[I]f, in fact, the US corporation committed a violation of the universal jurisdiction norm, for example, as we believe these norms are in this case, there are many jurisdictions in which US corporations could be—could be sued. ... [I]t is possible that the plaintiffs could have sued in other places. They sued here because this is where they live. This is their adopted homeland because of that. The United States, under international law, clearly has jurisdiction to adjudicate claims between parties properly before them.

The court also heard arguments in Lozman v. Riviera Beach [transcript; JURIST report] on whether a permanently and indefinitely docked structure is a vessel for the purposes of 1 USC § 3 [text], thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction [DOJ backgrounder]. In this case, petitioner Faze Lozman's docked houseboat came under scrutiny [Palm Beach Post report] when Riviera Beach wanted to redevelop the marina in which he had it stationed. To do this, they used maritime law to put a lien against his property, alleging that he had to register the houseboat as a "vessel." Lozman, for whom the US government also argued, stated that the houseboat is not a vessel, as it is not practically suited for any maritime transportation. The attorney for Riviera Beach argued that the houseboat is a vessel because it "floats, moves, and carries people or things on water." The justices appeared to hinge the distinction on whether any floating object is a vessel for the purposes of the statute, querying if this would also apply to objects including an inner tube, an inflatable raft, a floating casino, an aircraft carrier and a log.