Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Little v. Barreme

Supreme Court of the United States · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawseparation of powersexecutive powerstatutory limitsmilitary ordersnaval seizuretrespassdamages

Facts

The Danish vessel Flying Fish, carrying Danish and neutral property, was captured on the high seas by the United States frigate Boston under Captain Little while sailing from Jeremie to St. Thomas. The vessel was brought to Boston and libelled as an American vessel that had violated the non-intercourse law. The applicable statute authorized seizure on the high seas of ships of the United States that, upon examination, appeared to be bound or sailing to a French port. Executive instructions, however, directed naval officers to prevent American commerce both to and from French ports, including vessels really American but covered by foreign papers.

Issue

Whether Captain Little was liable in damages for seizing a vessel sailing from a French port when the statute authorized high-seas seizure only of vessels bound or sailing to a French port, and whether executive instructions ordering broader seizures excused the capture.

Rule

When Congress specifically authorizes seizures on the high seas only in defined circumstances, executive instructions cannot enlarge that authority. An officer who seizes a vessel outside the limits set by statute commits an unlawful trespass and is liable in damages, even if he acted under executive orders and even if there was probable cause to suspect facts that would not have made the seizure lawful under the statute.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Congress authorizes coast guard cutters to stop and examine any U.S. vessel on the high seas suspected of embargo violations and to seize it only if, after examination, it appears bound to ports in a listed hostile territory. The President later directs commanders to seize covered vessels traveling either to or from those ports. Off Cape Hatteras, Commander Elena Ruiz seizes the Maribel, reasonably believed to be American, while it is sailing from Havana to Nassau.

If the vessel owner sues Commander Ruiz for damages, which is the strongest argument for liability?

Explanation. Where Congress specifically grants high-seas seizure authority only in defined circumstances, the executive cannot expand those limits by instruction. Because the statute here permits seizure only of vessels sailing to the hostile ports, seizure of a vessel sailing from such a port is unlawful even if the officer acted under presidential orders and reasonably suspected American ownership. (Derived from Little v. Barreme (n.d.).)