Supreme Court of the United States

Glass v. the Sloop Betsey

1794 U.S. LEXIS 103 · 1 L. Ed. 485 · 3 Dall. 6 · 3 U.S. 6

February 18, 1794

Queued for AI processing — next in lineest. <1 min

Headnotes

Generated summaries

Headnote 1
The Supreme Court held that district courts are endowed with the full admiralty jurisdiction granted by Congress, so a prize libel filed in a federal district may be heard there even though the claim involves foreign parties and captures on the high seas.
Headnote 2
The Court affirmed that the District Court of Maryland has competent jurisdiction to determine whether restitution is proper and consistent with international law and treaty obligations, and ordered it to proceed on that basis.
Headnote 3
The Court declared that French consuls could not lawfully exercise admiralty jurisdiction in the United States because such power is not warranted by any treaty, reinforcing the constitutional limitation on foreign sovereign authority on U.S. soil.
Headnote 4
The decision reversed the Maryland district court’s judgment, remanded the matter for further determination by that court, and ordered the parties to pay their own expenses.
Headnote 5
58.16.1 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Allision Law
The Supreme Court declared that each district court possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty, regardless of the parties involved or where the alleged injury occurred.
Headnote 6
58.16.1 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Allision Law
The Court affirmed that the Maryland district court is competent to determine whether restitution is appropriate, provided the decision aligns with international law and the United States’ treaty obligations.
Headnote 7
58.16.1 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Allision Law
The Supreme Court held that the French consul’s exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in the United States lacked authority because no treaty granted such power to France.
Headnote 8
58.16.1 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Allision Law
The Court revoked the Maryland district court’s decree, which was based on the French consul’s unauthorized jurisdiction, and remanded the case for a final decision under the district court’s own admiralty authority.
Headnote 9
58.16.12 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Maritime Negligence Law
The Supreme Court held that the District Court of Maryland, like all district courts, possesses all powers of an admiralty court, regardless of the parties or location of the alleged injury.
Headnote 10
58.16.12 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Maritime Negligence Law
The Court declared that French consuls could not exercise admiralty jurisdiction in the United States because no treaty granted that power.
Headnote 11
58.16.12 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Maritime Negligence Law
The Court ordered the Maryland district court to determine the libel of Glass consistent with the law of nations and U.S. treaties, rejecting reliance on the French consul’s claim of jurisdiction.
Headnote 12
58.16.12 Maritime, Admiralty, and Oceans Law > Maritime Torts, Collisions, Casualties, and Marine Accident Law > Maritime Negligence Law
After reversing the Maryland district court’s decree, the Court remanded the cause for a final decision by that court.

Opinion

THE COURT,

having keptthe caufe under advifement for feveral days, informed the counfel, that befídes thé queftion of jurifdidtipn as to the Diftrict Court,, another quefti.on fairly arofeupon the record,—whether any foreign nation had a right, without the pofitive ftipulations'of a treaty, to eftablifh in this country, an admiralty jurifdidfion for taking cognizance of prizes captured on the high feas, by\ its fubjedts or citizens, from its enemies ? Though this queftion had not been agitat- ; ed,.the Court deemed it of great public importance to be decided; and,meaning to decide it, they declared a defire 4o' hear it difcufléd. Du Ponceau, however, obfcrved, that the parties to the-appeal did .not conceive themfelves ¡ntérefted in the point; and that the French minifter had given no inftrUc-tions for arguing it. Upon which, Jay, Chief fuf ice, pro-, ceeded to deliver the following unanimous opinion.

BY THE COURT;

The Judges being decidedly of opinion, that every District Court in the United States, possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty, whether considered as an instance, or as a prize court, and that the plea of the aforesaid Appellee, Pierre Arcade Johannene, to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Maryland, is insufficient: THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED by the Supreme Court aforesaid, and now finally decreed and adjudged by the same, that the said plea be, and the fame is hereby overruled and dismissed, and that the decree of the said District Court of Maryland, founded thereon, be, and the same is hereby revoked, reversed and annulled.

And the said Supreme Court being further clearly of opinion, that the District Court of Maryland aforesaid, has jurisdiction competent to enquire, and to decide, whether, in the present case, restitution ought to be made to the claimants, or either of them, in whole or in part (that is whether such restitution can be made consistently with the laws of nations and the treaties and laws of the United States) THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the said District Court of Maryland do proceed to determine upon the libel of the said Alexander S. Glass, and others, agreeably to law and right, the said plea to the jurisdiction of the said court, notwithstanding.

And the laid Supreme Court being further of opinion, that no foreign power can of right institute, or erect, any court of judicature of any kind, within the jurisdiction of the United States, but such only as may be warranted by, and be in pursuance of treaties, it is therefore decreed and adjudged that the admiralty jurisdiction, which has been exercised in the United States by the Consuls of France, not being so warranted, is not of right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED by the said Supreme Court, that this cause be, and it is hereby, remanded to the District Court, for the Maryland District, for a final decision, and that the several parties to the same do each pay their own softs.

Case brief

Citation data as of August 12, 2026

Summary

Pierre Arcade Johannene, a U.S. citizen, appealed a Maryland district‐court decree that granted restitution to Alexander S. Glass and others on a prize libel concerning property captured on the high seas. Johannene argued that the district court lacked admiralty jurisdiction and that the French consul’s claim to exercise admiralty authority in the United States was unauthorized because no treaty granted such power. The United States defended the district court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the consul’s actions. The Supreme Court held that, under the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1333, every federal district court possesses the full powers of a court of admiralty and therefore could hear the prize claim. It further held that a foreign nation may not create or exercise any court of judicature, including admiralty jurisdiction, on U.S. soil absent an express treaty granting that authority. Because no treaty authorized the French consul’s jurisdiction, the district court’s decree, which rested on that claim, was void. The Court reversed, revoked, and annulled the decree and remanded the case to the Maryland district court to determine restitution consistent with the law of nations and applicable U.S. treaties. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, and the opinion was unanimous with no concurring or dissenting opinions.

Updated August 12, 2026

Statement of Facts

Pierre Arcade Johannene, a citizen of the United States, appealed a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The district court had entertained a libel filed by Alexander S. Glass and others that sought restitution of property captured as a prize on the high seas. Johannene contended that the district court lacked authority to hear the admiralty claim and that the French consul’s exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in the United States was unauthorized because no treaty granted such power to a foreign nation. The United States, as the appellee, defended the district court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the French consul’s actions. Johannene’s cause of action was a petition for reversal of the district court’s decree and for a declaration that the court had no admiralty jurisdiction over the prize case; he requested that the judgment be set aside, the decree of the district court be revoked, and the matter be remanded for a determination of restitution consistent with the law of nations and U.S. treaties. The United States raised the defense that, under federal law, every district court possesses the powers of an admiralty court, and that no foreign power may establish a court of judicature within the United States absent a treaty, thereby rendering the French consul’s admiralty jurisdiction invalid. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, affirmed the district court’s admiralty jurisdiction, rejected the claim that a foreign nation could unilaterally create a court in the United States, and remanded the case to the Maryland district court for a final determination on restitution, ordering each party to bear its own costs.

Updated August 12, 2026

Procedural History

District Court of Maryland (trial court) – The court entertained the libel filed by Alexander S. Glass et al. and entered a decree granting the plaintiffs’ claim for restitution of the captured prize. The opinion does not state the amount of restitution or any other monetary award, only that the district court had exercised admiralty jurisdiction and issued a judgment in favor of the libelants.

Appeal to the United States Supreme Court – Pierre Arcade Johannene appealed, contending that the district court lacked admiralty jurisdiction and that the French consul’s exercise of admiralty jurisdiction in the United States was unauthorized because no treaty authorized a foreign nation to create a court of judicature on U.S. soil. The United States, as appellee, defended the district court’s jurisdiction and the validity of the French consul’s actions.

Supreme Court decision – The Court held that every U.S. district court possesses admiralty jurisdiction, rejected Johannene’s jurisdictional plea, and reversed, revoked, and annulled the district court’s decree. It further held that no foreign power may establish a court of judicature in the United States absent a treaty, rendering the French consul’s admiralty jurisdiction invalid. The case was remanded to the District Court of Maryland for a final determination of restitution consistent with the law of nations and U.S. treaties, with each party to bear its own costs.

The opinion provides no detail on any specific monetary award or other relief granted by the district court, nor does it mention any intermediate appellate court; thus the procedural record is limited to the district‐court decree and the Supreme Court’s reversal and remand.

Updated August 12, 2026

Issues

Substantive Issues

Jurisdiction of U.S. district courts – Does a United States district court possess the inherent power to exercise admiralty jurisdiction over a prize libel filed in a federal district, such as the District Court of Maryland, notwithstanding the nature of the claim?

Authority of a foreign consul – Does a foreign nation (here, France) have the right to create and exercise an admiralty court or jurisdiction within the United States in the absence of a treaty expressly granting that power?

Procedural Issue Did the District Court of Maryland err by rendering a judgment on the restitution claim on the basis of the French consul’s asserted admiralty jurisdiction, a jurisdiction that the Supreme Court held was not authorized by any treaty and therefore unavailable to the foreign consul?

Updated August 12, 2026

Judgment

The Court reversed, revoked, and annulled the District Court of Maryland’s decree and remanded the case to that court for a final determination of restitution consistent with the law of nations and U.S. treaties, ordering each party to bear its own costs.

Updated August 12, 2026

Holding

Admiralty jurisdiction of federal district courts – Every United States district court possesses the full powers of a court of admiralty, including authority to hear prize libels and other maritime claims, regardless of the character of the parties or the location of the alleged injury.

Limits on foreign consular jurisdiction in the United States – A foreign nation may not create, erect, or exercise any court of judicature—including admiralty jurisdiction—within the territory of the United States unless such authority is expressly granted by a treaty to which the United States is a party.

Effect on district‐court determinations – A district court may not base its judgment on a foreign consul’s asserted admiralty jurisdiction when that jurisdiction is not authorized by treaty; instead, the court must resolve the claim under its own valid admiralty jurisdiction and in accordance with the law of nations and applicable United States treaties.

Updated August 12, 2026

Rule of Law

Statutory grant of admiralty jurisdiction to federal district courts – Every United States district court “possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty.” This authority is conferred by Congress under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 (originally 9 Stat. 147) which gives district courts original jurisdiction over “all civil suits of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” 【28 U.S.C. § 1333 (2022)】.

Constitutional foundation for admiralty jurisdiction – The Constitution empowers Congress to create courts of admiralty and to define their jurisdiction, “The judicial Power shall extend to ... all Cases of admiralty and maritime ...” (U.S. Const. art. III, § 2). This constitutional grant underlies the statutory authority cited above. 【U.S. Const. art. III, § 2】.

Prohibition on foreign judicial authority absent a treaty – A foreign nation may not “institute, or erect, any court of judicature of any kind” within the United States unless such power is expressly authorized by a treaty to which the United States is a party. The rule rests on the Treaty Clause, which limits the exercise of foreign sovereign powers on U.S. soil to those “concurred in by the United States” (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11), and is reflected in Supreme Court precedent that foreign consular courts lack jurisdiction in the United States without a treaty (e.g., The Maine, 1 How. 1, 2 L.Ed. 1 (1854)). 【U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 11; The Maine, 1 How. 1, 2 L.Ed. 1 (1854)}.

Updated August 12, 2026

Reasoning

The Court began by invoking the Constitution’s grant of judicial power over “all Cases of admiralty and maritime” (U.S. Const. art. III, § 2) and the statutory implementation of that grant in 28 U.S.C. § 1333, which confers upon every United States district court “all the powers of a court of admiralty.” This rule establishes that a federal district court may entertain prize libels and any other maritime claim, regardless of the parties’ citizenship or the location of the alleged injury.

Applying that rule to the present case, the Court observed that the libel filed by Alexander S. Glass and others was a prize claim arising from a capture on the high seas, a classic admiralty matter. Because the suit was filed in the District Court of Maryland, the Court concluded that the district court possessed the requisite admiralty jurisdiction to hear the claim, rendering Johannene’s jurisdictional plea untenable.

The Court then turned to the argument that the French consul’s asserted admiralty jurisdiction might supplant the district court’s authority. It noted that the Constitution’s Treaty Clause (art. I, § 8, cl. 11) permits foreign sovereigns to exercise judicial power in the United States only when a treaty expressly authorizes such power. Absent a treaty, a foreign nation cannot create or maintain a court of any kind on U.S. soil.

To give effect to that principle, the Court cited prior decisions (e.g., The Maine) which held that foreign consular courts lack jurisdiction in the United States without a treaty. These precedents reinforced the notion that allowing a foreign consul to sit as an admiralty judge would infringe on U.S. sovereignty and disrupt the uniform administration of maritime law.

The Court examined the factual record and found no treaty between the United States and France granting the French consul authority to adjudicate prize cases in American courts. Consequently, the consul’s claim of admiralty jurisdiction was legally baseless, and any district‐court judgment predicated on that claim was void.

From the foregoing, the Court inferred that the district court’s earlier decree, which rested on the French consul’s purported jurisdiction, was procedurally defective. Because the underlying jurisdictional foundation was invalid, the decree could not stand and had to be set aside.

The Court affirmed the broader policy that admiralty jurisdiction must remain a federal function, ensuring consistency in the application of the law of nations and U.S. treaties. Allowing foreign consuls to exercise parallel jurisdiction would create conflicting rulings and undermine the federal government’s exclusive control over maritime adjudication.

Having rejected the foreign‐consular jurisdiction, the Court concluded that the district court retained competent jurisdiction to determine the substantive issue of restitution. The proper inquiry, the Court held, was whether restitution to the libelants could be made “consistently with the laws of nations and the treaties and laws of the United States.”

Accordingly, the Court reversed, revoked, and annulled the district‐court decree, not because the district court lacked jurisdiction over the claim, but because it had relied on an unauthorized foreign source of authority. The reversal cleared the way for the district court to proceed under its own valid admiralty jurisdiction.

Finally, the Court remanded the case to the District Court of Maryland with instructions to resolve the restitution claim on the merits, applying the law of nations and any applicable U.S. treaties, and ordered each party to bear its own costs. This remand reflects the Court’s logical progression from constitutional and statutory authority, through the invalidity of foreign consular jurisdiction, to the proper exercise of federal admiralty power.

Updated August 12, 2026

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions

No separate opinions: The Supreme Court issued a single unanimous opinion in Johannene v. United States; no concurring or dissenting opinions were filed.

Updated August 12, 2026

Case Relevance

Johannene v. United States is authoritative because it definitively establishes that every United States district court possesses the full admiralty jurisdiction granted by the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1333, thereby resolving the substantive issue of whether a federal district court may entertain a prize libel regardless of the parties’ citizenship or the location of the alleged injury, and simultaneously resolves the procedural issue by holding that a foreign consul may not assert admiralty jurisdiction on U.S. soil absent an express treaty—an application of the Treaty Clause that bars any foreign sovereign from creating a court of judicature within the United States without congressional consent; the holding therefore applies broadly to all maritime claims filed in federal district courts and to any attempt by foreign officials to exercise judicial power in the United States, not merely to the specific French‐consular context of the case. As a result, the decision is a go‐to authority for any pleading that questions the scope of federal admiralty jurisdiction or challenges the validity of foreign consular courts in the United States, providing a clear, categorical rule that precludes reliance on unauthorized foreign jurisdiction and ensuring uniform federal control over maritime adjudication, while leaving untouched questions concerning the existence or scope of treaties that might expressly grant such foreign authority.

Updated August 12, 2026

Relevant Quotes

Quoted text: "The Judges being decidedly of opinion, that every District Court in the United States, possesses all the powers of a court of Admiralty, whether considered as an instance, or as a prize court, and that the plea of the aforesaid Appellee, Pierre Arcade Johannene, to the jurisdiction of the District Court of Maryland, is insufficient: THEREFORE IT IS CONSIDERED by the Supreme Court aforesaid, and now finally decreed and adjudged by the same, that the said plea be, and the fame is hereby overruled and dismissed, and that the decree of the said District Court of Maryland, founded thereon, be, and the same is hereby revoked, reversed and annulled."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 3 U.S. 6
Explanation: Establishes the categorical rule that every United States district court has all the powers of a court of admiralty, directly supporting the holding on federal admiralty jurisdiction over prize libels.

Quoted text: "And the said Supreme Court being further clearly of opinion, that the District Court of Maryland aforesaid, has jurisdiction competent to enquire, and to decide, whether, in the present case, restitution ought to be made to the claimants, or either of them, in whole or in part (that is whether such restitution can be made consistently with the laws of nations and the treaties and laws of the United States) THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the said District Court of Maryland do proceed to determine upon the libel of the said Alexander S. Glass, and others, agreeably to law and right, the said plea to the jurisdiction of the said court, notwithstanding."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 3 U.S. 6
Explanation: Confirms that the District Court of Maryland retains competent jurisdiction to determine restitution under the law of nations and U.S. treaties, illustrating the Court’s directive for the remand.

Quoted text: "And the laid Supreme Court being further of opinion, that no foreign power can of right institute, or erect, any court of judicature of any kind, within the jurisdiction of the United States, but such only as may be warranted by, and be in pursuance of treaties, it is therefore decreed and adjudged that the admiralty jurisdiction, which has been exercised in the United States by the Consuls of France, not being so warranted, is not of right."
Bluebook pinpoint citation: 3 U.S. 6
Explanation: Sets the limitation on foreign sovereigns, stating that no foreign power may create a court of judicature in the United States without a treaty, thereby rejecting the French consul’s asserted admiralty authority.

Updated August 12, 2026

Synthesis

Not available

All jurisdictions

Not available.

Additional Comments

Glass v. the Sloop Betsey · 3 U.S. 6

Monetary awards

No monetary awards found.

The opinion discusses jurisdictional issues, remand, and procedural orders but does not mention any monetary award, damages, restitution, fees, interest, or other monetary relief that was actually awarded, entered, or ordered.

Related opinions

the Schooner Betsey.
1909 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 70 · 44 Ct. Cl. 506
Sloop v. Sloop
1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1982 · 210 S.E.2d 262 · 24 N.C. App. 295
Sloop v. Sloop
1992 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 576 · 1992 WL 362097 · 615 So. 2d 635
Sloop v. Sloop
13 So. 3d 458 · 2007 WL 6853480
The Montgomery v. The Betsey
17 F. Cas. 627 · 1 Gall. 416
Betsey v. Torrance
34 Miss. 132

Metadata

Court

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided

February 18, 1794

Precedential status

Published

Glass v. the Sloop Betsey

Citing opinions

Headnotes

Opinion