Background & Facts
The Charming Betsy was a Danish-flagged schooner whose American owner, Jared Shattuck, had become a Danish citizen. During the Quasi-War with France, the U.S. Navy seized the ship under the Non-Intercourse Act of 1800, which prohibited American vessels from trading with France or its colonies. Shattuck argued the Act did not apply to him because he was no longer an American citizen.
The case turned on whether the Non-Intercourse Act should be construed to reach a former American who had legitimately become a citizen of a neutral country — a construction that would have violated the law of nations.
Chief Justice Marshall's opinion produced one of the most important canons of statutory construction in American law: the Charming Betsy canon, which requires that ambiguous federal statutes be interpreted in a manner consistent with international law where any reasonable construction allows.
The Court's Holding
The Court held that the Non-Intercourse Act did not reach Shattuck because such a construction would conflict with the law of nations. Marshall established the foundational canon: "An act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains."
The Charming Betsy Canon:
"An act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains, and consequently can never be construed to violate neutral rights, or to affect neutral commerce, further than is warranted by the law of nations as understood in this country."
Why a 1804 Maritime Case Matters in 2026
The Charming Betsy canon is not a maritime-law footnote. It is one of the most-cited canons of statutory construction in U.S. federal law and has been invoked by the Supreme Court in dozens of modern cases. It applies to ANY federal statute that could be read in a way that violates international law — including human rights instruments and indigenous rights frameworks.
Modern applications of the canon have included: trade statutes, immigration laws, environmental treaties, war powers, extradition, and — most importantly for ATN — the question of whether ambiguous federal statutes should be construed to violate international indigenous-rights norms like UNDRIP.
How Charming Betsy Brings UNDRIP Into Play Against P.L. 280
Charming Betsy is the doctrinal bridge between domestic statutory interpretation and international indigenous-rights law. Without Charming Betsy, UNDRIP and other international norms would be purely advisory. With Charming Betsy, they become interpretive tools that must inform how courts read ambiguous federal statutes.
The argument chain for ATN:
- 1. P.L. 280 is silent on tribal consent. The text neither requires nor expressly waives consent.
- 2. Two reasonable constructions exist: (a) that consent is not required, or (b) that consent is required as a matter of background norms (the Indian canon, the trust doctrine, and international indigenous rights).
- 3. Under Charming Betsy, the construction that does NOT violate international law must be preferred where any reasonable construction allows.
- 4. UNDRIP Article 19 (endorsed by the U.S. in 2010) requires "free, prior and informed consent" before legislative action affecting indigenous peoples.
- 5. The Inter-American Commission has held that imposing legislation on indigenous peoples without consent violates international human rights norms (Dann v. United States, 2002).
- 6. Therefore, P.L. 280 should be construed to require tribal consent, because the alternative construction would violate international law and the Charming Betsy canon forbids that result.
This is one of the strongest legal pathways for the consent argument because it does not require overturning Lone Wolf or any other obstacle case. It simply asks courts to apply a 220-year-old canon of statutory construction, written by Chief Justice John Marshall himself, to a 70-year-old statute that is silent on the controlling question.
Related Authorities
- UNDRIP — U.S. Endorsed (2010) — The international instrument Charming Betsy brings into play
- Dann v. United States (IACHR 2002) — Inter-American Commission applying indigenous-consent norms to U.S.
- Worcester v. Georgia (1832) — Marshall's other foundational tribal-sovereignty opinion