Skiriotes v. Florida
313 U.S. 69, 61 S. Ct. 924, 1941 U.S. LEXIS 702 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may regulate the conduct of its own citizens on the high seas with respect to matters in which the state has a legitimate interest, provided the state's regulation does not conflict with federal law.
Facts:
- Lambiris Skiriotes was a citizen of the United States and a resident of Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida.
- Skiriotes worked as a deep-sea diver engaged in sponge fishery.
- A Florida statute made 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 this activity was approximately two marine leagues (six nautical miles) from the shore, beyond the traditional three-mile territorial limit of the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Lambiris Skiriotes was prosecuted and convicted in the county court of Pinellas County, Florida, for violating a state statute.
- In a separate action, Skiriotes was granted a writ of habeas corpus by a federal district court, but this decision was reversed by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Skiriotes appealed his criminal conviction to the Supreme Court of Florida, which affirmed the conviction.
- Skiriotes, as appellant, then 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 statute prohibiting the use of certain equipment for taking commercial sponges violate the U.S. Constitution when enforced against a citizen of that state for conduct occurring outside the state's traditional three-mile territorial waters?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Hughes
No. The state statute, as applied to a Florida citizen, does not violate the U.S. Constitution. A state has the authority to govern the conduct of its citizens on the high seas concerning matters of legitimate state interest, provided there is no conflict with federal legislation. The Court reasoned that because Skiriotes is a citizen of Florida, the dispute is a domestic matter between a state and its citizen, not an issue of international law or maritime boundaries. Florida has a legitimate interest in preserving its sponge fisheries. Since the federal government had not enacted conflicting legislation regarding the methods for sponge harvesting (only their size), Florida's law was a valid exercise of its sovereign police power to provide additional, non-conflicting protection for its natural resources.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for affirming a state's power to exercise a form of extraterritorial jurisdiction over its own citizens. It establishes that a state's regulatory authority is not strictly limited by its geographic boundaries when policing its own residents, particularly regarding the conservation of natural resources in which the state has a vital interest. The case clarifies that the principle allowing the federal government to regulate its citizens abroad can be analogously applied to states in relation to their citizens on the high seas, so long as the state action does not conflict with federal law. This precedent strengthens state police powers in areas of environmental and resource management beyond their immediate borders.
