Lexplug logoLexplug

Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc.

Supreme Court of the United States
1973 U.S. LEXIS 139, 411 U.S. 325, 93 S. Ct. 1590 (1973)
ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

States may exercise their police power to regulate maritime activities and impose strict liability for oil pollution damage occurring within their territorial waters, provided such regulations do not conflict with federal statutes or the uniform characteristic features of federal maritime law.


Facts:

  • Florida enacted the Oil Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Act, which imposed strict liability for damage incurred by the state or private persons resulting from oil spills in the state's territorial waters.
  • The Florida Act required owners and operators of terminal facilities and ships to establish evidence of financial responsibility through insurance or surety bonds.
  • The state Department of Natural Resources was authorized to regulate containment gear and equipment for the prevention of oil spills.
  • Congress enacted the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, which subjected shipowners to limited liability for cleanup costs incurred specifically by the Federal Government.
  • The volume of oil transported by sea increased significantly, with tankers growing in size, leading to a rise in the frequency of oil spills.
  • Oil spills caused damage to state property, beaches, and marine life such as shrimp, clam, and oyster beds, threatening the livelihood of fishermen.
  • Merchant shipowners, operators, and world shipping associations operated vessels destined for or leaving Florida waterfront facilities.

Procedural Posture:

  • Merchant shipowners and operators sued Florida officials in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida seeking an injunction against the Florida Act.
  • A three-judge District Court was convened to hear the constitutional challenge.
  • The District Court held the Florida Act unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, ruling it intruded into the federal maritime domain.
  • The Florida officials (appellants) appealed the decision directly to the United States Supreme Court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Federal Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 or the federal Admiralty Extension Act preempt the Florida Oil Spill Prevention and Pollution Control Act, thereby prohibiting a state from imposing strict liability and equipment regulations on vessels to prevent oil spills in its territorial waters?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Douglas

No, the federal statutes do not preempt the Florida Act because there is no constitutional or statutory impediment preventing a state from establishing liability concerning the impact of oil spillages on its own interests. The Court reasoned that the Federal Act explicitly allows states to impose their own requirements and liabilities regarding oil discharges. While the Federal Act covers cleanup costs incurred by the United States government, the Florida Act addresses costs incurred by the State of Florida and damages to private parties, making the two statutes harmonious rather than conflicting. The Court rejected the argument that the Admiralty Extension Act or the precedent of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen precluded state police power in this area. Historically, police powers extend to protecting state shores and citizens from pollution. The Court declined to extend the Jensen doctrine to oust state law from situations involving shoreside injuries, holding that sea-to-shore pollution falls within the concurrent jurisdiction of the state and federal governments.



Analysis:

This decision represents a significant retreat from the strict uniformity requirement of federal admiralty jurisdiction established in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen. By upholding Florida's strict liability statute, the Court affirmed the authority of states to use their police powers to combat environmental hazards, specifically oil pollution, even when those hazards originate from maritime commerce. The ruling establishes a regime of concurrent jurisdiction where state and federal laws can coexist as long as they are not mutually exclusive. It allows states to fill gaps left by federal legislation, particularly regarding damages to local property and economies, ensuring that the costs of environmental disasters are not borne solely by coastal communities.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Askew v. American Waterways Operators, Inc. (1973)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"