United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp.

Background

A Philippine corporation largely owned by Americans sued the United States after its fishing vessel, the MV Orient, sank following a collision with the U.S. naval destroyer USS Parsons. The company brought claims under both the Suits in Admiralty Act and the Public Vessels Act. The federal district court dismissed the suit on the ground that the Public Vessels Act’s reciprocity rule barred suits by foreign nationals when their government does not allow Americans to sue there; the Ninth Circuit reversed and allowed the case under the Suits in Admiralty Act.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined whether a 1960 change to the Suits in Admiralty Act allowed plaintiffs to bypass the Public Vessels Act. The majority reviewed the statutes’ history and concluded Congress intended the 1960 amendment to resolve forum confusion with the Court of Claims, not to erase the specific rules Congress adopted for public vessels. The Court emphasized that repeals by implication are disfavored and found no clear congressional statement canceling the Public Vessels Act’s limits, so claims that fall within that Act remain subject to its terms, including reciprocity.

Real world impact

As a result, owners who seek money for damage caused by clearly public U.S. ships remain bound by the Public Vessels Act’s special rules, including the bar on suits by foreign nationals unless reciprocal access exists. The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back for the lower courts to apply the Act and to consider two unresolved issues: whether the company is effectively American because 99% of its stock is American, and whether the reciprocity rule raises a Fifth Amendment due-process problem.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart dissented, arguing the statute’s plain language and prior statements show Congress intended the Suits in Admiralty Act to cover public vessels, and he would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s result.