No. The American court has no power here. A country is in charge of everything within its own borders, but countries have unwritten rules to respect each other. For example, we don't arrest visiting kings or ambassadors. The same respect applies to another country's military. A warship is a symbol of its country's power and honor. When we let a friendly warship visit us, it's like we're making a silent promise not to interfere with it. Trying to sue the ship would break that promise and be very disrespectful to France, so our courts have to step back.

Yes, the ship 'The Exchange', which is now a French military ship and came into a U.S. port that allows warships, should be treated as if it doesn't have to follow local U.S. laws. This is because when countries let each other's warships visit their ports, they're basically promising not to interfere with those ships. It's like an unwritten rule between countries. The Court thought it would be unfair and could cause problems if foreign warships had to follow all the local laws of every port they visited. They said there's a big difference between regular foreign visitors or merchant ships, which do have to follow local laws, and warships, which are part of a country's military and directly controlled by that country's leader. The Court also pointed out that this is how countries usually treat each other's warships, and there haven't been any court cases before where a country tried to apply its laws to a foreign warship in its ports.

No. A United States court does not have jurisdiction because national ships of war of a friendly foreign sovereign are granted immunity as a matter of international comity and implied consent. The Court reasoned that while a nation's jurisdiction within its own territory is exclusive and absolute, nations have implicitly consented to waive this jurisdiction in certain cases for mutual benefit. This waiver is analogous to the immunity granted to foreign sovereigns themselves, their diplomatic ministers, and foreign armies permitted to pass through the territory. A public armed ship is distinct from private individuals or merchant vessels because it is an instrument of national sovereignty, acting under the direct command of the sovereign for national purposes. To subject such a vessel to local jurisdiction would offend the dignity and power of its sovereign. Therefore, the implied license under which a friendly warship enters a port is understood to contain an exemption from the jurisdiction of the host country's courts.

Yes. The Exchange, being a public armed ship in the service of a foreign sovereign with whom the U.S. is at peace, and having entered an American port open for her reception, must be considered as having come under an implied promise of exemption from the jurisdiction of the country. This is because the full and absolute territorial jurisdiction being alike the attribute of every sovereign is incapable of conferring extra-territorial power. The implied license under which such vessel enters a friendly port may reasonably be construed as containing an exemption from the jurisdiction of the sovereign within whose territory she claims the rights of hospitality. This principle is based on the perfect equality and absolute independence of sovereigns, and the common interest impelling them to mutual intercourse. The Court reasoned that it would be inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if foreign sovereigns or their armed vessels were amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. The Court distinguished between private individuals or merchant vessels, which do owe temporary and local allegiance to a foreign jurisdiction, and public armed ships, which constitute a part of the military force of their nation and act under the immediate and direct command of the sovereign. The Court also noted that this principle of exemption for public ships is supported by the practice of nations and the lack of judicial precedent asserting jurisdiction over such vessels.

Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot