Admiralty

Analyzes the original meaning of Article III by engaging in corpus linguistics analysis.

Provides an original understanding of the law of nations at the time of the founding. Explains the admiralty clause implicates the law of nations, and analyzes early maritime law.

Discusses the remedies and forums available for maritime cases.

Explains that the founders incorporated English admiralty law into the Constitution’s drafting, looking to founding-era sources such as the Federalist Papers. Discusses founding era (and older British) admiralty courts and their jurisdiction.

Analyzes the original meaning of the word “all” in Article III, explaining that Justice Story relied on the word “all” to explain the obligatory jurisdiction of the federal courts in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee. Contends that “all” means the same thing when used in the admiralty, federal question, ambassador, and state-as-a-party clauses in Article III.

Discusses features of admiralty law at the time of the founding that make it difficult to apply an original understanding of the Constitution to foreign affairs cases today. Describes the understanding of the “founding generation” vis-a-vis admiralty jurisdiction and founding-era caselaw interpreting the clause.

Discusses early post-ratification admiralty case law and posits that the framers had English admiralty practice in mind when they extended judicial power over these suits.

Explains the debate over the cases and controversies distinction of Article III, critiquing scholars who ignore categories of non-constitutional “cases” such as admiralty ones. Discusses Justice Story’s most important admiralty law opinions, which rely heavily on English sources including English legal dictionaries. Explains that national jurisdiction over admiralty had evolved over time in the era before the Constitution’s ratification.