Extending the Sunken Military Craft Act’s Bar to In-Personam Salvage Claims:
A Commentary on Global Marine Exploration, Inc. v. Republic of France, Eleventh Circuit, 19 Aug 2025

1. Introduction

For the first time, a federal appellate court has squarely held that the Sunken Military Craft Act of 2004 (SMCA) bars all salvage awards— both in rem (against the ship) and in personam (against the owning state)—for foreign warships lying in United States waters unless the flag state expressly consents. The case concerns the 16th-century French flagship la Trinité, lost during a hurricane off Cape Canaveral in 1565 and rediscovered by a private exploration company, Global Marine Exploration, Inc. (“GME”), in 2016.

When France asserted sovereign ownership over the wreck, GME abandoned its in rem action and instead sought monetary compensation from France for its exploratory efforts. The district court entered summary judgment for France, and the Eleventh Circuit—Chief Judge William Pryor writing—affirmed.

Key Issue: Does § 1406(d) SMCA, which provides that “[n]o salvage rights or awards shall be granted” with respect to any foreign sunken military craft in U.S. waters without the flag state’s permission, foreclose an in personam salvage claim against the flag state?

2. Summary of the Judgment

• SMCA applies to both procedural postures. Section 1406(d)’s plain language contains no limitation to in rem proceedings; thus, it sweeps in in personam claims.
• La Trinité qualifies as “sunken military craft.” Uncontroverted historical evidence showed that the vessel was owned by France and on “military non-commercial service” when it sank while sailing to attack the Spanish fleet.
• Common-law ancillary claims fail. GME could not establish unjust enrichment (France never solicited its services), trade-secret misappropriation (no improper acquisition), or tortious interference (France acted within a “protection privilege”).
• Constitutional challenge untouched. Amici’s argument that the SMCA unconstitutionally removes admiralty jurisdiction was declined because the parties did not raise it.
• Outcome. Judgment for France affirmed.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Sunken Military Craft Act, 10 U.S.C. § 113 note (2004) – central statutory authority.
• The Sabine, 101 U.S. 384 (1880) – foundational precedent recognising both in rem and in personam salvage actions.
• Treasure Salvors, Inc. v. Unidentified Wrecked Vessel, 640 F.2d 560 (5th Cir. 1981) – reaffirmed dual salvors’ remedies.
• Panama R.R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375 (1924) – quoted for limits on congressional alteration of maritime law; addressed in concurrence.
• Abandoned Shipwreck Act, 43 U.S.C. §§ 2101–06 – parallel statutory scheme, implicitly validated by Court practice.
• Global Marine Exploration, Inc. v. France, 33 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022) – earlier phase holding commercial-activity exception to FSIA applied.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Construction. The panel treated § 1406(d) as “plain, unambiguous.” The absence of limiting language (“directed at” or similar) distinguished it from other SMCA sections. Under venerable admiralty doctrine, salvage remedies exist both in rem and in personam; by barring “salvage rights or awards” categorically, Congress necessarily swept both away.
2. Military-Service Finding. France’s experts produced extensive primary-source historical records (royal artillery registers, fleet manifests, contemporary chronicles) demonstrating that Ribault’s 1565 voyage served two integrated objectives: reinforce Fort Caroline and engage the Spanish fleet. The court emphasised that the vessel’s status “when it sank” is decisive, not its initial commissioning or peace-time design.
3. Burden-shifting on Summary Judgment. Once France met its initial burden, GME had to show a genuine dispute of fact. Its counter-experts offered only brief, source-lite opinions and speculative assertions—insufficient under Rule 56.
4. Ancillary Tort Claims.
   • Unjust enrichment failed because France never requested or knowingly accepted GME’s services, and public notices since 2004 repudiated commercial salvage.
   • Trade secret claim failed for lack of evidence that France obtained GPS data through “improper means.” Florida’s demand for coordinates stemmed from regulatory compliance, not French misconduct.
   • Tortious interference failed under Florida’s “protection privilege”: France lawfully asserted sovereign ownership and collaborated with Florida; no “improper means.”
5. Rebuffing Amici’s Constitutional Concern. Applying the “party-presentation” principle (United States v. Sineneng-Smith), the panel refused to consider the unraised Article III argument. Judge Pryor’s concurrence nevertheless declared the constitutional attack “dubious,” noting Congress’s broad power to modify maritime law under Art. I powers and precedent such as Jensen, O’Donnell, and the Limitation of Liability Act.

3.3 Practical & Doctrinal Impact

• Closing the Salvage Door Completely. Salvors can no longer circumvent the SMCA by suing the flag state for a money judgment. Express governmental permission is now the sine qua non for any compensation.
• Strategic Shift for Underwater Cultural Heritage Operators. Commercial explorers must negotiate with flag states ex ante, or pursue purely research-oriented partnerships.
• Reinforced Sovereign Control. The decision affirms reciprocal international practice: protecting U.S. war graves abroad through deference to foreign claims at home.
• Litigation Guidance. Future pleadings seeking salvage awards should anticipate dismissal absent written permission. Plaintiffs may attempt quantum-meruit or contract theories, but this case demonstrates the evidentiary hurdles.
• Constitutionality of SMCA Strengthened. Although not squarely decided, the concurrence’s detailed defense of congressional authority signals judicial skepticism toward Article III challenges.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

5. Conclusion

Global Marine Exploration v. Republic of France crystallises a decisive rule: the SMCA’s prohibition on salvage awards is absolute, extinguishing not only classic in rem claims but also creative in personam actions against sovereign owners. By confirming la Trinité’s military character and applying the Act’s bar, the Eleventh Circuit has fortified the statutory shield that preserves sunken warships as sovereign cultural patrimony and war graves. For underwater explorers, the opinion signals that historical curiosity or private risk-taking does not translate into a legal entitlement without sovereign approval. For courts, it underscores Congress’s primacy in shaping maritime law in sensitive domains, and it suggests—through Judge Pryor’s concurrence—that constitutional attacks on such policymaking will face an uphill climb.