Under 28 U.S.C. 1333, federal district courts hold exclusive original jurisdiction over admiralty, maritime, and prize cases, meaning shipping disputes, injuries on navigable waters, cargo claims, salvage, and wartime vessel captures belong in federal court.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1333 – Admiralty, Maritime and Prize Cases The statute traces to Article III of the Constitution, which extends judicial power to “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction.”2Constitution Annotated. Federal Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction Generally Centralizing these disputes in one court system keeps an international industry from being governed by fifty different sets of state rules.
Section 1333 does one more thing that matters as much as the grant of jurisdiction itself. It preserves “to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.” That short phrase, the saving to suitors clause, is why not every maritime case ends up in federal court.
What the Statute Grants
Section 1333 has two clauses. The first covers “any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.” The second covers prize proceedings, which are actions to determine the legality of vessels or cargo captured during armed conflict.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 28 U.S. Code 1333 – Admiralty, Maritime and Prize Cases Both grants are exclusive to federal district courts in the sense that a state court cannot arrest a vessel, cannot adjudicate a prize claim, and cannot decide admiralty questions under its own procedural rules.
Neither the Constitution nor the statute defines “admiralty and maritime.” Courts have built that definition case by case over two centuries, and it comes down to two recurring questions: did the dispute arise on navigable waters, and does it bear a real connection to maritime commerce?
Which Cases Qualify
Navigable Waters
The threshold question is geography. In The Daniel Ball (1870), the Supreme Court defined navigable waters as those that serve as “a continued highway over which commerce is or may be carried on with other States or foreign countries.”3Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. The Daniel Ball, 77 U.S. 557 (1870) Oceans, major rivers, the Great Lakes, and commercially used coastal waters all qualify. An isolated pond does not. The test focuses on commercial utility.
Vessel Status
Federal law defines “vessel” broadly as any watercraft or artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, for transportation on water.4Legal Information Institute. 1 U.S. Code 3 – Vessel as Including All Means of Water Transportation That covers container ships and jet skis alike. The definition has limits, though. In Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2013), the Supreme Court held that a floating home was not a vessel, adopting a “reasonable observer” test: if no reasonable person would view the structure as designed for transportation on water, it falls outside admiralty jurisdiction. Vessel status controls whether maritime liens, limitation of liability, and federal procedural rules apply.
Maritime Torts
For a tort claim to qualify, it must satisfy a two-part test the Supreme Court refined in Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. (1995). The location prong asks whether the tort occurred on navigable water, or whether a land injury was caused by a vessel on navigable water. The connection prong asks whether the general type of incident could disrupt maritime commerce and whether the specific activity bears a substantial relationship to traditional maritime activity.5Legal Information Institute. Jerome B. Grubart, Inc. v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., 513 U.S. 527 (1995) An earlier decision, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland (1972), had already established that location alone is not enough; the wrong must bear “a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.”6Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Executive Jet Aviation v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249 (1972) A plane crash into Lake Erie did not qualify. A ship collision does.
Maritime Contracts
For contracts, the test looks to “the nature and character of the contract” rather than where it was signed or whether a vessel was directly involved. The Supreme Court restated that formulation in Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Kirby (2004), holding that bills of lading for goods shipped by sea qualified as maritime contracts even though rail carriage was part of the journey.7Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. James N. Kirby, Pty Ltd., 543 U.S. 14 (2004)
One long-standing rule catches people off guard. Contracts to build a new ship are not maritime contracts, even though the finished vessel will spend its whole life at sea. The Supreme Court settled that in North Pacific S.S. Co. v. Hall Brothers Marine Railway & Shipbuilding Co. (1919). A contract to repair an existing vessel does qualify, whether the work happens afloat, in dry dock, or on land.
In Rem and In Personam Actions
Section 1333 supports two fundamentally different ways to bring a maritime case, and the choice shapes the whole litigation.
An in rem action treats the vessel itself as the defendant. Under Supplemental Rule C of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff can obtain a court order arresting the ship to enforce a maritime lien.8Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule C – In Rem Actions: Special Provisions Typical in rem claims cover unpaid crew wages, collision damages, salvage awards, and charges for repairs or supplies. Once a vessel is arrested, the owner must post security or risk the court selling the ship. This procedure exists because vessels move between jurisdictions constantly and their owners may be foreign entities with no U.S. presence; arresting the ship pins down an asset that would otherwise sail away. Federal courts hold exclusive jurisdiction over in rem admiralty actions.
An in personam action targets the shipowner, operator, charterer, or another responsible party. These follow more familiar civil litigation rules, including standard service of process. When the defendant cannot be found within the district, Supplemental Rule B allows a plaintiff to attach the defendant’s property to secure jurisdiction or preserve assets for a judgment.9Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule B – In Personam Actions: Attachment and Garnishment Plaintiffs often bring both types of claim in the same case.
The Saving to Suitors Clause
The saving to suitors clause carves state courts back into the picture. It dates to the Judiciary Act of 1789 and allows plaintiffs pursuing in personam maritime claims to file in state court instead of federal court.10Constitution Annotated. Overview of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction The practical draw is the jury trial. Federal admiralty courts traditionally do not offer juries; state courts hearing the same claim under the saving clause typically do. That matters most in personal injury and wrongful death cases.
The Supreme Court affirmed the state-court option in Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc. (2001), holding that state courts may adjudicate maritime claims as long as the vessel owner’s right to seek federal limitation of liability is protected.11Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Lewis v. Lewis and Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001)
Two hard boundaries apply. First, in rem actions stay exclusively in federal court; a state court cannot arrest a vessel. Second, a state court hearing a maritime case must still apply substantive federal maritime law. In Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (1917), the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot apply their own laws in ways that undermine the uniformity of federal maritime law or “interfere with the proper harmony” of that law in its interstate and international dimensions.12Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205 (1917) The state court supplies the forum; federal maritime law supplies the rules.
Prize Cases
The second clause of Section 1333 grants federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over prize proceedings, which determine the legality of capturing enemy vessels or cargo during armed conflict. Under 10 U.S.C. 8852, U.S. district courts adjudicate prize claims when seized property is brought into the United States, into a cobelligerent’s waters, or into territory controlled by U.S. armed forces.13Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 10 U.S. Code 8852 – Jurisdiction Courts examine whether the capture complied with the laws of war, considering the vessel’s nationality, the nature of its cargo, and whether it was engaged in hostile activity.
In The Prize Cases (1863), the Supreme Court held that the President can authorize seizures without a formal congressional declaration of war when actual hostilities exist, reasoning that the Commander-in-Chief “is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for special legislative authority.”14Constitution Annotated. Civil War, War Powers, and The Prize Cases Prize proceedings are rare today, but the jurisdiction remains available for any future conflict involving the seizure of commercial shipping.