Your editorial’s framing of the Jones Act as an impediment to the distribution of American products (“Mr. Biden’s Fish Story,” Sept. 10) is right on the mark. By dramatically raising the cost of domestic ocean transport, the law hands an edge to imports with access to more competitively priced international shipping. The companies suing Customs and Border Protection plausibly claim that, should Alaskan fish be denied access to international shipping, the Northeast U.S. will have at least some of its seafood needs met from Russian and Chinese firms.

It...

A tanker ship sits docked at the Port of Houston, April 12, 2019.

Photo: Loren Elliott/Bloomberg News

Your editorial’s framing of the Jones Act as an impediment to the distribution of American products (“Mr. Biden’s Fish Story,” Sept. 10) is right on the mark. By dramatically raising the cost of domestic ocean transport, the law hands an edge to imports with access to more competitively priced international shipping. The companies suing Customs and Border Protection plausibly claim that, should Alaskan fish be denied access to international shipping, the Northeast U.S. will have at least some of its seafood needs met from Russian and Chinese firms.

It is a familiar tale. While America is the world’s leading oil producer, U.S. refiners regularly opt for imported crude due to the cost of shipping inflated by the Jones Act. The country is also a leading exporter of propane and liquefied natural gas, yet Hawaii and Puerto Rico must rely on foreign sources due to the complete absence of Jones Act-compliant gas carriers capable of transporting these energy products from the U.S. mainland.

There is nothing wrong with imports. But there is also no reason for U.S. policy to tip the scales in their favor through the costly and outdated Jones Act.

Colin Grabow

Cato Institute

Washington