Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶32

The Court disagrees. Section 8 merely instructs that, in one class of admiralty cases where a plaintiff invokes in rem jurisdiction over a vessel “as security for compliance with any arbitral award,” The Anaconda v. American Sugar Re fning Co., 322 U. S. 42, 44 (1944), the court holding the vessel must retain jurisdiction to confirm or vacate such award. District courts would likely have jurisdiction over such proceedings even without § 8 under 28 U. S. C. § 1333, which provides “original jurisdiction” over admiralty cases. It appears, then, that § 8 does little more than provide specific procedural rules governing how courts ought to handle a distinct form of admiralty arbitration involving seized vessels. It does not shed light on how jurisdiction, more broadly, should function in other FAA disputes.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.