University of Texas
Fall 2005
Admiralty
Professor David Robertson
Course Outline
Admiralty
I. Grant of Admiralty Jurisdiction
Under the Articles of Confederation there was no federal jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime law, and the jurisprudence in this area was muddled
The Constitution
Article I: Powers of Congress
Section 8: to regulate commerce (international; interstate); to constitute tribunals; to punish crimes committed on the high seas; to declare war (including captures on high seas); to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.
All inquiries in this course will begin with a consideration of jurisdiction in light of Article I. They will then proceed to address whether anything in Article III (establishing the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary) restricts the jurisdiction of the Admiralty court.
Note: The lack of a more specific grant does not sanction debate over Congressional authority over Admiralty: it is accepted that Congress has the power to regulate admiralty.
Article III: Judiciary
Section I: Establishes one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as the Congress may ordain.
Section II: Scope of Federal Jurisdiction (Federal Question Jurisdiction (codified by 28 USC 1331); Diversity Jurisdiction (28 USC 1332); Admiralty and/or Maritime Jurisdiction (28 USC 1333)).
28 USC 1333
Enacted in 1789
Federal district courts have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, over:
(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.
(2) Any prize brought into the United States and all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize.
The “saving clause” in section 1 is the subject of section G. Though it could simply mean that an admiralty court can impanel a jury, the Saving Clause has never been read this way by any federal court.
(Of course, federal courts also have federal question and diversity jurisdiction, either or both of which may be implicated in a maritime case.)
Does the clause under which jurisdiction is decided (Federal Question, Diversity, or A&MJ), determine what law applies, or how it will be applied? Generally, it will not determine the substantive law that governs, but will have important procedural implications. This leads to a uniquely rich forum-shopping opportunity for litigants and a race to the courthouse to file under the desired jurisdiction.
History
Early American judges looked to English common law to define “admiralty” and “maritime law.” But the jurisdiction of the English Admiralty Courts had been severely restricted by parliament. Continental Europe provided some guidance, but linguistic barriers obstructed this exercise and neither Colonial Courts, nor the Articles of Confederation, provided much guidance.
II. Cases Defining the Scope of Admiralty Jurisdiction
A. English Limitations on Admiralty Jurisdiction Rejected by Justice Story
DeLovio v. Boit (1815)
Does a ship-owner who takes out a policy on his ship have the right to sue the insurer in personam for breach of contract in a federal court?
Does Congress have the power under Articl
e well up the Missouri River. The plaintiffs file an action in rem against the ship (there was no money as the shipping company had gone bankrupt – they wanted the ship sold and proceeds distributed to creditors). Justice Story, perhaps under political pressure from a congressman affiliated with the shipping company, and from groups resisting the expansion of federal jurisdiction, holds that because the entirety of the events giving rise to the action occurred on waters “above the ebb and flow of the tide,” and neither English nor Early American precedent had extended admiralty jurisdiction to inland waters above the ebb and flow of the tide, the action could not be brought in a federal court of admiralty. This portion of the decision is later regarded as an “embarrassment.”
But the last paragraph of the opinion could be interpreted to suggest that while Congress has not yet done so (its statutes to this point have not conferred this jurisdiction on the admiralty), it is empowered by the Constitution to enact statutes conferring jurisdiction over cases above the ebb and flow, and on inland waterways, to the federal admiralty judiciary. So in a sense, the decision expands the admiralty jurisdiction, even by confining it, by prompting a stronger body (Congress) than the judiciary to legislate its expansion.
