U.S. Rep. Ed Case hosted six Hawaii “talk story” meetings in January, at which he addressed how the Jones boosts Hawaii prices. Above, Case at the Washington Middle School gathering.

‘Enough is enough’ says Case regarding Jones Act and Hawaii

by Melissa Newsham, Grassroot Institute, February 7, 2025

The Hawaii delegate tells Congress: “If you … want to continue the Jones Act, … that’s your business, but don’t throw … us to the monopoly wolves”

“Enough is enough.”

With those words, Hawaii’s U.S. Rep. Ed Case once again leveled his sights at the federal maritime law known as the Jones Act, calling it an “anachronism” that restricts shipping competition and drives up prices for U.S. consumers  — particularly in noncontiguous states and territories such as Hawaii.

In remarks submitted Jan. 25 for the Congressional Record, Case announced he was reintroducing three bills aimed at alleviating Hawaii of the burdens of the century-old maritime law, which requires that all goods transported between U.S. ports be carried on ships that are U.S.-built, U.S.-flagged, and mostly owned and crewed by Americans.

Case argued that the law has done little to protect America’s maritime industry. Instead, it has primarily benefited a handful of domestic shipping companies while consumers and businesses of noncontiguous locations, who rely heavily on imports, bear the brunt of increased shipping costs.

“My Hawaii is a classic example,” Case said. “Located almost 2,500 miles off the West Coast, we import well over 90% of our life necessities by ocean cargo. There are plenty of international cargo lines who could and would compete for a share of that market. Yet only two U.S. flag domestic cargo lines — Matson Navigation and Pasha Hawaii — operate a virtual duopoly over our lifeline.”

He continued: “Accelerating cargo prices are not absorbed by the shipping lines, but passed through all the way down the chain, to the transporters, wholesalers, retailers, small businesses, mom and pops and ultimately consumers. The result is a crippling drag on an already-challenged economy and the very quality of life in Hawaii.”

Grassroot Institute President and CEO Keli‘i Akina commended the congressman, saying: “For years, we have urged the federal government to recognize the consequences of this archaic law on Hawaii’s cost of living.

“We thank Rep. Case for his continued leadership on this issue, and hope other policymakers will join him in advancing these critical reforms.”
In Case’s remarks, he cited data from the Grassroot Institute’s 2020 report, “Quantifying the cost of the Jones Act,” which found that the law adds nearly $5 a day to the expenses of the average Hawaii family — amounting to almost $1,800 a year.

Highlighting the unintended consequences of the Jones Act beyond the cost of living, Case described how the law complicated the recent defueling of the Navy’s controversial Red Hill fuel storage facility on Oahu. With few Jones Act-compliant tankers available, moving fuel even just 10 just miles within Honolulu required bringing in a costly Jones Act tanker.

“I specifically asked for a waiver of the Jones Act to avoid this result — a total waste of taxpayer dollars — but got no support from the Jones Act shippers, who, although it made no real difference to them, were petrified of the precedent,” Case explained.

The most promising of his bills, dubbed the Noncontiguous Shipping Relief Act, seeks to exempt all noncontiguous states and territories from the Jones Act, offering much-needed economic relief to Hawaii and other affected regions.

“If you, the 48 contiguous United States, want to continue the Jones Act as to shipping between your ports, that’s your business,” Case said. “But don’t penalize us island and other noncontiguous locations by throwing us to the monopoly wolves you’ve created.”

Another proposal, referred to as the Noncontiguous Shipping Reasonable Rate Act, would cap the rates Jones Act shippers can charge at no more than 10% above comparable international shipping rates. However, price-fixing measures like this are a suboptimal solution compared to simply increasing market competition.[1]

Case’s third proposal, called the Noncontiguous Shipping Competition Act, would rescind Jones Act requirements for noncontiguous jurisdictions where monopolies or duopolies dominate the market. However, enforcing this sort of a law could prove challenging as the definitions of monopolies and duopolies are often open to interpretation.

The Grassroot Institute has long advocated repeal of the Jones Act’s U.S.-build requirement, which requires that domestic shipping companies purchase vessels from U.S. shipyards at four to five times the cost of equivalent ships from foreign shipyards — an expense that is ultimately passed on to consumers.

Case said that “while there are multiple pathways to address this issue, one thing is clear: We must change the status quo that has caused such widespread harm to my state and other jurisdictions dependent on the Jones Act.” 
_____________
[1] For an explanation of how price controls cause inefficiencies by distorting market signals, see Christopher J. Neely, “Why Price Controls Should Stay in the History Books,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, March 24, 2022; Vincent Geloso, “Price Controls Don’t Fight Inflation: 40 Centuries of Evidence,” American Institute for Economic Research, Oct. 3, 2023; and Justin-Damien Guénette, “Price Controls Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes,” World Bank Group, April 2020.