## Facts

- Hoffman, owner and master of the American fishing vessel *Lottie Carson*, filed an in rem admiralty libel in the Southern District of California seeking collision damages from *The Baja California*.
- The libel alleged *The Baja California* negligently collided with the *Lottie Carson* in Mexican waters.
- The Republic of Mexico appeared through its Ambassador and filed a suggestion of immunity, asserting the vessel was owned by Mexico, in its possession, and engaged in transporting cargo between Mexican and other ports.
- Hoffman disputed that Mexico held title or possessed the vessel for public service or use; the immunity issues were tried on stipulated evidence.
- The evidence showed Mexico held title, but a private Mexican corporation exercised operational control, supplied the crew, bore expenses, and used the vessel for commercial trade under a profit-sharing arrangement with Mexico.
- The United States Attorney filed a communication transmitting a State Department letter that recited Mexico’s claim and cited prior cases but took no position on immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that *The Baja California* was not in the possession or service of the Mexican government.
2. Whether, absent an Executive Branch policy recognizing immunity based solely on state ownership, federal courts should grant in rem sovereign immunity to a merchant vessel owned but not possessed by a friendly foreign sovereign.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The concurrent findings below that the vessel was not in Mexico’s possession or service were supported by the evidence.
- A merchant vessel owned but not possessed by a friendly foreign government was not immune from an in rem admiralty suit where the State Department refrained from certifying immunity or recognizing ownership without possession as a ground for immunity.
- Courts will recognize immunity for vessels in a foreign government’s possession and public service based on long-standing Executive practice, even without an express State Department certification in a particular case.
- Courts have a duty not to expand immunity beyond limits the political branches have not adopted.

## Legal Principles

- Foreign sovereign immunity determinations are closely tied to Executive Branch policy and practice because of their foreign-relations consequences.
- In U.S. practice, immunity for foreign-state vessels traditionally depends on the foreign sovereign’s possession and public-service use, not mere legal ownership.
- When the State Department does not recognize a broader immunity rule (such as ownership alone), courts should not extend immunity to cover that situation.
- Commercial operation by a private entity, even with foreign-state ownership and profit sharing, weighs against treating the vessel as in sovereign possession or public service for immunity purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a foreign government’s ownership of a merchant vessel, without its possession and public-service operation and without Executive recognition of ownership-alone immunity, does not bar an in rem admiralty action; because *The Baja California* was privately controlled and commercially operated, the suit could proceed.


Republic of Mexico v. Hoffman (The Baja California), 324 U.S. 30 (1945)