Federal Court Denies Jones Act Challenge

A federal court shot down a lawsuit January 20 that challenged the Jones Act through an obscure provision of the Constitution.

In what Jennifer Carpenter, president of the American Waterways Operators, called “a decisive victory to kick off Jones Act advocacy in 2026,” the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in Koloa Rum Company v. Noem.

In this case, a Hawaiian rum company, Koloa Rum, aided by the Pacific Legal Foundation, sued the Trump administration to block enforcement of the Jones Act by claiming it is unconstitutional. The American Maritime Partnership (also headed by Carpenter), with the American Waterways Operators as a leading member, was granted intervenor status to support the Trump administration in its defense of the Jones Act.

Hawaiian businesses are long-standing challengers of the Jones Act, claiming it unfairly burdens them with shipping costs. This time, Koloa’s attorneys argued that the Jones Act—which requires vessels built and crewed in the United States to transport goods between U.S. ports—violates the port preference clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 6), which states that the federal government cannot favor one port over another, thus ensuring fair access and preventing unfair duties or entry requirements.

On Koloa Rum’s port preference clause argument, Judge James Boasberg definitively ruled that the Jones Act “is neutral legislation that does not create any direct preference by channeling commerce through the ports of one state at the expense of others” and “is a facially neutral statute with a nondiscriminatory purpose: promoting the American merchant marine for commerce and national defense.”

The court also rejected Koloa Rum’s due process clause claims, saying that, even under the most plaintiff-friendly legal scrutiny, the Jones Act “passes that test with room to spare.” Boasberg upheld the Jones Act’s purposes of “maintaining a strong domestic merchant marine, protecting national security by ensuring that vessels are available for military use and supporting American maritime employment” as “paradigmatic examples of legitimate government interests” and noted that since the nation’s founding the president and Congress have prioritized domestic vessels over foreign vessels.

The AWO said in an emailed news alert January 22, “This thorough ruling establishes clear precedent that the federal courts are no place for Jones Act opponents to attempt to undermine the Jones Act. Its constitutionality is clear, and in the words of the Court, the ‘Plaintiff’s grievance is, at bottom, a policy dispute of the sort that is best brought to Congress, not this Court.’”