Thompson v. Darden

Background

A licensed Virginia pilot, Joseph J. Darden, offered to pilot the schooner William Neely into Norfolk and was refused by the ship’s master, Abram P. Thompson. Darden sued to recover the pilotage charge. Thompson argued that Virginia’s pilotage statutes were invalid under federal law and the Constitution; the trial court accepted that challenge, but the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial. The case reached this Court after further proceedings and appeals.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether Virginia could require compulsory pilotage for vessels coming in from or going out to sea through the Virginia capes and whether those rules conflicted with federal law or gave unfair preference to some ports. The Justices rejected the main challenges. They said Congress has long recognized state authority to regulate pilotage, the Virginia law applies equally to vessels bound in and out through the capes, and it therefore is not a discriminatory rate scheme under the cited federal statutes. The Court also declined to decide a speculative boundary-water argument that was not pressed below. The opinion relies on prior decisions affirming states’ power to adopt pilotage rules when they do not discriminate.

Real world impact

The decision lets Virginia continue to require licensed pilots for vessels entering and leaving through specified points such as Newport News, Smith’s Point, Yorktown, and Norfolk, and permits pilots to recover charges when services are refused. The ruling leaves inland waters regulated differently under state law and affirms the lower courts’ judgments, so the compulsory pilotage scheme remains in force.