Essay by Jonathan M. Gutoff
Admiralty has been an important focus of the ongoing discussion over whether Congress must vest the federal courts with jurisdiction over all, or some, or no cases coming under each of the heads of subject-matter jurisdiction set forth in article III of the Constitution in the federal courts. As part of that discussion, there has been the suggestion that the Supreme Court does not does not have the authority fully to review conclusions of law made by state courts in admiralty cases brought in state courts pursuant to the saving-to-suitors clause originally in s 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and now, in slightly modified form, in 28 U.S.C. s 1333. This suggestion, which is of particular importance in light of the increasingly greater favor shown to state courts by plaintiffs in admiralty, is contrary to the Supreme Court's understanding of its ability to review state-court decisionmaking. Because the Court considers admiralty law a species of federal law, it will review not just state courts' decisions to apply federal admiralty law, but whether or not state courts correctly applied that law.
About the Author
Jonathan M. Gutoff. Instructor, Tulane Law School. A.B. 1983, Brown University; J.D. 1987, University of Chicago.
Citation
70 Tul. L. Rev. 2169 (1996)