MASK — Volume 63, Issue 3

Mask and MacMahon uncover a neglected historical source explaining Article III's diversity jurisdiction provision. Scholars have debated why the Framers granted federal courts jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states, with most attributing it to concerns about state bias in litigation. However, the authors argue this explanation ignores the Framers' direct experience as judges hearing Revolutionary War Prize Cases. During the War, the Continental Congress relied on privateers—private citizens authorized to attack and capture enemy ships in exchange for a share of the bounty. These prize disputes frequently arose in state admiralty courts because it was often unclear whether a captured vessel was British, American, or neutral, and because multiple privateers sometimes participated in a capture. Congress established a Committee on Appeals to oversee state court decisions on prize cases. The Framers' exposure to contentious interstate disputes through this committee work—including judges like James Wilson and Oliver Ellsworth—provided them with practical experience managing interstate litigation. This experience, largely ignored by contemporary scholarship, directly inspired the Framers to include diversity jurisdiction in Article III. The authors argue that privateering disputes between commercial parties, not geographic bias against foreign litigants, motivated federal diversity jurisdiction.

Topics: Constitutional Law · Federalism · Legal History

Keywords: diversity jurisdiction · Article III · Revolutionary War · Prize Cases · privateers · continental congress · state admiralty courts · Committee on Appeals