|
|
|
|
The
Brother Jonathan
Case Comes to a Close
|
|
The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Brother Jonathan Case
On April 22, 1998 the Supreme Court published its opinion in California and State Land Commission v. Deep Sea Research, Inc. “the Brother Jonathan case.” The case began in 1991 when Deep Sea Research (DSR) filed suit against the ship in federal admiralty court. DSR sought to be declared the finder or a salvor of the historic vessel the Brother Jonathan. As pleaded and argued by both parties the case presented many significant legal issues. In addition to the basic question of the constitutionality of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act, it offered an opportunity for the Court to define abandonment and embeddedness, consider whether state law had preempted the Act, whether the ship and cargo had to be treated as one (a unified res) for purposed of abandonment and whether the passage of time necessary to prove intent to abandon is tolled if the technology to salvage the ship is not available. The case also provided a major conflict between a basic principle of admiralty law which holds that an in rem decision by a court in admiralty is ‘good against the world.’ If California were exempt from that principle, because it could exclude itself by use of its 11th Amendment immunity, while maintaining its claim to the ship, the principle would be seriously eroded.
Although the parties raised and argued all these issues, the Court considered only one deciding, “that the 11th Amendment does not bar the jurisdiction of a federal court over an in rem admiralty action when the shipwreck is not in the State’s possession” (California vs Deep Sea Research, Inc (96-1400) 102 F. 3d 379). However, the Court did suggest that the meaning of abandonment under the Abandoned Shipwreck Act was the same as used in admiralty law. California had raised its 11th Amendment immunity in its original motion challenging the court’s jurisdiction. Denial of that motion was the basis of its appeal to the Supreme Court. The motion was based on the concept that Brother Jonathan was abandoned and as such was owned by the State. Assuming the ship was owned by the State, then DSR’s suit against the ship was in reality a suit against the State. A suit from which the State was immune under the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits suits against states in federal courts without their permission.
The Supreme Court agreed that the 11th Amendment does bar a Federal Court’s jurisdiction over general title disputes to state property, but it did not agree that the Amendment applied to in rem admiralty actions and specifically to actions over property not in the state’s actual possession. In effect, the decision limits the state’s 11th Amendment defense to cases in which the state has possession of the shipwreck. While answering one question, the decision raises two more; what constitutes possession and how does a state demonstrate it has possession? I don’t know the answer to those questions. Apparently, neither does the Court because during oral argument it was suggested, in jest by one Justice, that the state could obtain possession by writing its name on a note attached to a rock and dropping it on the ship.
I do know that few historic shipwrecks are in the state’s “actual” possession. California relied on the fact that if a shipwreck was abandoned on its submerged lands and the state legislature had claimed such shipwrecks, that it had “constructive” possession. Doing more would be very difficult if not impossible since the exact location of many shipwrecks is unknown. The likely result of this lack of “actual” possession is that most if not all disputes concerning historic shipwrecks, will be tried in federal admiralty courts, a venue Congress was specifically trying to avoid with the passage of the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.
The practical effect of the decision and the order of the Supreme Court was to return the case to the Federal Court in San Francisco for a full trial. In the words of the Court, “the judgment of the Court of Appeals assuming jurisdiction over this case is affirmed, its judgment in all other respects is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceeding consistent with this opinion” (California vs Deep Sea Research, Inc (96-1400) 102 F. 3d 379). Rather than proceeding with a full trial and its inherent cost in time and money, the parties sought a settlement. After a number of months, an agreement evolved which was eventually confirmed by the Court on March 11, 1999. The State received title to the ship and all the non-monetary artifacts. It also received 200 of the gold coins. The remaining 1007 coins were granted to Deep Sea Research as a salvage award. DSR will also be given a State permit to continue recovery operations under State supervision.
After nine years of litigation the decision in the Brother Jonathan case offers little enlightenment on the significant legal issues facing historic shipwreck protection. Answers will have to wait for another case and another day. The only certainty is that states no longer can use their 11th Amendment sovereign immunity, as they had previously done, to prevent trial of historic shipwreck disputes in a federal admiralty court.
Peter Pelkofer, June 14, 1999
The decision can be found at: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1400.ZS.html An Adobe PDF version of this file can be found at: SupCtBroJon1.PDF |