You’ll invoke federal admiralty jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1) to pursue treasure recovery through in rem actions that allow direct enforcement against shipwrecks and artifacts. Courts apply either salvage law (awarding 10-25% for imperiled but owned property) or the law of finds (granting full ownership of abandoned wrecks), depending on proof of abandonment. U.S. Marshals execute arrest warrants within district limits, while sovereign immunity protects government vessels. The following sections clarify how these doctrines operate in practice.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts exercise exclusive in rem jurisdiction over treasure recovery cases under Article III admiralty powers.
- Salvage law awards 10-25% of recovered value; law of finds may grant full ownership if abandonment is proven.
- U.S. Marshals execute vessel arrest warrants only within their district’s territorial limits, securing treasure for adjudication.
- Sovereign immunity protects government vessels and cultural heritage artifacts from salvage claims, even when submerged.
- Verified complaint and warrant of arrest against the treasure itself binds all claimants to the court’s decree.
Constitutional Foundations and Federal Jurisdiction in Maritime Cases
Because the Constitution allocates specific categories of disputes to federal courts, Article III, Section 2, Clause 1’s extension of federal judicial power to “all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction” establishes the bedrock of maritime subject‑matter authority in the United States.
Article III’s admiralty clause creates the constitutional foundation for all federal maritime jurisdiction in American courts.
This constitutional authority protects your access to uniform rules for maritime commerce and shields international trade from inconsistent state decisions.
Federal jurisdiction operates through 28 U.S.C. § 1333(1), granting district courts original jurisdiction over admiralty cases.
The “saving to suitors” clause preserves your right to pursue in personam remedies in state courts, yet in rem enforcement against vessels remains exclusively federal.
When state courts hear maritime disputes, the reverse‑Erie doctrine requires them to apply federal substantive law, ensuring nationwide consistency while respecting your choice of forum.
Conversely, the Erie doctrine mandates that federal courts apply state law when adjudicating state law actions.
Maritime lawsuits may encompass claims under federal laws including the Jones Act, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act.
In Rem Actions and the Arrest of Vessels for Treasure Claims
When you seek to enforce a salvage lien or establish title to recovered treasure, federal admiralty practice offers in rem jurisdiction—a proceeding directly against the vessel, wreck, or artifacts themselves rather than against a person.
Under Supplemental Admiralty Rule C(1), you file a verified complaint describing the property with particularity and demonstrating its presence within the district.
The court then issues a warrant of arrest, executed by the U.S. Marshals Service, placing the res under judicial custody.
This procedure secures treasure claims by binding all claimants—known and unknown—to the court’s decree.
In rem actions conclusively adjudicate rights in the property, enforceable against the world, making arrest the cornerstone of maritime lien enforcement in treasure-recovery litigation.
The proceeding determines rights in property without requiring notice to the owner before arrest.
If the property is not released within 14 days of arrest, the court must order public notice to inform potential claimants of the pending action.
Salvage Law Versus Law of Finds in Historic Wreck Recovery
Although both salvage law and the law of finds rest on maritime tradition, they impose fundamentally different legal consequences on treasure hunters who recover historic wrecks.
Salvage law treats property still owned but imperiled, granting you salvage rewards—typically 10–25% of value—while the original owner retains title. The law of finds applies only to abandoned property, potentially awarding you full ownership under “finders-keepers” principles.
Courts won’t apply both regimes concurrently; they’ll choose one based on proof of abandonment. Because abandonment demands clear, affirmative evidence—and time alone doesn’t establish it—you’ll face significant risk pursuing finds claims.
Modern courts presumptively favor salvage for historic wrecks, and government vessels remain immune, channeling most cases toward supervised salvage rather than unrestricted recovery. The discovery timing of a shipwreck substantially influences which legal framework applies to your claim.
Key considerations:
- Voluntary service in marine peril versus claiming ownerless treasure
- Equitable reward sharing versus exclusive title acquisition
- Court supervision and reporting versus autonomous operations
- Cultural heritage protection limiting commercial exploitation
- Abandonment proof thresholds blocking finds strategies
- International differences in salvage law application creating jurisdictional disputes
U.S. Marshals, Territorial Limits, and Enforcement at Sea
If you recover a historic wreck in federal waters and face an in rem arrest warrant, the U.S. Marshals Service executes that process—but only within the issuing district’s territorial limits under Supplemental Rule E(3)(a).
Maritime jurisdiction extends broadly across the high seas under 18 U.S.C. § 3238, yet Marshals can’t serve warrants beyond district boundaries without statutory exceptions like 28 U.S.C. § 1395.
The Coast Guard conducts initial interdictions at sea, then Marshals assume custody once your vessel enters port.
Enforcement strategies often require coordination: Coast Guard boards, DHS seizes contraband, and Marshals enforce court orders onshore.
Venue statutes (18 U.S.C. § 981(h)) may permit remote jurisdiction over your treasure, but physical seizure remains district-based, limiting where authorities can actually arrest your property. In forfeiture proceedings, the warrant of arrest may be forwarded to the district where your recovered artifacts are currently stored following the initial seizure. State and local law enforcement may also assert authority over recovered artifacts when the wreck lies in navigable state waters.
Sovereign Immunity and International Law Considerations in Treasure Disputes
- Naval frigates resting undisturbed on the seabed, still cloaked in their sovereign flag
- Gold-laden treasure chests secured behind diplomatic immunity shields
- Arbitration clauses releasing courthouse doors otherwise barred by FSIA exceptions
- Cultural heritage artifacts immune from attachment, even after favorable judgments
- Commercial salvage operations stripping governmental immunity through acta jure gestionis characterization
- Federal admiralty courts proceeding with express or implied waivers of sovereign protection
- Jurisdictional determinations arising from the FSIA as sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over foreign states in federal court
Frequently Asked Questions
How Are Salvage Awards Calculated and Distributed Among Multiple Claimants?
Salvage awards slice the pie by weighing salved value, peril, and effort—you’ll see salvage percentages applied to property pools, then apportioned among claimants. Courts resolve claimant disputes using Article 13 factors and contribution shares.
What Permits Are Required to Conduct Treasure Hunting in U.S. Waters?
You’ll need federal permits under ARPA for archaeological sites on federal lands, special-use permits for National Forests and Wildlife Refuges, plus state-specific exploration permits in coastal waters—treasure hunting regulations vary greatly by jurisdiction and resource type.
Can State Courts Ever Hear Admiralty Cases Involving Treasure Recovery?
You’ll find state jurisdiction survives solely for in personam claims under the “saving to suitors” clause, but admiralty exceptions bar state courts from entertaining in rem treasure-recovery actions against vessels or submerged wrecks themselves.
Who Owns Artifacts Recovered From Abandoned Shipwrecks on the Seabed?
Ownership disputes depend on jurisdiction: you’ll find state governments own ASA-covered abandoned wrecks in nearshore waters, while admiralty courts resolve historical significance claims for wrecks beyond state reach, determining salvage awards versus finder’s title.
How Does Underwater Cultural Heritage Law Restrict Commercial Treasure Salvage?
Underwater cultural heritage law bars you from commercial salvage by prohibiting profit-driven exploitation (2001 Convention Article 2(7)), requiring in situ preservation, blocking salvage awards for historic wrecks, and imposing strict trade controls on recovered artifacts.
References
- https://www.usmarshals.gov/what-we-do/service-of-process/civil-process/admiralty
- https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C1-12-1/ALDE_00013649/
- https://www.fjc.gov/history/work-courts/jurisdiction-admiralty-and-maritime
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_law
- https://libguides.law.villanova.edu/admiralty
- https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/what-is-admiralty-law-in-the-united-states/
- https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/security-and-global-studies/resources/what-is-maritime-law-and-why-does-it-matter-to-nations/
- https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/rules/Rules_Title3_Div2-Ch2_LegSpec_Admiralty.pdf
- https://www.houstoninjurylawyer.com/when-state-or-maritime-law-applies/
- https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-670-maritime-jurisdiction
