Admiralty & Maritime Jurisdiction

Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States declares that "The judicial power shall extend... to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction..."

In England the word "maritime" referred to cases arising upon the high seas, while "admiralty" referred to those arising upon the "arms" of the sea, defined as "Royal Rivers" or navigable waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tides. "Admiralty" and "maritime" jurisdiction traditionally comprises two types of cases: (1) those involving acts, (prize cases, torts, injuries, and crimes,) and (2) those generally involving shipping contracts and transactions. In the first category, jurisdiction is determined by the locality of the act, while in the second category, subject matter is the primary determinative factor.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat.77, ch. 20, s. 11, Congress essentially defined "navigable waters of the United States" as those which were navigable from the sea by ships with the capacity to carry 10 or more tons:

[In the Act, the federal district courts were given exclusive original cognizance] "of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it;..."

Through early cases, [DeLovio v. Boit, 7 Fed. Cas. 418 (No. 3776) (C.C.D. Mass. 1815) (Justice Story); The Seneca, 21 Fed. Cas. 1801 (No. 12670) C.C.E.D.Pa. 1829) (Justice Washington,)] the court broadened its interpretation of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction from that of the English law, to that of maritime law based in the Law of Nations, respected by maritime courts of all nations and adopted by most of Europe. By 1848, the Court had stated in New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank of Boston, 47 U.S. (6 How.) 334, 386:

"...whatever may have been the doubt, originally, as to the true construction of the grant, whether it had reference to the jurisdiction in England, or to the more enlarged one that existed in other maritime countries, the question has become settled by legislative and judicial interpretation, which ought not now to be disturbed." [See also Waring v. Clarke, 46 U.S. (5 How.) 441 (1847.)]