Justia Admiralty & Maritime Law Opinion Summaries

SEACOR Marine, L.L.C., a company that owns and operates marine vessels, entered into a Brokerage Agreement with GOL, L.L.C., a broker connecting vessel owners with oil and gas companies. Under this agreement, GOL acted as SEACOR’s agent to obtain charters, and was responsible for remitting payments to SEACOR if charterers paid GOL. GOL brokered SEACOR’s vessels to Cox Operating, LLC, invoicing Cox for $2.7 million plus a brokerage fee. Cox did not pay, subsequently filing for bankruptcy. GOL submitted a prepetition claim in Cox’s bankruptcy, which included SEACOR’s invoices. The bankruptcy court permitted Cox to pay $13 million toward GOL’s prepetition claim to incentivize continued services during bankruptcy, with GOL agreeing to use these funds for claims secured by liens, including SEACOR’s.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted summary judgment in favor of GOL. It found GOL was not obligated to pay SEACOR from the $13 million, reasoning that GOL had not received payment specifically for SEACOR’s invoices, and that the Trade Agreement required payment only to vendors continuing to provide services to Cox. The court also determined GOL had fulfilled its duty to make reasonable efforts to collect from Cox and dismissed SEACOR’s claims, denying reconsideration.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. The Fifth Circuit held that genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether any part of the $13 million payment was for SEACOR’s services and whether GOL breached its contractual and fiduciary duties by not remitting payment to SEACOR. The court found the Trade Agreement did not prohibit GOL from paying SEACOR and reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Seacor Marine v. GOL" on Justia Law

Three individuals departed from Dana Point Harbor in Southern California at night, ostensibly for a lobster-fishing trip. When the boat returned, one person was missing, and his body was later found floating in the ocean with evidence of drowning, gunshot wounds, and blunt force trauma. Location data placed the incident within three nautical miles of the California coast. The surviving participants did not report the death. Following an investigation, federal authorities charged one of the surviving individuals with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of murder.The United States District Court for the Central District of California heard the case. The defense argued that the federal government lacked jurisdiction because the death occurred within the three-nautical-mile territorial sea, which they claimed was under California's exclusive criminal jurisdiction. The district court rejected this argument, finding that federal jurisdiction extended twelve nautical miles from shore under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. At trial, the jury was instructed accordingly and convicted the defendant on all counts. During jury deliberations, a juror experiencing distress and mental health concerns, which were linked to pressure from other jurors regarding the verdict, was excused and replaced by an alternate, with the agreement of both parties. The reconstituted jury returned guilty verdicts.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal government’s jurisdiction under Title 18 did extend to the first three nautical miles from shore. However, the appellate court found that the removal of the juror violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict because her dismissal stemmed from her views on the merits of the case. The Ninth Circuit vacated the convictions and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "USA V. LE" on Justia Law

Three defendants were apprehended by the United States Coast Guard while operating a go-fast vessel approximately 128 miles off the coast of Colombia. When detected, they attempted to flee and discarded 19 bales containing 623 kilograms of cocaine into the sea before being stopped. They were subsequently charged under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute cocaine on the high seas.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the Coast Guard failed to establish U.S. jurisdiction because officers allegedly did not properly confirm that the vessel was “without nationality.” The district court held an evidentiary hearing, where Coast Guard Officer Balboa testified that he individually asked each defendant if they claimed nationality for the vessel, and all declined. The court credited Balboa’s testimony on this point, despite finding he had lied about other details, and concluded U.S. jurisdiction was established. The court denied constitutional and sentencing challenges, then sentenced each defendant to 96 months’ imprisonment, applying a guidelines enhancement for recklessly endangering others during their flight.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that (1) the government must establish MDLEA jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the district court did not clearly err in crediting Balboa’s testimony that no claim of nationality was made, thus supporting jurisdiction; (3) the MDLEA is constitutional as applied; and (4) the sentencing enhancement for recklessly creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury was properly applied. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences. View "USA v. Chirino-Lovera" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a company and a port authority over responsibility for securing permits to dredge a ship channel in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The company had leased the channel to develop a grain terminal, but the lease did not specify which party was responsible for obtaining the dredging permit. After the terminal was built but could not be fully used without dredging, the company and the port disagreed over who bore this responsibility. The company sued in federal court, and, by consent of both parties, a U.S. Magistrate Judge presided over a bench trial and awarded the company nearly $125 million.After the trial and the entry of judgment, the port discovered that the magistrate judge and the company’s lead trial counsel had been close family friends for four decades—a relationship that was not fully disclosed. The only disclosure had been that the lead counsel’s daughter was the judge’s law clerk, who would be screened from the case. Upon learning about the undisclosed relationship, the port moved to vacate the magistrate judge referral. The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana held an evidentiary hearing and found that the port’s consent to the referral had not been knowing, as it had lacked crucial information about the judge’s conflict, and vacated the referral.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. The Fifth Circuit held that a party’s consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction waives a fundamental constitutional right and, therefore, must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. The court rejected the argument that constructive knowledge by the party’s counsel—rather than actual knowledge—could suffice to establish valid consent. Because the district court applied the correct standard and found no actual knowledge, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the vacation of the referral. View "I F G Port v. Lake Charles Harbor" on Justia Law

Two commercial fishermen and their family business challenged federal regulations that reduced catch limits for gag grouper in the Gulf of Mexico, a fish central to their livelihood. The fishermen argued that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, which played a key role in proposing the catch limits and regulatory framework, was unconstitutionally composed and shielded from removal, violating the Appointments Clause and other constitutional provisions. Their complaint alleged significant financial harm resulting from the reduced catch limits.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama found that certain powers granted to the Council—specifically, three statutory “veto” provisions that allow the Council to block actions by the Secretary of Commerce—rendered Councilmembers “officers” wielding significant federal authority. It determined their appointments violated the Appointments Clause because they were not properly appointed as principal officers. However, instead of vacating the catch limit rule, the district court severed the unconstitutional veto provisions from the governing statute and entered judgment for the plaintiffs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit largely agreed that the Council’s veto powers confer significant authority, so Councilmembers’ appointments as currently structured are constitutionally deficient. However, the Eleventh Circuit held that the remedy should be limited to invalidating actions taken with those veto powers. Because the gag grouper rule was not promulgated using the Council’s unconstitutional veto authority but rather through an advisory process ratified by the Secretary, the rule itself was not tainted. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for the plaintiffs and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the government, concluding that vacatur of the challenged rule was unwarranted. View "Russo v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce" on Justia Law

The case concerns Cesar Gomez Almonte, who was convicted for his role in an international drug-smuggling conspiracy. Beginning in 2016, conspirators based in the Dominican Republic transported large quantities of cocaine into the United States using boats with secret compartments. Almonte was responsible for procuring and outfitting these vessels. After U.S. officials became aware of the operation, Almonte was indicted under seal in Washington, D.C., and later arrested during a layover at Miami International Airport.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia oversaw Almonte’s trial, during which a jury found him guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine and sentenced him to 184 months in prison. Almonte raised several constitutional claims on appeal: he argued that the 18-month delay between his indictment and arrest violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, that venue in D.C. was improper under Article III and 18 U.S.C. § 3238, and that the district court’s refusal to grant a new trial after certain jurors expressed concerns about his counsel denied him an impartial jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed these claims. The court held that the delay between indictment and arrest did not violate Almonte’s right to a speedy trial, given the government’s good-faith investigative reasons and his failure to show specific prejudice. On venue, the court found that Almonte waived his only meritorious venue argument regarding the Eastern District of Virginia by not raising it when invited, and his other arguments about venue in Florida were either without merit or forfeited. Regarding juror impartiality, the court concluded that the district court handled the matter appropriately through voir dire and did not abuse its discretion in denying a mistrial or new trial. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "USA v. Almonte" on Justia Law

A passenger aboard a cruise ship alleged that, after becoming inebriated, she was separated from her friends and ended up in a maintenance closet with a crewmember. She stated that she was held against her will and sexually assaulted. Both she and the crewmember gave differing accounts of the incident to FBI agents: she could not recall if she consented to sexual conduct, while the crewmember claimed it was consensual and that he did not know she was intoxicated. The FBI investigator ultimately concluded the encounter was consensual, and prosecutors declined to bring criminal charges.The passenger brought suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida asserting claims including false imprisonment and sexual assault. In pretrial proceedings, the district court granted her motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of false imprisonment liability, finding that the cruise line had not produced admissible evidence to create a dispute of material fact. The district court excluded the FBI reports as hearsay. At trial, the district court instructed the jury that the cruise line was already liable for false imprisonment and limited the ability of the defendant to challenge the factual basis for that claim. The jury found the cruise line liable for sexual assault but rejected the negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, awarding over $10 million in damages.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in granting partial summary judgment on false imprisonment and in excluding the FBI investigator’s conclusions, which were admissible under the public records exception to the hearsay rule. The appellate court reversed the partial summary judgment on the false imprisonment claim, vacated the judgment as to the false imprisonment and sexual assault claims, and remanded for a new trial on those claims. The negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims remain resolved in favor of the cruise line. View "Doe v. Carnival Corporation" on Justia Law

A group of commercial fishers and buyers of South Atlantic red snapper challenged a regulation issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service. This regulation, under the South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan, established an annual catch limit for red snapper based solely on “landings” (fish brought ashore), without including “dead discards” (fish that die after being caught and thrown back). The fishers argued that this approach failed to prevent overfishing as required by federal law, since dead discards represent a significant and increasing portion of total red snapper mortality.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of the Service. The district court concluded that the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in A.P. Bell Fish Co. v. Raimondo largely resolved the main legal issues. That precedent had determined that federal law does not require the annual catch limit to directly restrict bycatch, such as dead discards, so long as the regulatory mechanism is designed to prevent overfishing. The district court also found no basis to conclude that excluding dead discards from the enforceable limit made it impossible to address overfishing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case. It first rejected the Service’s argument that the case was moot due to a superseding rule (Amendment 59), finding that the fundamental regulatory approach remained unchanged. On the merits, the court concluded that its prior decision in A.P. Bell Fish Co. controlled: the Service’s landings-only annual catch limit does not violate the statutory requirement to specify catch limits at a level that prevents overfishing. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Slash Creek Waterworks, Inc. v. Lutnick" on Justia Law

The case concerns an accident involving the Adalyn, a 38-foot commercial workboat owned by Michael Quain Neward Pittman and chartered by Hunter Marine Group, LLC. In November 2024, eight employees of Encore Dredging Partners, LLC were aboard the Adalyn during maintenance dredging operations on the Alabama River when the vessel ran aground and struck a steel pipe, resulting in injuries. The employees were performing work under a contract where Hunter Marine provided the vessel and received a daily flat fee from Encore, regardless of its use.Following the incident, the injured Encore employees filed personal injury claims in state court against Hunter Marine and Encore. In May 2025, Hunter Marine and Pittman sought to limit their liability under the federal Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 by filing a petition in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The district court stayed the state proceedings and ruled on cross-motions for summary judgment. It concluded that the Adalyn was a “covered small passenger vessel” excluded from the Act’s limitation of liability protections and granted summary judgment to the claimants.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decision de novo. The central issue was whether the Adalyn qualified as a “covered small passenger vessel” by carrying “passengers for hire,” given that consideration for carriage had been provided—albeit indirectly—by Encore on behalf of its employees. The Fifth Circuit held that the statute does not require personal payment by the passenger; indirect payment by an employer suffices. Consequently, the court affirmed that the Adalyn was a covered small passenger vessel, making the Limitation of Liability Act inapplicable and upholding the district court’s summary judgment for the claimants. View "Hunter Marine Group v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

A company applied to construct a deepwater port off the coast of Texas, including a pipeline that would cross the pipeline of another recently approved deepwater port. The relevant federal statute, the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 (DWPA), requires that only one deepwater port be licensed per “application area.” An environmental group, comprised of local residents near the proposed pipeline and tank farm, objected to the approval, claiming that the pipeline should have been included in the application area. Their concerns included increased risks of flooding, pollution, and negative impacts on property value and quality of life.The United States Maritime Administration (MARAD), acting under authority delegated by the Secretary of Transportation, processed the application. Unlike with previous applications for similar projects, MARAD excluded the proposed pipeline from Texas GulfLink’s application area, reasoning that the DWPA gave it discretion to do so. MARAD then approved Texas GulfLink’s application. The environmental group filed a timely petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, challenging MARAD’s decision on the basis that it violated the DWPA.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the DWPA requires the application area to encompass the entire deepwater port site, including pipelines located seaward of the high water mark. The court found MARAD’s designation of the application area to be unlawful because, if the pipeline had been properly included, the application area would overlap with that of another approved port, contrary to the DWPA’s requirement. The court granted the petition for review, vacated MARAD’s approval of the application, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "Citizens for Clean Air v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law