction regardless of how a defendant was brought into the country.
Barr, who oversaw Maduro’s indictment during the first Trump administration, defended the operation on Sunday, stating that dismantling criminal networks often inherently involves regime change.
Key differences between Noriega and Maduro
Despite the similarities, experts highlight important distinctions. Noriega never officially held the presidency, ruling Panama through proxy leaders. Maduro, by contrast, claims to have won three elections, and although his 2024 reelection is widely disputed, several countries—including China, Russia, and Egypt—recognized the result.
Still, U.S. courts defer to the State Department, which considers Maduro a fugitive and has offered a $50 million reward for his arrest.
Sanctions complicate Maduro’s defense
Maduro also faces significant hurdles in mounting a legal defense. He and his wife, Cilia Flores, are under U.S. sanctions, making it illegal for American lawyers to accept payment without special Treasury authorization. Venezuela’s interim government, led by Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, is similarly restricted.
The indictment accuses Maduro and several co-defendants of facilitating massive cocaine shipments into the United States, alleging they partnered with “some of the most violent and prolific drug traffickers and narco-terrorists in the world.”
Legal scholars argue that even claims of limited immunity for official acts face steep challenges.
“Running a large narcotrafficking operation should not qualify as an official act,” said Curtis Bradley, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
As Maduro’s case moves forward, it is poised to become a landmark test of international law, executive power, and the limits of sovereign immunity in U.S. courts.
