As mentioned in my post earlier, in the Supreme Court's next term, it will hear the case of Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach. My other posts on this case are here and here.

The Question Presented is:

Whether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored receives power and other utilities from shore and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a "vessel" under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction.

Amazingly, but not surprisingly, what is a "vessel" is a thorny question not amenable to a simple definition.  Are surfboards vessels?  Houseboats?  Floating casinos?  For every objective definition you attempt (e.g. vessels can be propelled through the water), there are exceptions (e.g. barges cannot propel themselves through the water).

On page 12 of his brief, the Petitioner urges the Court to adopt this definition: 

In order to be a vessel, a structure’s purpose must be to carry people or things over water, and indefinitely moored structures that function as extensions of land lack any such purpose.

Several briefs on the merits have been filed and I've provided links to them below:

Parties

Petitioner's Brief

Respondent's Brief

Amici

Brief of the United States Supporting Petitioner

Brief of Maritime Law Professors Supporting Petitioner

Brief of the Seattle Floating Homes Association and the Floating Homes Association of Sausalito in Support of Petitioner

Brief for the American Gaming Association in Support of Petitioner.

Stay tuned and we'll post the briefs as they come in.