Opinion ID: 1913934
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maritime Jurisdiction, Generally

Text: Three provisions of the United States Constitution govern maritime law jurisdiction: (1) Article III, section 2 extends the judicial power of the United States to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; (2) Article I, section 8 gives Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; (3) the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, clause 2) makes that body of federal law binding on the states. David W. Robertson, Admiralty and Maritime Litigation in State Court, 55 La. L.Rev. 685, 687-688 (1995). The United States Supreme Court has held that the first two constitutional provisions above empower the federal courts and Congress to create and interpret a nationally uniform maritime law. Robertson, supra notes 8 and 9, at 687-688. Article III of the United States Constitution, from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, marked a significant centralization of admiralty authority from Colonial days and from the period of the Articles of Confederation during which maritime claims were adjudicated in the admiralty courts of each colony/state. See generally, Putnam, How the Federal Courts Were Given Their Admiralty Jurisdiction, 10 Cornell L.Q. 460 (1925). While Article III extended the judicial power of the United States to all admiralty and maritime cases, it did not create the lower federal courts or vest them with jurisdiction. In 1789, the First Congress took the essential first step by creating federal district courts and giving them admiralty jurisdiction. Robertson, supra note 13, at 688. [4] By this statute, the entire admiralty power of the Constitution was lodged in the Federal Courts. The Belfast, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 624, 638, 19 L.Ed. 266 (1869). The statutory grant of admiralty jurisdiction to the federal districts courts, in its present version, is codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1333, and provides in pertinent part: The district courts ... shall ... have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states of ... [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled. Robertson, supra at 688. There is admiralty jurisdiction in tort as well as contract cases. Perhaps the most important body of tort cases falling within the admiralty jurisdiction are those involving injuries to seamen. Robertson, supra note 32, at 691. 28 U.S.C. § 1333 has been interpreted as making federal court admiralty jurisdiction exclusive as to actions in rem [5] against vessels or against other maritime property. Robertson, supra note 81, at 698. Most admiralty cases, however, are cases of concurrent jurisdiction rather than exclusive jurisdiction. Robertson, supra at 699. The plaintiff may bring the case in federal court on the basis of admiralty jurisdiction, or the plaintiff may take advantage of the saving to suitors clause, which has been interpreted as giving the plaintiff in most types of admiralty or maritime cases the option of bringing the suit in state court. Robertson, supra note 86, at 699. The saving to suitors clause allows state courts to entertain in personam maritime causes of action, but in such cases the extent to which state law may be used to remedy maritime injuries is constrained by a so-called reverse-Erie doctrine, which requires that the substantive remedies afforded by the states conform to governing federal maritime standards. Offshore Logistics, Inc., et al. v. Tallentire, 477 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 2485, 91 L.Ed.2d 174 (1986); Robertson, supra note 91, at 700. When a maritime plaintiff takes advantage of the saving to suitors clause to bring his case in state court, as a matter of general principle the state court is obligated by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause to follow the applicable substantive federal maritime law. Robertson, supra note 87, at 699. On matters of procedure, however, the state court is generally free to follow the state's own rules. Robertson, supra note 88, at 699. The Supremacy Clause restraint on the state courts is often called the reverse-Erie doctrine. Supra. During the past several years, the number of admiralty or maritime cases brought in state courts has increased. Robertson, supra note 1, at 686.