The Paquete Habana
The Supreme Court ruled that two small Cuban fishing boats, captured by U.S. warships during the Spanish-American War, could not be kept as spoils of war, because international law has long protected coastal fishing vessels peacefully catching fish from capture.
The decision matters far beyond these two boats: it declared that customary international law is automatically part of American law that courts must apply, even without a treaty or act of Congress saying so.
“International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and administered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction, as often as questions of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination.”
The Court's foundational statement that international law is automatically part of U.S. law.
How it got here: A federal district court in Florida condemned both vessels as war prizes; their owners appealed the condemnation decrees directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two small fishing boats, the Paquete Habana and the Lola, sailed out of Havana to fish and returned with cargoes of live fish. Their owners and crews were Spanish subjects living in Cuba, unarmed, unaware of the war or blockade, and not resisting capture. U.S. Navy vessels seized both boats near Cuba during the 1898 war with Spain, and a federal court in Florida condemned them and their cargoes as prizes of war, later selling them at auction.
The question before the Court
Could the U.S. Navy seize small Cuban fishing boats as war prizes during the Spanish-American War?
Why it matters
The ruling protected ordinary Cuban fishermen from having their boats and livelihoods seized simply because their country was at war with the United States. More broadly, it gave American courts a lasting tool: when no treaty, statute, or executive order addresses a question, judges can and must look to widely accepted international customs to decide cases involving other nations.
What changes now
The Court reversed the condemnation decrees and ordered the proceeds from selling the boats and their cargoes returned to the owners, along with damages and costs. This was a final merits decision, not a temporary order. About a year later, on the government's motion, the Court modified its order to make clear the damages owed should be compensatory only, not punitive.
What this does not decide
The Court made clear the exemption does not cover fishing vessels used for warlike purposes, ones that aid or spy for the enemy, or situations where military necessity requires otherwise. It also does not protect vessels engaged in large-scale commercial fishing, like whaling or sealing ships, which remain subject to capture as prize.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Fuller
“I am unable to conclude that there is any such established international rule, or that this court can properly revise action which must be treated as having been taken in the ordinary exercise of discretion in the conduct of war.”The dissent's core objection that no settled rule protected the fishing boats from capture.
Chief Justice Fuller argued there was no truly settled international rule exempting coastal fishing boats from capture, and that even if such a custom existed, it was merely a matter of executive grace rather than binding law. He would have upheld the captures, reasoning that decisions about sparing enemy property during war are political and military judgments for the President and military commanders to make, not questions for courts to second-guess.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court first resolved a jurisdictional question, holding that an 1891 law reorganizing federal appeals let the Supreme Court hear appeals from all final prize-case decrees regardless of the dollar amount involved, superseding earlier statutes that had required a minimum value or a judge's certificate.
- Turning to the merits, the Court explained that international law is treated as part of American law, so courts must apply well-established customs of nations even without a specific treaty, statute, or presidential order addressing the situation.
- The Court traced centuries of custom, treaties, and legal writings from many nations showing that unarmed coastal fishing boats peacefully catching and bringing in fresh fish have long been treated as exempt from seizure during war, out of consideration for a poor, hardworking class of workers.
- The Court found this custom had matured, by the general agreement of civilized nations, into a settled rule of international law, distinguishing it from ships engaged in large-scale commercial fishing operations like whaling, which remain subject to capture.
- Applying that rule to the facts, the Court found both boats were small, unarmed, coastal fishing vessels honestly pursuing their trade, with no warning of the blockade and no attempt to resist capture, so the exemption applied to them.
- Because the boats fell within the protected class and showed no signs of aiding the enemy, the Court concluded their capture lacked lawful justification under the rule it had just described.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms Brown v. United States (8 Cranch 110)
The Court relied on this earlier ruling limiting confiscation of enemy property without express government authorization.