Like the federal government, states can apply their laws to people beyond their borders. Statutes can reach out-of-state conduct, such as fraud, that has effects within the state, and in some circumstances, states can prosecute their own citizens for out-of-state conduct. Many applications of extraterritorial jurisdiction are well established and uncontroversial; state common law and the Model Penal Code provide for such authority. The practice draws little attention when states’ criminal laws are broadly similar and treat the same activities as crimes. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, however, state laws now sharply conflict over conduct related to abortion services. In addition to prohibiting in-state activities that facilitate access to abortions, some state legislatures and local prosecutors seek to extend criminal liability to persons acting in states in which their conduct is legal. Louisiana, for example, made it a crime for anyone outside of Louisiana to ship “abortion- inducing drugs” to a Louisiana resident. This article analyzes the principles of state extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction and the longstanding state laws that authorize criminal jurisdiction over actors in other states. It then turns to the existing and proposed state criminal laws that target abortion services beyond a state’s own borders. In some cases, such laws are well grounded; for others, the validity of extraterritorial application is unclear. But even for statutes with valid extraterritorial reach, barriers to enforcement remain. In many circumstances, cross-border enforcement depends on state cooperation, especially in extraditing defendants and obtaining out-of-state evidence and witness testimony. Federal law requires states to fulfill other states’ extradition requests only for “fugitives,” which creates a gap between the law of extradition and of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Those who violate one state’s criminal law while in another state are not fugitives, which means pro-choice states can refuse to extradite their residents for other states’ abortion-related prosecutions. A few states have already changed their laws to permit this kind of resistance—another sign of diminished comity between states. Finally, the article briefly surveys constitutional doctrines that might constrain extraterritorial prosecutions. Few of those doctrines provide clear limits, suggesting that, if the post-Dobbs world leads to extraterritorial prosecutions, the constitutional parameters for that practice will be one of the new battlegrounds.

与联邦政府一样，各州可以将其法律适用于境外的人们。法规可以涉及在州内产生影响的州外行为，例如欺诈，并且在某些情况下，州可以起诉本国公民的州外行为。域外管辖权的许多适用都是既定且没有争议的；州普通法和示范刑法典规定了这种权力。当各州的刑法大致相似并将相同的活动视为犯罪时，这种做法很少引起注意。然而，在最高法院对多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织一案作出裁决后，各州法律现在在与堕胎服务相关的行为方面存在严重冲突。除了禁止州内促进堕胎的活动外，一些州立法机构和地方检察官还寻求将刑事责任扩大到在其行为合法的州内行事的人。例如，路易斯安那州将路易斯安那州以外的任何人向路易斯安那州居民运送“堕胎药物”定为犯罪行为。本文分析了国家域外刑事管辖权的原则以及授权对其他国家行为者进行刑事管辖的长期存在的国家法律。然后转向针对州境外堕胎服务的现有和拟议的州刑法。在某些情况下，此类法律是有充分依据的；对于其他人来说，域外适用的有效性尚不清楚。但即使对于具有有效域外效力的法规，执行障碍仍然存在。在许多情况下，跨境执法取决于国家合作，特别是在引渡被告以及获取州外证据和证人证词方面。联邦法律要求各州仅满足其他州对“逃犯”的引渡请求，这在引渡法和域外管辖权法之间造成了差距。那些在另一州违反一州刑法的人不是逃犯，这意味着支持堕胎的州可以拒绝引渡其居民以进行其他州与堕胎相关的起诉。一些州已经修改了法律以允许这种抵抗——这是国家之间礼让减少的另一个迹象。最后，本文简要考察了可能限制域外起诉的宪法原则。这些学说很少提供明确的限制，这表明，如果后多布斯世界导致域外起诉，那么这种做法的宪法参数将成为新的战场之一。