Federal Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction Part 2: Historical Background

Federal Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction Part 2: Historical Background

Legal Sidebari

Federal Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction
Part 2: Historical Background
September 20, 2022
This Legal Sidebar post is the second 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 Constitution’s Framers were familiar with the concept of a separate and specialized admiralty
jurisdiction. Prior to the Founding, the British Crown commissioned vice-admiralty courts in the
American colonies. These courts, which were subordinate to the English admiralty courts, exercised
jurisdiction independent from the colonial courts of common law and equity over maritime cases arising
in the colonies.
In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the jurisdiction of the independent vice-admiralty
courts led to disputes between the colonists and the British Crown. For example, the colonists objected to
the Crown’s prosecution of colonists in the vice-admiralty courts, without trial by jury, for allegedly
violating a British tax law, the 1765 Stamp Act. In 1774, the First Continental Congress’s delegates cited
this extension of British admiralty courts’ jurisdiction “beyond their ancient limits” as one of the major
grievances against Great Britain. Denial to the colonists of trial by jury in the vice-admiralty courts
helped to motivate the colonists’ 1776 Declaration of Independence, which cited the British King
depriving the colonists “in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury” as a justification for separating
from Great Britain.
After declaring independence, each state established its own admiralty courts. State admiralty courts
adopted a wide variety of procedural practices, particularly with respect to the availability of jury trials.
Although the Articles of Confederation authorized Congress to establish a tribunal to hear appeals from
state admiralty courts in prize cases, which historically involved vessels captured during wartime and
brought into the United States, this appeal mechanism failed to resolve many conflicts among state
admiralty court decisions.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10825
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 do not provide much insight into the Framers’ reasons for
conferring admiralty jurisdiction on the federal judiciary. Delegate Charles Pinckney’s plan for the federal
government, which he had submitted to the Convention, would have authorized Congress to establish
separate admiralty courts in each of the states. In addition, the issue of admiralty jurisdiction received a
brief mention in a Convention debate over whether the Constitution should specifically create lower
federal courts. Delegate James Wilson argued that the “national Government” should have jurisdiction
over admiralty cases because they would often implicate controversies with foreign parties that should
remain outside of state court jurisdiction.
Toward the end of the Convention, the Committee of Detail, which was responsible for drafting the
Constitution, included the clause granting the federal judiciary admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in one
of its drafts. This clause would establish uniform federal jurisdiction to resolve conflicts among the states
with respect to prize cases, and the Convention delegates appear to have accepted it without controversy.
Writing in the Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution’s ratification, Alexander Hamilton
maintained that even the most adamant opponents of a strong central government acknowledged that the
federal judiciary should take cognizance of admiralty cases. Such cases, he wrote, “depend on the laws of
nations, and so commonly affect the rights of foreigners, that they fall within the considerations which are
relative to the public peace.” Some of the Framers argued that admiralty jurisdiction should extend to the
adjudication of prize cases involving the capture of foreign ships and torts involving foreign ships, both of
which could implicate foreign affairs. Hamilton also argued that federal courts should have exclusive
jurisdiction in admiralty cases in order to provide uniform practices with respect to jury trials, which
varied widely in state courts.
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. After the Constitution’s
ratification, commercial maritime activity continued to expand throughout the United States. The
importance of uniform admiralty jurisdiction grew as the nation acquired new territories with inland
waters and new inventions like the steamboat increased commerce on U.S. waterways.

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

Congressional Research Service
3
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.

LSB10825 · VERSION 1 · NEW