510 U.S. 443, 446 (1994)
In 1987, William Robert Miller, a resident of Mississippi, moved to Pennsylvania to seek employment.1 He was hired by American Dredging Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, to work as a seaman aboard the MV John R., a tug operating on the Delaware River.2 During the course of that employment Miller was injured.3 After receiving medical treatment in Pennsylvania and New York, he returned to Mississippi where he continued to be treated by local physicians.4
On December 1, 1989, Miller filed this action in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, Louisiana.5 He sought relief under the Jones Act, which authorizes a seaman who suffers personal injury in the course of his employment to bring an action for damages at law.6 State and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over such claims.7 Miller also requested relief under general maritime law for unseaworthiness, for wages, and for maintenance and cure.8
The trial court granted American Dredging Company's motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, holding that it was bound to apply that doctrine by federal maritime law.9 The Louisiana Court of Appeal for the Fourth District affirmed.10 The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed, holding that Article 123(C) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, which renders the doctrine of forum non conveniens unavailable in Jones Act and maritime law cases brought in Louisiana state courts, is not preempted by federal maritime law.11
American Dredging Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted.12
Whether, in admiralty cases filed in a state court under the Jones Act and the saving to suitors clause, federal law preempts state law regarding the doctrine of forum non conveniens?13
Under the test set forth in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U. S. 205, 216 (1917), a state remedy in an admiralty case is preempted if it works material prejudice to the characteristic features of the general maritime law or interferes with the proper harmony and uniformity of that law in its international and interstate relations.14
No. The established facts establish that William Robert Miller, a Mississippi resident, moved to Pennsylvania in 1987 to seek employment.15 He was hired by American Dredging Company, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, to work as a seaman aboard the MV John R. operating on the Delaware River. After sustaining an injury during employment and receiving treatment in Pennsylvania, New York, and Mississippi, Miller filed suit on December 1, 1989, in Louisiana state court seeking damages under the Jones Act and general maritime law for unseaworthiness, wages, and maintenance and cure. The trial court dismissed the action on forum non conveniens grounds under federal maritime law. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that Article 123(C) of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, which bars forum non conveniens in Jones Act and maritime cases, is not preempted.
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is not a characteristic feature of admiralty law. It originated in Scottish estate cases and has long been applied as a rule of general application in both state and federal courts outside admiralty contexts. Forum non conveniens functions as a procedural supervening venue rule rather than a substantive right that maritime actors rely upon when ordering their primary conduct.16 Its discretionary, multifactor application makes uniform outcomes unlikely.17 The Jones Act incorporates the Federal Employers' Liability Act, under which the Court previously held in Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U. S. 1 (1950), that forum non conveniens remains a matter of local state policy.18 Louisiana's rule therefore does not materially prejudice any characteristic feature of maritime law or disrupt its required harmony and uniformity.19
Federal law does not preempt the Louisiana rule that renders the doctrine of forum non conveniens unavailable in Jones Act and maritime cases brought in Louisiana state courts.20
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Souter joined the opinion of the Court.21 He agreed that in most cases the characterization of a state rule as substantive or procedural will be a sound surrogate for the conclusion that would follow from a more discursive pre-emption analysis.22 The distinction between substance and procedure will, however, sometimes be obscure.23
As to those close cases, how a given rule is characterized for purposes of determining whether federal maritime law pre-empts state law will turn on whether the state rule unduly interferes with the federal interest in maintaining the free flow of maritime commerce.24
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment and in Part II-C of the opinion.25 He argued that Jensen and its progeny represent an unwarranted assertion of judicial authority lacking firm grounding in constitutional text, comparable to the discredited Lochner decision.26 Courts should instead determine preemption by asking whether the state provision conflicts with a particular substantive rule of federal statutory or common law or whether federal maritime rules so pervade the subject as to preclude state law.27
Stevens noted that Congress has declined to impose a federal forum non conveniens standard and has withheld removal rights in Jones Act cases, indicating that state diversity in procedure is permissible.28 Extension of the ill-advised doctrine of Jensen is not the appropriate remedy for unreasonable state venue rules.29
Joined by Justice Thomas
Justice Kennedy dissented, joined by Justice Thomas.30 He contended that forum non conveniens is an essential and salutary feature of admiralty law that promotes international and interstate comity by allowing shipowners to avoid vexatious litigation in distant forums with little connection to the dispute.31 Kennedy emphasized that Louisiana's selective open-forum statute discriminates against maritime defendants alone and obstructs maritime commerce.32
He argued that the majority's substance-procedure distinction fails to account for the defense's role in protecting substantive interests in comity and trade.33 Kennedy would have reversed the judgment below.34