Florida Department of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc.
458 U.S. 670, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1057, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 7 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a federal court's admiralty in rem process against property held by state officials who are acting without a colorable basis of legal authority. However, a federal court cannot adjudicate the State's ownership of the property in such a proceeding without the State's consent.
Facts:
- The Spanish galleon Nuestra Señora de Atocha sank in 1622, approximately 40 nautical miles west of what is now Key West, Florida.
- In 1971, Treasure Salvors, Inc. located the wreck site in what were later determined to be international waters.
- The State of Florida claimed ownership of the wreck under a state statute, asserting it was on state-owned submerged lands.
- Under threat of arrest and confiscation of its equipment, Treasure Salvors entered into a series of annual contracts with Florida, agreeing that the State would receive 25% of all items recovered.
- These contracts were predicated on the mutual assumption that the shipwreck was located on state-owned lands.
- Treasure Salvors recovered numerous artifacts, some of which were turned over to and held by officials of the Florida Division of Archives in Tallahassee.
- In a separate case, United States v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the seaward boundary of Florida's submerged lands was landward of the Atocha wreck site.
- Despite this ruling, Florida officials continued to hold the artifacts recovered under the contracts, asserting a right to them.
Procedural Posture:
- Treasure Salvors filed an in rem admiralty action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to claim title to the Atocha.
- The United States intervened, and the District Court entered judgment in favor of Treasure Salvors against the U.S.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment against the U.S.
- Treasure Salvors then filed a motion in the District Court for a warrant to arrest the artifacts held by Florida state officials in Tallahassee.
- The District Court issued the arrest warrant.
- The State of Florida filed a motion to quash the warrant, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity, which the District Court denied.
- The District Court ultimately ruled that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the action and ordered the artifacts delivered to Treasure Salvors.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that it could adjudicate the merits of the State's ownership claim to resolve the jurisdictional question, and found the State's claim invalid.
- The Florida Department of State then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
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 Eleventh Amendment bar a federal court from issuing an arrest warrant in an in rem admiralty action to secure property held by state officials when the State asserts ownership over that property?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stevens, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Marshall, and Justice Blackmun
No. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal process to secure property held by state officials who lack any colorable basis for their possession. The action is permissible against the officials under the doctrine of Ex parte Young because their conduct was ultra vires, or beyond their legal authority. The officials' authority was derived from a Florida statute that applied only to artifacts found on state-owned submerged lands. Since the Supreme Court had already determined the Atocha was not on state lands, the statute was inapplicable. The contracts were also predicated on this mistaken assumption of state ownership and did not independently grant Florida a right to the property. Because the officials had no colorable claim to possess the artifacts, they were stripped of their official character for Eleventh Amendment purposes. The relief sought—seizure of specific property—is prospective and does not require payment from the state treasury. However, while the court has jurisdiction to secure the property from the officials, it does not have the power to adjudicate the State's underlying ownership claim without its consent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Brennan
No. The Eleventh Amendment is wholly inapplicable because it does not bar a federal suit against a state brought by its own citizens, and Treasure Salvors is a Florida corporation. This conclusion is based on the view that Hans v. Louisiana, which extended the amendment to such suits, was wrongly decided. I dissent from the plurality's conclusion that the lower courts erred by determining the State's ownership of the artifacts. Since the State had a full opportunity to argue the merits of its ownership claim and that claim is insubstantial, there is no reason to invalidate the lower courts' determination on that issue.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice White, joined by Justice Powell, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor
Yes. The Eleventh Amendment bars this action because it is, in substance, a suit against the State of Florida itself to determine its title to the property, not a suit merely against its agents. The fiction of Ex parte Young does not apply when the core purpose of the lawsuit is to extinguish the state's claim to property it possesses. Even if viewed as a suit against officials, they possessed the artifacts under a colorable claim of right based on the contracts with Treasure Salvors. The validity of those contracts, particularly in light of the mutual mistake regarding the wreck's location, is a legitimate legal question, not a baseless claim. The plurality improperly adjudicates the merits of the state's contract claim to find it lacks a colorable basis, thereby committing the same Eleventh Amendment error it attributes to the lower court.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the Ex parte Young doctrine to in rem actions involving property held by a state. The plurality establishes a fine distinction: a federal court may pierce the veil of sovereign immunity to determine if state officials have a 'colorable basis' for possessing property, but it cannot proceed to a full adjudication of the state's title without consent. This creates a procedural path for plaintiffs to recover property from officials acting without authority but leaves the state's ultimate ownership claim technically unresolved in that specific proceeding. The decision underscores the tension between federal admiralty jurisdiction and the principles of state sovereign immunity, with the dissent arguing the plurality's distinction is a 'transparent fiction' that effectively adjudicates the state's rights.
