Court Opinion

ID: 9423398
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:07:33.05183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:43.951038
License: Public Domain

Mr.. Justice Stewart,
whom' Mr, Justice Harlan joins,
dissenting.
Luther Jackson was a longshoreman. He died from injuries received in the course of his employment. A federal law clearly imposes an absolute obligation upon his employer to pay compensation to his widow.1 The law’s humanitarian purpose is to ensure that all shall be compensated, regardless of the employer’s fault. That law just as clearly provides that the employer’s statutory obligation to pay this compensation “shall be exclusive and in place of all other liability ... at law or in admiralty.” 2 Nonetheless, Jackson’s widow brought this admiralty action against his employer in Louisiana. The state courts dismissed the action, holding that the federal law means what it says. .
The Court today holds that this federal law cannot mean what it says, because this would lead to an “incongruous, absurd, and unjust -result.” The Court says that the result it reaches is dictated by its prior decision in Reed v. The Yaka, 373 U. S. 410. The Louisiana courts thought that the Yaka case, which involved the intervention of a third party, was distinguishable, and so do I. But in any event I would ’decide this case on its own facts under the law as it was clearly written by Congress..
Congress, in setting up a federal system of workmen’s compensation for longshoremen, imposing liability with*737out fault upon employers, provided that, this should be the exclusive remedy against the employer himself. I cannot agree that the law Congress passed! is either “incongruous,” “absurd,” or “unjust.” If it is, then so are the workmen’s compensation laws of 49 States, all of which contain the same basic provision.3
But even if I could agree with the Court’s characterization of the law that Congress has written, I could never agree with the Court’s judgment. It is our duty to apply the law, not to repeal it.
I respectfully dissent.

 Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, §§ 4, 9, 44 Stat. 1426, 1429, 33 U. S. C. §§ 904, 909.

 Id., § 5, 44 Stat. 1426, 33 U. S. C. § 905.

 See 1 Schneider, Workmen's Compensation §§ 89-154 (3d ed.).