Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.
125 S. Ct. 2169, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 4655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 97 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
General United States statutes are presumed to apply to foreign-flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters. However, a clear statement of congressional intent is required before such a statute can be applied to regulate matters concerning the vessel's internal affairs and operations.
Facts:
- Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. (NCL) is a Bermuda corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.
- NCL operates foreign-flagged cruise ships, including the Norwegian Sea and the Norwegian Star (both registered in the Bahamas), which depart from and return to U.S. ports.
- The cruises primarily serve U.S. residents, are heavily advertised in the U.S., and ticket disputes are governed by U.S. law.
- The petitioners are disabled individuals who purchased tickets for round-trip cruises on NCL ships departing from Houston, Texas.
- Petitioners alleged that NCL's ships had architectural barriers, inaccessible cabins, discriminatory policies regarding fares, and inadequate evacuation programs for disabled passengers.
Procedural Posture:
- Disabled individuals and their companions filed a class-action lawsuit against Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking relief under Title III of the ADA.
- The District Court denied NCL's motion to dismiss in part, holding that Title III generally applies to foreign-flag cruise ships in U.S. territorial waters.
- However, the District Court granted NCL's motion to dismiss the claims regarding physical barrier removal, finding it was unclear what modifications were required because relevant federal agencies had not yet issued specific guidelines for cruise ships.
- NCL appealed the partial denial of its motion to dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court, holding that under the 'internal affairs' doctrine, the ADA does not apply to foreign-flagged ships at all without a clear expression of congressional intent.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict between the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits on this issue.
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 Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) apply to foreign-flagged cruise ships that operate in United States waters?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
Yes. Title III of the ADA generally applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships in U.S. waters, but its application is limited by a clear statement rule for matters that interfere with the vessel's internal affairs. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's all-or-nothing approach, which held the ADA entirely inapplicable. Instead, general statutes presumptively apply to foreign vessels in U.S. territory, except for matters of internal order and discipline, like labor relations between a foreign ship and its foreign crew. While some ADA requirements, particularly those mandating permanent structural modifications, might implicate a ship's internal affairs and trigger the clear statement rule, many other requirements (e.g., non-discriminatory ticketing policies) do not. Furthermore, the ADA's own limitation that barrier removal must be 'readily achievable' likely prevents requirements that would conflict with international safety regulations (like SOLAS) or threaten shipboard safety, thus potentially avoiding a conflict with the internal affairs doctrine altogether. The case is remanded for an application-by-application analysis of the petitioners' claims.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
No. Title III of the ADA should not apply to foreign-flag cruise ships because its requirements plainly interfere with the internal order of a ship. The barrier-removal provisions, which could mandate permanent structural changes to a ship's design and construction, create the possibility of conflict with international safety standards (SOLAS) and the laws of other nations. This potential for conflict is precisely what the 'internal affairs' clear statement rule is meant to prevent. The Court should not apply the ADA's provisions piecemeal; since some of its core requirements affect internal affairs, and Congress has not provided a clear statement of applicability to foreign vessels, the entire statute should be held inapplicable to them. The majority's approach creates an unworkable, case-by-case analysis that forces courts to become experts in international maritime law.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. Title III of the ADA covers foreign-flagged cruise ships, and the 'internal affairs' clear statement rule should be narrowly construed to apply only when there is a direct conflict with principles of international law. The rule's purpose is to avoid international discord, not to create a broad exemption for any matter that can be labeled 'internal.' Because the Court's interpretation of the 'readily achievable' standard already prevents modifications that would violate international obligations, there is no need to give the internal affairs rule any further scope in this case. Given the ships' significant contacts with the United States, there is no reason to demand a clearer statement from Congress for the ADA to apply where no international conflict exists.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Thomas
Yes, in part. The 'internal affairs' clear statement rule correctly applies to any ADA requirement that mandates structural changes to a ship. However, the Court should not take an all-or-nothing approach. Therefore, those applications of Title III that do not pertain to a ship's internal affairs (e.g., policies and practices) should apply to foreign-flag vessels. This application-by-application approach is correct, but only because the Court’s contrary 'lowest common denominator' principle from Clark v. Martinez is flawed and should not be followed.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the 'internal affairs' clear statement rule, rejecting a categorical, all-or-nothing exemption for foreign-flagged vessels. It establishes a more nuanced, application-by-application framework, meaning a single statute can apply to some aspects of a foreign vessel's operations (like commercial practices) but not others (like ship design) absent a clear statement from Congress. This holding increases protection for individuals on foreign cruise ships in U.S. waters under general federal laws but also creates a more complex and fact-intensive inquiry for lower courts, which must now distinguish between a vessel's internal and external affairs for each specific claim.
