Posted on January 21, 2026
A federal judge has dismissed a high-profile constitutional challenge to the Jones Act, delivering a major win for the U.S. maritime industry and the Trump Administration’s defense of America’s cabotage laws.
In a 46-page opinion, Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected claims from Hawaii-based Koloa Rum Company that the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, commonly referred to as the Jones Act, violates the Constitution’s Due Process and Port Preference clauses. The distillery, backed by the Pacific Legal Foundation, argued that the Jones Act’s requirement that cargo moving between U.S. ports be carried on American-built, American-owned, and American-crewed vessels unfairly burdens non-contiguous states such as Hawaii and Alaska.
Boasberg disagreed, calling the Jones Act “neutral legislation that does not create any direct preferences by channeling commerce through the ports of one state at the expense of others.” The court noted that the law “emerged from a centuries-old tradition of cabotage laws” and applies uniformly across transportation modes, including aviation—evidence, the judge wrote, of consistent national policy rather than regional discrimination.
The court also held that the statute easily satisfies rational-basis review, citing long-standing government interests in maintaining “a strong domestic merchant marine, protecting national security by ensuring that vessels are available for military use, and supporting American maritime employment.”
Maritime industry groups quickly hailed the decision. “We commend the Trump Administration for vigorously defending the Jones Act in court and defending the men and women who serve America’s national security, homeland security and economic security,” said Jennifer Carpenter, president of the American Maritime Partnership. “This decision reaffirms not only the constitutionality but also the critical importance of the Jones Act to every American.”
Koloa Rum filed the lawsuit in February 2025, arguing that the law inflates the cost of importing supplies and shipping finished products to the mainland. CEO Bob Gunter said at the time, “The Jones Act doesn’t just hurt our business—it hurts all Hawaii residents.”
The case drew national attention as one of the most direct modern attempts to overturn the century-old statute. Supporters of the law pointed to a 2025 review by Seafarers Rights International finding that 105 nations—representing more than 85% of the world’s coastlines—maintain similar cabotage protections.
The Pacific Legal Foundation, which brought the suit, did not disclose its donors. Senior attorney Joshua Thompson had argued that “Hawaii and Alaska are forced to pay billions in extra costs because of a shipping law that Congress had no constitutional authority to create.”
With the challenge now dismissed, the ruling reinforces the Jones Act’s legal footing after decades of periodic attacks—and signals that courts remain reluctant to upend one of the pillars of U.S. maritime policy.
