Necessity of Judicial Participation

In order to eliminate doubt about the constitutionality of the rules providing for seizure in in rem actions and maritime attachment and garnishment,  judicial scrutiny is provided for before the issuance of such process.

Admiralty law in the United States inherited maritime attachment from both Continental and British traditions.  Maritime courts in the United States have relied on the precedents to uphold jurisdictional attachment since at least 1802.  In 1825 this procedural device received the imprimatur of the Supreme Court in Manro v. Almeida 23 U. S. 473 (1825). Maritime attachment has continued to receive judicial approbation as a jurisdiction-conferring device.  The court’s extension of procedural due process standards to admiralty cases are thus logical.

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the states, of any seizure under any law of the United States on land or upon waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, except matters within the jurisdiction of the Court of International Trade.


Inside Necessity of Judicial Participation