Opinion ID: 2762944
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Neutrality Act

Text: Congress passed the Neutrality Act in 1794. Act of June 5, 1794, ch. 50, 1 Stat. 381. The Act was recommended to congress by President Washington in his annual address on December 3, 1793, was drawn by Hamilton, and passed the senate by the casting vote of Vice President Adams. [It] was designed to keep the United States from getting dragged into the conflict between England and France. Thomas H. Lee, The SafeConduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute, 106 COLUM. L. REV. 830, 847 (2006) (describing the “young Republic’s neutrality crisis” as the Founders precariously navigated “between the Scylla of Britain and the Charybdis of 7 France.”). Thus, the Act appears to be a legislative enactment of President Washington’s warning – made famous in his farewell address – that the young nation should remain free from entangling alliances. George Washington, Farewell Address (Sept. 19, 1796), reprinted in S. Doc. No. 106-21 (2000). Bauer, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 33 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also The Three Friends, 166 U.S. at 52– 53. As noted above, the Act criminalizes certain actions committed in the United States that support a foreign state or people against any other foreign state or people with whom the United States is at peace. Though repeatedly amended, and very rarely invoked, much of the original Act remains in force to this day. The section of the Neutrality Act at issue in this case states: Whoever, within the United States, furnishes, fits out, arms, or attempts to furnish, fit out or arm, any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince, or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise, or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States is at peace; . . . [s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 962. The Act further provides that Every such vessel, her tackle, apparel, and furniture, together with all materials, arms, ammunition, and stores 8 which may have been procured for the building and equipment thereof, shall be forfeited, one half to the use of the informer and the other half to the use of the United States. Id. Bounty statutes such as the Neutrality Act were popular immediately after the ratification of the Constitution. Although there is no evidence that the Colonies allowed common-law qui tam actions (which . . . were dying out in England by that time), they did pass several informer statutes expressly authorizing qui tam suits. Moreover, immediately after the framing, the First Congress enacted a considerable number of informer statutes. Like their English counterparts, some of them provided both a bounty and an express cause of action; others provided a bounty only. Stevens, 529 U.S. at 776–77 (citation and footnotes omitted). The Neutrality Act was a “bounty only” statute. As we explain below, no judicial decision of which we are aware has ever construed the Neutrality Act to afford standing to a private party to prosecute an alleged criminal infraction or to independently pursue a forfeiture claim.