Image 01 Image 03

Report: U.S. Mulls Reviving Wartime ‘Prize Courts’ to Seize Iranian Tankers

Report: U.S. Mulls Reviving Wartime ‘Prize Courts’ to Seize Iranian Tankers

“The seized goods would then be sold with proceeds transferred to the treasury.”

The Trump administration is preparing the revival of wartime ‘prize courts’ to fast-track the seizure and sale of captured Iranian oil and maritime cargo, media reports say.

These courts, dormant since the Second World War, would allow the U.S. to legally confiscate dozens of Iranian oil tankers currently transiting international waters. “The Justice Department is preparing to activate a long-dormant maritime war court to streamline military capture of Iranian oil tankers as US prizes,” Bloomberg reported Wednesday, citing sources.

The mechanism will accelerate the liquidation of seized Iranian assets by shielding the U.S. from third-party claims, the article suggests. “The unfinalized plans, if adopted, would offer a faster path for federal prosecutors to claim oil and other cargo taken from enemy or neutral vessels as US property,” the news outlet added. “The seized goods would then be sold with proceeds transferred to the treasury.”

Writing for the Wall Street Journal in May 2026, Professor Eugene Kontorovich, an eminent expert in international and maritime law, had recommended that the U.S. could “put teeth” in the Iranian blockade “by reviving the law of prize, which governs ships seized during war, and by authorizing privateers to attack enemy shipping.”

The measure under consideration also stands on firm moral ground. It is worth noting that large parts of the Iranian oil sector are controlled by Iran’s Islamic Guard (IRGC), a U.S.-designated terrorist group.

Bloomberg continues:

The Justice Department is preparing to activate a long-dormant maritime war court to streamline military capture of Iranian oil tankers as US prizes, according to three people familiar with the plans.

Reviving prize courts, which is expected to face legal challenges, is intended to strengthen the blockade of Iran and offset the cost of the conflict.

Aaron Reitz, the Houston-based US attorney whose office is partnering with department headquarters on the initiative, confirmed DOJ is “now reviving” prize courts, which he described as an “ancient body of maritime law.”

The unfinalized plans, if adopted, would offer a faster path for federal prosecutors to claim oil and other cargo taken from enemy or neutral vessels as US property. The seized goods would then be sold with proceeds transferred to the treasury. (…)

“Our national security interests may require the United States military to seize vessels or cargo supporting the enemy during military conflict,” Reitz said in a statement. “If that happens, our federal courts must be ready to adjudicate the disposition of these captured vessels and cargo.”

Ship owners and Iranian terrorism victims are among the potential litigants expected to challenge the prize court’s use, maritime lawyers and former prosecutors said. DOJ, the US Navy, and the judiciary would also face operational hurdles carrying out a court process with which they have zero experience.

“This really is a historical area of law that is not tested in modern times,” said Allison Luzwick, a Holland & Knight attorney specializing in the maritime industry. “Great strides have been made in international law and the law of war since the late 1800s, and all of that is going to come into play when we’re actually looking at proceedings involving a vessel that is potentially seized under Prize Act authority.”

Once a regular feature of 18th and 19th century naval combat, prize courts have gone largely unused since the Spanish-American War of 1898 and lain entirely dormant since World War II. In recent decades, the US has shifted to relying on civil forfeiture law as the mechanism for seizing ships and obtaining their assets to enforce sanctions violations.

DOJ’s planning, which has been coordinated with the Pentagon, comes as US forces have intercepted and seized multiple Iranian-owned or linked ships since imposing a blockade in April. (…)

Prize authority, while coming with its own legal risks, would entail a less complicated transfer of proceeds, allowing the US to mitigate the risk of outside claimants slowing down the sale, said Luzwick and other lawyers. (…)

Supporters describe prize law’s benefits of expediting the process of transferring the proceeds from oil tanker cargo into the US treasury. The move may also send a global signal of President Donald Trump’s intent to add a legal enforcement mechanism to bolster the US blockade.

“It helps offset the price of the war,” said Eugene Kontorovich, an international law professor at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia School of Law. “It also shows Iran that America is really treating this as a serious international blockade and is willing to use all the tools at its disposal.”

If established, however, the approach would invite legal challenges as to whether the US is engaged in hostilities that give rise to the Prize Act and whether the lack of congressional authorization of the conflict renders captures unlawful.

The report comes just days after the U.S. launched ‘Operation Economic Outcast,’ a wide-ranging campaign to sever Iran from international trade and finance. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday unveiled a sweeping economic offensive, marking the most comprehensive sanctions campaign against a foreign adversary since World War II.

With new measures in place, international buyers, including China, are reluctant to buy or offload Iranian oil. According to media reports, vast quantities of Iranian crude are already sitting idle in foreign ports. Fox News noted that “nearly 40 million barrels of Iranian crude are sitting aboard tankers in waters near Malaysia, east of Singapore.”

“The cargo amounts to roughly 20 very large crude carriers’ worth of oil, a floating stockpile that could still give Tehran a way to turn crude already outside the blockade zone into cash even as the blockade sharply restricts fresh exports,” the broadcaster reported Wednesday.

 

 

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


 
 0 
 
 5
rickcheese | August 27, 2026 at 1:12 pm

Ahoy matey


 
 0 
 
 5
henrybowman | August 27, 2026 at 1:46 pm

Come on, Donnie. Do it, take the big step —
Marque and reprisal!
Marque and reprisal!
Marque and reprisal!
Issue them to Somali pirates, and kill two birds with one stone.


     
     0 
     
     1
    ztakddot in reply to henrybowman. | August 27, 2026 at 2:35 pm

    That is what I was thinking as I read the article. Good way for a country to make a couple of bugs. Maybe get those billionaires to use their yachts for something other than hosting barely legal supermodels.


     
     0 
     
     1
    DaveGinOly in reply to henrybowman. | August 27, 2026 at 4:18 pm

    I’ve always wanted a letter of marque and reprisal!
    Now I just need investors to help me secure a surplus destroyer.
    My oldest and bestest high school chum is also a retired CG cutter captain (I believe he skippered three, two of them the large ocean-going types). He will be my skipper.
    I’m disappointed that Google AI was unable to give me the name of any agencies that specialize in the recruitment of crewmen for privateers. (Seriously, I asked.)


       
       0 
       
       2
      CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 27, 2026 at 7:03 pm

      If you’re serious about signing up then the opportunity exists …go find Eric Prince. Last I heard he has a contract with UAE to run a brown water mercenary outfit to combat piracy. I’m sure he could point you in the right direction even if his contract expired.


 
 0 
 
 1
patchman2076 | August 27, 2026 at 1:55 pm

Just take the oil. To the victors go the spoils, and rub it in the Iranian regimes faces.


 
 0 
 
 2
surfcitylawyer | August 27, 2026 at 2:12 pm

A Letter of Marque and a Destroyer Escort sized ship with two 5 inch guns (one forward and one aft) should be sufficient.

Why hasn’t this already been done?


     
     1 
     
     3
    Milhouse in reply to irv. | August 27, 2026 at 3:07 pm

    Because prize law is generally thought of as no longer valid. Most countries officially abolished privateering and prize-taking in 1853; the USA refused to join that, but gradually fell in line with international usage. But it never officially abolished it, so if it resumes the practice it should still be legal.


 
 1 
 
 3
Milhouse | August 27, 2026 at 3:04 pm

If established, however, the approach would invite legal challenges as to whether the US is engaged in hostilities that give rise to the Prize Act and whether the lack of congressional authorization of the conflict renders captures unlawful.

I thought this was already settled during the USA’s first war, the “Quasi-War” against France, which neither side had bothered declaring, and yet the courts held that there was indeed a state of war and prize-taking was valid. And again in the Prize cases of 1863, in which the court held that the Civil War began on April 12, 1861, even though Congress didn’t ratify it until July. “The President was bound to meet it in the shape it presented itself, without waiting for Congress to baptize it with a name.”


 
 0 
 
 2
CommoChief | August 27, 2026 at 3:56 pm

Don’t need a Congressional action to have a ‘war’ aka hostilities and thus don’t need it for a prize court. Suppose a Navy vessel comes under attack, returns fire, damaging the engine of the hostile vessel, sends a boarding party, secures the vessel and tows it into port. Functionally that’s a prize of war regardless of whether there’s a declared war or whether the US keeps, sells or returns the vessel. So IMO, are all the cool little displays on every military base of captured ‘enemy’ tanks, APC, artillery, anti-aircraft guns and so on. Some of which came not from the distant past but relatively recently from Vietnam, Panama, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan.


     
     0 
     
     0
    DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | August 27, 2026 at 4:21 pm

    That would be a military capture. Methinks capture by a privateer is a different matter (requiring the letters). Why bother authorizing Congress to grant the letters if there isn’t something distinct about privateering that makes it different from a capture by a warship?


       
       0 
       
       0
      henrybowman in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 27, 2026 at 5:18 pm

      What’s difference is the difference between whether you’re a recognized government agent or just an enterprising pirate.


       
       0 
       
       1
      CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 27, 2026 at 6:56 pm

      ‘Military captures’ were also traditionally sent to prize courts. The Brits usually split up the proceeds with 2/8 to the CPT, 1/8 to the Admiral commanding, 1/8 to the commissioned officers, 1/8 to the warrant officers, 1/8 to the petty officers and 2/8 to the rest of the crew.

      With Privateers it was based on whatever contract they signed but usually 1,000 ‘shares’ with owners/investors holding 500 then CPT 100 shares lesser officers 40-80 shares depending on experience down to the lowest crew member who might hold a single share. Though their pay was substantially higher than Navy pay usually 3-5 X to attract the most qualified crews they could.


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 28, 2026 at 12:26 am

      Privateers are an auxiliary of their country’s navy, much like the merchant marine. Think of privateers as the militia of the sea.

      A privateer may only attack shipping belonging to countries with which its country is at war. If a privateer attacks a ship and there is no state of war between their countries then that’s not a legitimate privateer attack, it’s an act of piracy for which its crew can be hanged.

      Like the country’s official navy, it may not attack under a false flag. Before attacking a target it must fly its country’s flag.

      Since privateers’ crews are serving their country, they’re exempt from conscription. In the days of impressment, when a naval ship could stop any ship carrying its country’s citizens and draft them on the spot, if the privateer’s captain shows the naval captain his letter of marque then the navy can’t draft his crew because they’re already in the service.

      If you want to learn more, a lot more, read Patrick O’Brian’s very well-researched 20-volume Aubrey/Maturin series, particularly Letter of Marque (book 12) and The Wine-Dark Sea (book 16).


 
 0 
 
 4
angrywebmaster | August 27, 2026 at 6:56 pm

A Privateering We Shall Go

A privateering we shall go,
Heave ho, me hearties, heave ho!
A privateering we shall go,
Yo-ho and away we go!

The letter of marque is in me hand,
The ship is fast and the crew is grand.
We’ll hunt the prizes on the foam,
And bring the gold and glory home.

Off the coast of Iran the tankers sail,
Heavy with oil on the southern gale.
We’ll take those oil tankers on the beam,
And claim the prize that the president shall deem.

The cannon’s roar and the cutlass gleam,
We’ll board the merchant on the stream.
No navy pay, just prize and share,
A privateer’s life is free and fair.

When the war is done and the sails come down,
We’ll drink Madeira in a foreign town.
But till that day the wind shall blow—
A privateering we shall go!


 
 0 
 
 0
hosspuller | August 27, 2026 at 8:04 pm

Hey, like the old days, American Citizens can buy and use vessels with cannon again. How about missiles? Bearable weapons be ship borne.

IF a bunch of Somalis can take a tanker…. Why not a few former American military trained privateers.


 
 0 
 
 1
Milhouse | August 28, 2026 at 12:31 am

Note that the administration is not proposing the revival of letters of marque. Its plans are only for naval captures by the US military. It wants to take those to Prize Court, where the USA can simply claim ownership, rather than try civil forfeiture or give them back to their civilian owners.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.