AMP applauds U.S. District Court dismissal of case challenging the Jones Act

The American Maritime Partnership (AMP), the voice of the U.S. domestic maritime industry, is applauded a U.S. district court decision dismissing a challenge to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly known as the Jones Act, which ensures vessels transporting cargo from point to point in the United States must be American-built, -owned and -crewed.

The case was brought against Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noam, with AMP and Matson Navigation intervening on behalf of the defendants.

In a 46-page opinion, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected claims that the Jones Act violates the Due Process Clause and the Port Preference Clause of the Constitution. The ruling, siding with the Administration’s defense, reaffirms the statute’s vital role in maintaining America’s merchant marine for commercial and national security purposes as part of a long-standing history of American cabotage.

“We commend the Trump Administration for vigorously defending the Jones Act in court and defending the men and women who serve America’s national security, homeland security and economic security,” said Jennifer Carpenter, president of the American Maritime Partnership. “The Jones Act is foundational to our nation, and we thank the Court for its thoughtful analysis of the history of the law. This decision reaffirms not only the constitutionality but also the critical importance of the Jones Act to every American.”

Judge Boasberg found that the Jones Act is “neutral legislation that does not create any direct preferences by channeling commerce through the ports of one state at the expense of others.” The ruling emphasized that the Jones Act “emerged from a centuries-old tradition of cabotage laws” and “applies uniformly across transportation modes, including aviation,” reflecting consistent national policy across modes of transportation rather than discrimination against any particular state or region as the plaintiffs claimed.

The opinion concludes that the Jones Act also satisfies a rational basis review, noting that maintaining “a strong domestic merchant marine, protecting national security by ensuring that vessels are available for military use, and supporting American maritime employment” are “paradigmatic examples of legitimate governmental interests.”

The policy is so consistent with national interests , notes AMP, that a 2025 legal review by Seafarers Rights International found that 105 nations – representing over 85% of the world’s coastlines – are covered by laws similar to the Jones Act.

“As we celebrate our nation’s 250 years of independence, it is good to see the Trump Administration, the courts and the private sector all aligned on how important a strong, American merchant marine is,” Carpenter said,

The lawsuit was brought by the Hawaii based Kōloa Rum Company with free representation by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which, notes AMP, has been described as a “Dark Money” group by critics. The PLF’s filing did not disclose what donors, either foreign or domestic, financially supported this case.

Read the ruling:

The post AMP applauds U.S. District Court dismissal of case challenging the Jones Act appeared first on Marine Log.