Jones Act Remains Central To US Shipping Law And Debate

()

Summary
  • Jones Act mandates US-built, flagged, owned, and crewed vessels for domestic shipping
  • Law extends FELA to seamen and allows jury trials for injury claims
  • Revisions include 1936 overhaul, 1940 towing expansion, 2006 recodification
  • GAO and OECD studies report mixed economic effects and uncertain precise impact

The jones act, enacted as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires that waterborne cargo carried between US ports be transported on vessels built in the United States, flying the US flag, owned by US citizens, and crewed by US citizens or US permanent residents.

Senator Wesley Jones introduced the law and President Woodrow Wilson signed it on June 5, 1920, with a stated aim of promoting a merchant marine sufficient for commerce and naval auxiliary needs.

The statute also formalizes seaman protections by extending the Federal Employers Liability Act to maritime workers, granting injured seamen the right to sue employers for negligence, to a jury trial, and to recover under related federal personal injury rules found at 46 U.S.C. §30104.

Courts apply a 30 percent service test in determining seaman status, as set by the Supreme Court in Chandris, Inc., v. Latsis, and maritime claims under the act carry a three year statute of limitations.

The law has been revised and augmented over time. The Merchant Marine Act of 1936 restructured policy and created federal subsidies while stressing US ownership, construction, and citizen crewing. Congress expanded coverage to towing vessels in 1940 and in 1988 specified coastwise rules for valueless materials. The statute was recodified in the US Code in 2006.

Policy Debate Waivers And Strategic Arguments

Supporters say the Jones Act sustains US shipbuilding and a merchant marine industrial base needed for naval auxiliaries and national defense, an argument reflected in studies by defense groups such as the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and the Lexington Institute.

Critics call the law protectionist, arguing it raises shipping and energy costs and limits competition. The Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute have urged reform or repeal, and other think tanks like the Niskanen Center and Mercatus Center have proposed amendments.

Government reviews find mixed results. A 2013 Government Accountability Office study on Puerto Rico said isolating the Jones Act’s exact effect on freight rates is difficult, and the OECD in 2019 estimated potential US economic gains from repeal between reported ranges of 19 billion and 64 billion dollars, while also projecting shipbuilding output gains of about 500 million dollars.

Waivers are granted on a case by case basis and historically require national defense rationale. Homeland Security Secretary waivers have been issued for emergencies, including Hurricane Katrina in 2005, a January 2012 fuel shipment to Nome, a brief 12 day waiver after Hurricane Sandy in November 2012, and suspensions and waivers tied to Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Puerto Rico relief in September 2017.

The Jones Act also interacts with other maritime statutes, such as the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886 and the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906, and remains a focal point of legislative reform efforts and industry debate.