Opinion of the Court
The District Court granted the manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated and remanded. In re Asbestos Prods. Liability Litigation, 873 F. 3d 232, 241 (2017). The Third Circuit held that “a manufacturer of a bare-metal product may be held liable for a plaintiff ’s injuries suffered from later-added asbestos-containing materials” if the manufacturer could foresee that the product would be used with the later-added asbestos-containing materials. Id., at 240.
We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals about the validity of the bare-metal defense under maritime law. 584 U. S. ___ (2018). Compare 873 F. 3d 232 (case below), with Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liability Trust, 424 F. 3d 488 (CA6 2005).
II
Article III of the Constitution grants the federal courts jurisdiction over maritime cases. Under 28 U. S. C. §1333, the federal courts have “original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of… [a]ny civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.”
When a federal court decides a maritime case, it acts as a federal “common law court,” much as state courts do in state common-law cases. Exxon Shipping Co., 554 U. S., at 507. Subject to direction from Congress, the federal courts fashion federal maritime law. See id., at 508, n. 21; Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U. S. 19, 27 (1990); United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397, 409 (1975); Detroit Trust Co. v. The Thomas Barlum, 293 U. S. 21, 42–44 (1934). In formulating federal maritime law, the federal courts may examine, among other sources, judicial opinions, legislation, treatises, and scholarly writings. See Exxon Co., U. S. A. v. Sofec, Inc., 517 U. S. 830, 839 (1996); East River S. S. Corp. v. Transamerica
