American Cargo for American Ships Act

Enumerated powers · passes

Congress has authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 (Commerce Clause) to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states. Requiring U.S.-flagged vessels for federally financed ocean transport falls within this power, as it directly regulates commercial shipping and federal procurement. The bill's scope is limited to DOT and its funding recipients, which is a legitimate exercise of the spending power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, as conditions on federal funds are permissible if they are related to the federal interest.

Bill of Rights · passes

The bill does not infringe on any of the first ten amendments. It does not restrict speech, religion, assembly, press, petition, arms, quartering, search and seizure, self-incrimination, due process, takings, fair trial, jury, cruel and unusual punishment, or unenumerated rights. The requirement applies to commercial shipping, not to individual rights.

Individual liberty · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill restricts the freedom of DOT and its funding recipients to contract for ocean transport services as they see fit, mandating that 100% of such transport be on U.S.-flagged vessels. While the government has a compelling interest in supporting the U.S. merchant marine, the 100% requirement is a significant restriction on economic liberty and may not be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest. The burden is on the government to justify this restriction, and the bill does not provide a compelling justification for exceeding the existing 50% requirement.

Decentralization · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill fails the decentralization test. (1) Individuals and families cannot handle ocean transport of DOT cargo without government involvement, so the first question is answered 'no.' (2) Local communities and counties cannot handle this, so the second question is 'no.' (3) States could potentially handle this without federal involvement, as states have their own procurement and transportation needs, but the bill imposes a federal mandate on states receiving DOT funds, so the third question is 'no.' (4) The bill consolidates decision-making at the federal level by imposing a uniform 100% requirement, which is higher than the minimum necessary, as the existing 50% requirement already provides a baseline. Thus, the bill fails three of the four questions, earning a 'D' on this test.

Due process and takings · raises concerns · severity: significant

The bill may raise due process and takings concerns. It imposes a new 100% requirement on DOT and funding recipients, which could disrupt existing contracts and impose additional costs. While the bill includes a 'fair and reasonable rates' exception, it does not provide a clear process for affected parties to challenge the application of the requirement or seek compensation for any losses. This could constitute a taking of property (contract rights) without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Additionally, the bill may lack procedural due process by not providing adequate notice and hearing for those affected.