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
- Whether U.S. courts may exercise jurisdiction over a public armed vessel of a foreign sovereign found in a U.S. port during peacetime.
- Whether a foreign warship’s entry into a U.S. port implies the United States’ consent to exempt that vessel from domestic judicial process.
- 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.