In the 1953 case Madruga v. Superior Court of California, In and For the County of San Diego, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that state courts have jurisdiction over maritime cases in certain circumstances. The case involved a dispute between two parties who co-owned a fishing boat; one party sued for partition of the vessel in state court while another argued that only federal courts had jurisdiction over such matters due to their admiralty nature. The Supreme Court held that although federal law governs maritime matters, it does not exclude concurrent state jurisdiction where property rights are concerned - as was true in this instance with partition action being essentially an action involving property rights rather than maritime law per se. Therefore, it concluded that there is no requirement for exclusive federal control over all aspects of maritime litigation and affirmed decision by lower court allowing suit to proceed at state level.

In the dissenting opinion for Madruga v. Superior Court of California, Justice Robert H. Jackson argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to adjudicate a maritime claim was an overreach and misinterpretation of federal jurisdiction. He contended that under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is exclusively vested in federal courts. By allowing state courts to exercise this power without any congressional authorization or guidance on how it should be exercised could lead to inconsistent rulings across different states which would undermine uniformity in maritime law - one of its key principles. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential conflicts between state and federal laws if such cases were allowed at the state level without clear guidelines from Congress.