## Facts

- John McFaddon and William Greetham, U.S. citizens and merchants, claimed ownership of the schooner *Exchange*.
- The *Exchange* sailed from Baltimore in 1809 bound for Spain.
- In 1810, the vessel was allegedly seized on the high seas by persons acting under the authority of the French Emperor and taken from the owners without lawful condemnation.
- The vessel was later armed and commissioned as a French national warship, renamed the *Balaou*.
- The warship entered the port of Philadelphia due to storm-related distress while France and the United States were at peace.
- McFaddon and Greetham filed an in rem libel in federal district court seeking seizure and return of the vessel.
- At the request of the Executive Branch, the U.S. Attorney suggested the ship was a French public armed vessel and that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether U.S. courts may exercise jurisdiction over a public armed vessel of a foreign sovereign found in a U.S. port during peacetime.
2. Whether a foreign warship’s entry into a U.S. port implies the United States’ consent to exempt that vessel from domestic judicial process.
3. What weight a court should give to the Executive Branch’s representation that a vessel is a foreign sovereign’s public ship.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court and reinstated dismissal of the libel for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court held that a friendly foreign sovereign’s public warship is immune from U.S. judicial process when present in U.S. waters by permission, including permission implied from established practice.
- The Court treated the vessel as public property of France and accepted the Executive Branch’s position that it was a foreign public armed ship.
- The alleged wrongful taking of the vessel did not permit U.S. courts to adjudicate title against the foreign sovereign’s warship while it enjoyed immunity.

## Legal Principles

- A nation’s jurisdiction within its territory is exclusive, but exceptions arise only from that nation’s consent, which may be express or implied.
- Implied consent can be inferred from customary international practice and the settled expectations of states in their mutual intercourse.
- Foreign sovereigns and certain sovereign instrumentalities recognized by international usage (including public armed forces and public warships) are generally not subject to local jurisdiction when present by permission.
- Absent prohibition, ports are presumed open to friendly foreign public ships of war; entry under such openness carries an implied assurance of immunity from local judicial process.
- Executive recognition that a vessel is a foreign sovereign’s public ship bears heavily on the jurisdictional inquiry in cases affecting foreign relations.

## Conclusion

The Court held that U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction to seize or adjudicate ownership of a friendly foreign sovereign’s public warship in an American port because, by permitting such vessels to enter, the United States impliedly consented to their immunity from domestic judicial process.


The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812)