Skiriotes v. Florida
1941 U.S. LEXIS 702, 61 S. Ct. 924, 313 U.S. 69 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may govern the conduct of its citizens upon the high seas with respect to matters in which the state has a legitimate interest, provided that the state's action does not conflict with federal legislation.
Facts:
- Lambiris Skiriotes was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Pinellas County, Florida.
- Skiriotes worked as a deep-sea diver engaged in sponge fishery.
- Florida had a statute making it unlawful to use diving suits, helmets, or other deep-sea diver apparatus for the purpose of taking commercial sponges from the Gulf of Mexico.
- On March 8, 1938, Skiriotes used diving equipment to take sponges from the Gulf of Mexico.
- The location of Skiriotes's activity was approximately two marine leagues (six nautical miles) from the Florida shoreline, which is beyond the traditional three-mile territorial limit of the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Lambiris Skiriotes was prosecuted for violating a Florida statute in the county court of Pinellas County, Florida, the court of first instance.
- Following his arrest, Skiriotes obtained a writ of habeas corpus from a federal district court, but this decision was reversed by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Skiriotes was convicted of the offense in the Florida county court.
- Skiriotes, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- The Supreme Court of Florida, the state's highest court, affirmed the conviction.
- Skiriotes, as appellant, appealed the decision of the Florida Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 a state law prohibiting the use of specific fishing equipment violate the U.S. Constitution when it is enforced against a citizen of that state for conduct occurring on the high seas, beyond the state's territorial waters?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No, the state law is a valid exercise of state power. Even if the offense occurred outside Florida's territorial waters, the state has the authority to prohibit its own citizens from engaging in conduct that is inimical to state interests. The United States government is not debarred by international law from governing its own citizens on the high seas, and by analogy, a state may similarly govern its citizens with respect to matters of legitimate state interest where there is no conflict with federal law. Florida has a clear interest in protecting its sponge fishery, and the federal government has not enacted conflicting legislation regarding the method of taking sponges. Therefore, the question is not one of international law or territorial boundaries, but solely a domestic matter between Florida and its own citizen, over whom it retains sovereign authority.
Analysis:
This case is significant for affirming a state's authority to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over its own citizens for acts committed on the high seas. It establishes that a state's police power is not strictly confined by its geographical boundaries when regulating its citizens, provided there is a legitimate state interest and no conflict with federal law. The decision clarifies the 'residuum of sovereignty' retained by states under the U.S. Constitution, allowing them to regulate activities like fishing and resource extraction by their residents beyond recognized territorial waters. This precedent supports state conservation efforts and resource management schemes that extend beyond their coastlines.
