Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 174.0

529US1

Unit: $U35

[09-26-01 09:32:43] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 529 U. S. 89 (2000)

99

Opinion of the Court

that limit OPA 90’s preemptive effect.
(2) Portions of the
opinion that discuss the Coast Guard regulations are incon-
sistent with Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent.”
Id., at 1221. We granted certiorari and now reverse. 527
U. S. 1063 (1999).

II

The State of Washington has enacted legislation in an area
where the federal interest has been manifest since the begin-
ning of our Republic and is now well established. The au-
thority of Congress to regulate interstate navigation, with-
out embarrassment from intervention of the separate States
and resulting difﬁculties with foreign nations, was cited in
the Federalist Papers as one of the reasons for adopting the
Constitution. E. g., The Federalist Nos. 44, 12, 64.
In 1789,
the First Congress enacted a law by which vessels with a
federal certiﬁcate were entitled to “the beneﬁts granted by
any law of the United States.” Act of Sept. 1, 1789, ch. 11,
§ 1, 1 Stat. 55. The importance of maritime trade and the
emergence of maritime transport by steamship resulted in
further federal licensing requirements enacted to promote
trade and to enhance the safety of crew members and passen-
gers. See Act of July 7, 1838, ch. 191, 5 Stat. 304; Act of
Mar. 3, 1843, ch. 94, 5 Stat. 626.
In 1871, Congress enacted
a comprehensive scheme of regulation for steam powered
vessels,
including provisions for licensing captains, chief
mates, engineers, and pilots. Act of Feb. 28, 1871, ch. 100,
16 Stat. 440.

The Court in Cooley v. Board of Wardens of Port of Phila-
delphia ex rel. Soc. for Relief of Distressed Pilots, 12 How.
299 (1852), stated that there would be instances in which
state regulation of maritime commerce is inappropriate even
absent the exercise of federal authority, although in the case
before it the Court found the challenged state regulations
were permitted in light of
local needs and conditions.
Where Congress had acted, however, the Court had little
difﬁculty in ﬁnding state vessel requirements were pre-