Ex Parte Abdu

Background

Six Arabian seamen who were crew members of a British ship sued to enforce the payment of half their wages. After the trial court dismissed their claim, the court allowed them to perfect an appeal without cost. When the record reached the Circuit Court of Appeals, the court clerk refused to file it without the usual deposit to secure court costs. The seamen sought a court order (mandamus) forcing the clerk to file the record without payment, claiming protection under a 1917 appropriation law that lets seamen bring suits without prepaying fees or costs.

Reasoning

The key question was whether the 1917 law’s phrase that “courts of the United States shall be open to seamen” also meant appellate courts must accept appeals without deposit or security. The majority said no. It explained that letting someone be heard in court is different from giving a right to appeal without costs, and that the 1917 law contains no clear language about appeals. The opinion relied on earlier statutes and cases showing that Congress has expressly added appellate protections when it intends them. Because the 1917 law did not do that, the Court declined to force the clerk to file the appeal without cost and discharged the rule.

Real world impact

As a practical result, seamen may bring trial suits without prepaying fees under the 1917 law but still may have to post deposits or pay costs to pursue appeals. The decision resolves only the question about court costs, not the merits of the wage claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Brandeis (joined by Justice Clarke) dissented, arguing the statute’s plain words cover all courts, including appellate courts, and would therefore bar deposit requirements for appeals.