Facts
- California law prohibited net fishing in certain coastal waters and declared nets used unlawfully to be public nuisances.
- While the fishing vessel Reliance used a purse seine net in California’s navigable coastal waters in violation of state law, state officials seized the net.
- The California Fish and Game Commission filed an in rem forfeiture action in California superior court seeking sale or destruction of the net.
- The owners/claimants appeared and contested forfeiture.
- The superior court ordered the net forfeited and directed the Commission to sell or destroy it.
- The California Supreme Court ultimately affirmed, characterizing the forfeiture remedy as a common-law remedy within the “saving to suitors” exception.
Issues
- Whether an in rem forfeiture action in state court against a fishing net seized in navigable waters for violating state conservation laws falls within exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction.
- Whether such an in rem forfeiture is a “common law remedy” that the common law is competent to give, preserved to suitors by § 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held that forfeiture by an in rem procedure of a net seized in navigable coastal waters for violating state net-fishing prohibitions is a “common law remedy” within the saving-to-suitors exception in § 9 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.
- Because the remedy was within historic common-law competence, federal admiralty jurisdiction was not exclusive, and the state court could adjudicate the forfeiture.
Legal Principles
- Federal district courts have exclusive original cognizance of civil admiralty and maritime causes, but the saving-to-suitors clause preserves common-law remedies where the common law is competent to provide them.
- The common law, as received in the United States at the time of the Constitution’s adoption, included in rem remedies in cases of forfeiture; not all in rem proceedings are uniquely admiralty.
- A state may enforce conservation and public-order measures in its coastal waters by declaring unlawfully used fishing gear a public nuisance and providing for seizure and forfeiture through state-court proceedings, consistent with federal admiralty jurisdiction limits.
Conclusion
The Court upheld California’s state-court forfeiture of a fishing net seized in navigable coastal waters, ruling that this in rem forfeiture was a common-law remedy saved from exclusive federal admiralty jurisdiction by the saving-to-suitors clause.