by thomasjb on 5/1/23, 10:01 AM with 16 comments
by ckdarby on 5/1/23, 12:07 PM
Sounds like a terrible legacy law that needs to be reworked.
by fatnoah on 5/1/23, 3:10 PM
> The verdict required American Seafoods and its subsidiaries to find a new way to ship seafood into the United States, bringing the Bayside Canadian Railway's usefulness to an end.
It looks like the "railway" owner solved the problem by switching to Russian-sourced seafood (Jones act applies to shipments between US ports): https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/cbp-bayside-canad...
by AntonyGarand on 5/1/23, 7:39 PM
by theandrewbailey on 5/1/23, 12:31 PM
by croes on 5/1/23, 11:20 AM
Sounds anti competitive and not really like a free market. China vibes.
by hermannj314 on 5/1/23, 12:42 PM
In my Google, I did find an interesting Yale Law Journal [1] article that mentioned this case, that when on to say that repealing the Jones Act is basically DOA due to lobbying interests.
[1] The Yale Law Journal https://www.yalelawjournal.org The Neglected Port Preference Clause and the Jones Act
by Peritract on 5/1/23, 3:10 PM
If the courts actually want to discourage this behaviour, they should have levied the fine
by exabrial on 5/1/23, 10:55 PM