I’m fond of the maritime law of salvage with its “bounty” awarded to those snatching vessel and cargo from the cruel sea’s grasp.
It’s the only area of maritime law I know of where a bounty is awarded to the winning party as opposed to, say, time and materials or a damages award. But in a recent decision involving guns and boats and terrorism, the claimant was seeking a bounty in a situation that had nothing to do with salvage.
In July 2011, a doctor filed a claim in federal District Court asserting he’d informed the U.S. of vessels that had been “funded, furnished and fitted” by anti-Israel organizations in the U.S. These vessels, he claimed, were to be used by terrorist organizations targeting Israel. The doctor reasoned that because he’d informed the U.S. of these vessels he was entitled to a bounty under something called the “Neutrality Act.” Critically important to the ultimate outcome, the doctor named the specific vessels and sought their forfeiture.
The Neutrality Act dates back to 1794. It prevents you from supplying a vessel to someone who intends to use it against another state with whom we’re friendly. When a vessel violates the Act, it’s forfeited with half going to the informer and the other half to the U.S.
The District Court dismissed the complaint and didn’t believe the Act allowed the doctor to bring his own claim. But the doctor argued that because the Act contains a bounty provision and doesn’t forbid an individual from bringing a claim, the Court should imply the right for an individual to pursue a lawsuit seeking forfeiture and a bounty. The doctor's argument didn’t work at the District Court level or the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court reasoned that the doctor didn’t have a right to pursue his own claim because an informer under the Neutrality Act only has a blurry and conditional interest in a bounty, which hinges on whether the U.S. pursues a forfeiture action. (Well, that’s not how the Act seems to read as it states such offending vessels “shall be forfeited.”) It seemed the courts were bothered by the doctor pursuing a forfeiture and resulting bounty against specific vessels.
If the U.S. had pursued the forfeiture against these vessels and the doctor was suing the U.S. for his share of the forfeiture, I’m certain the outcome would’ve been different.
