Legal Sidebari

Federal Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction
Part 1: Introduction
September 20, 2022
This Legal Sidebar post is the first in a five-part series that discusses the bases and scope of U.S.
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Last year, a supply-chain bottleneck arose at the nation’s ports with
as many as 101 container ships waiting for berths at the nation’s Los Angeles and Long Beach ports in the
weeks before Christmas. These delays added to the time it took to deliver the goods to market and
increased the costs of transporting them. Claims for breaches of maritime contracts related to shipping
delays may fall within U.S. admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. As a result, Congress may be interested
in how this area of law operates. Additional information on this topic can be found at the Constitution
Annotated: Analysis and Interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
The federal courts’ jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases derives from the Constitution and
federal statutes. Article III of the Constitution extends the federal judicial power to “all Cases of admiralty
and maritime Jurisdiction.” By giving the federal judiciary jurisdiction over admiralty cases—and
authorizing Congress to regulate that jurisdiction—the Framers sought to ensure that federal courts would
resolve cases that might implicate the nation’s foreign policy. The Framers also recognized that uniform
federal admiralty jurisdiction could protect maritime commerce from the diverse and unpredictable
procedural rules that state admiralty courts had applied under the Articles of Confederation.
Beginning with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress established the federal district courts and granted
them “exclusive” and “original” subject matter jurisdiction over any “civil case of admiralty or maritime
jurisdiction.” Congress also allowed state courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over admiralty cases
in which plaintiffs seek traditional common-law remedies. Under the “saving to suitors clause” in Section
9 of the Judiciary Act, courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over most contract and tort claims that fall
within federal admiralty jurisdiction because a plaintiff may bring a personal action against an individual
defendant seeking common-law remedies (e.g., payment of money damages). However, in general,
plaintiffs must pursue actions in federal court when they seek remedies that lie against property in rem,
such as the seizure of a vessel to enforce a maritime lien.
Much of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on admiralty jurisdiction has examined the territorial extent
of such jurisdiction and which types of cases fall within this limited grant of jurisdiction. Generally,
courts consider the location in which a tort or crime occurs to be a major factor when determining
whether the tort or crime falls within admiralty jurisdiction. The Court has held that, under the
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10824
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
Constitution, admiralty jurisdiction extends to all navigable public waters, regardless of whether they are
saltwater or freshwater, or subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Admiralty jurisdiction also extends to
contracts, regardless of where they are entered into or to be performed, provided that their subject matter
is “essentially maritime.”
When a federal court exercises admiralty jurisdiction over a case, it follows a special set of procedural
rules. (A federal court exercising admiralty jurisdiction is sometimes said to be “sitting in admiralty.”)
Notably, jury trials are unavailable in civil admiralty proceedings unless Congress provides otherwise.
Thus, in federal admiralty proceedings, the judge typically decides issues of both law and fact.
When a federal or state court exercises admiralty jurisdiction over a case, the judge must apply the
substantive rules of federal maritime law, which is a type of federal common law that Congress may
revise. In the absence of controlling federal maritime law, federal courts have sometimes applied
substantive state law in admiralty cases when it would not interfere with the uniformity of federal
maritime law. In some cases, such as those involving maritime torts in a state’s territorial waters, the
Court has held that state law may supplement federal maritime law with additional remedies.
This Legal Sidebar series examines the Constitution’s grant of federal judicial power over cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The next Sidebar provides an overview of the historical development
of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the United States. Subsequent Sidebars examine Supreme Court
decisions that interpret the territorial and conceptual scope of this jurisdiction. The series concludes by
discussing when concurrent federal and state jurisdiction exists over maritime claims and, alternatively,
when such claims fall within the federal courts’ exclusive admiralty jurisdiction.

Author Information

Brandon J. Murrill

Legislative Attorney




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10824 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---