Chapter One: Congress, the Courts and the Constitution

Section 1: Introduction What are the first papers that governed this country? Articles of Confederation After Statutes were created who was required to enforce them? It was up to the States to decide to follow them or not. What was the problem with that? On example would be the Property Treaty with the British. Many States were deeply in debt. The laws agreed that the States would pay. However, if States printed their own money, what good what that? This led to the issue that countries no longer wanted to do business with the US because the laws were not being enforced. Therefore, Delegates were sent to Philadelphia in 1787 to make a stronger government by altering the Articles of Confederation. We needed to have a way to tax and execute the laws. So, the 1 st thing they did was not to change the Articles of Confederation but to completely ignore them. They didnt want to delegate all the powers to ONE person. Why? Because not all dictators are good dictators. What next then? Divide the powers into 3 branches. I. Legislative Branch II. Executive Branch III. Judicial Branch (played a minor role for all practical purposes)

Did this solve the problem? Well, not exactly. This made a new issue. You see, each state wanted its own local rules and wanted to mandate their own Judicial system. What came out of this argument? The States decided that they could agree on having ONE NATIONAL COURT US SUPREME COURT. Who would decide who would serve on this Supreme Court? The States looked to what other countries and found that it was the King of those countries who made this decision. But that is the problem with dictatorship. How would it be possible to have a truly independent government (judges)? Well, the States would have to elect the judges. But keep in mind that the States still wanted the judges to rule their way, not independently. Now, let us look at the Federal Courts under Article III. 1. Judicial power of the US as the same level as Congress and President.

2. Operate on States and Individuals 3. Power delegated to ONE Supreme Court. 4. Power left to Congress to later set up Inferior Courts but for now power was left to State Courts. --- Why? Only wanted the SC to construe the Constitution. 5. Powers given to the federal courts are limited to 9 categories. 6. SC is given original and appellate jurisdiction. All judicial power is vested in the State courts and federal courts are only allotted certain power. Next, the Judiciary Act of 1789 set up the inferior courts. If youll notice, Congress did not give federal courts much jurisdiction to criminal cases. That was mainly left up to the states. The Judiciary Act of 1789 One of the first acts of the new Congress was to establish a federal court system in the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Constitution provided that the judicial branch should be composed of one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress from time to time established. But unlike the legislative provisions, in which the framers clearly spelled out the powers of the Congress, Article III of the Constitution is rather vague on just what the judicial powers should be. In the Judiciary Act of 1789, the First Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary that the Constitution had sketched only in general terms. Acting on its constitutional authority to establish inferior courts, the Congress instituted a three-tiered judiciary. The Supreme Court consisted of a Chief Justice and five associate justices. In each state and in Kentucky and Maine (then part of other states), a federal judge presided over a United States district court, which heard admiralty and maritime cases and some other minor cases. The middle tier of the judiciary consisted of United States circuit courts, which served as the principal trial courts in the federal system and exercised limited appellate jurisdiction. Two Supreme Court justices and the local district judge presided in the circuit courts. Under the practice known as "circuit riding," each justice was assigned to one of three geographical circuits and traveled to the designated meeting places within the districts of that circuit. Senators Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut and William Paterson of New Jersey were the principal authors of the act. Before debating the bill, the Senate distributed printed copies and solicited the opinions of constituents, particularly among the legal community. The debates over ratification of the Constitution made clear that many citizens feared that an independent federal judiciary might threaten state courts and restrict certain civil liberties. In response to those concerns, the act allowed state courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction over many federal questions, it required federal courts to select juries according to the procedures used by the districts state courts, and it guaranteed the right to trial in the district where the defendant lived. By establishing a relatively high monetary value for cases in the circuit courts, the act protected small debtors and those who could not afford to travel to a distant court. The debate over the Judiciary Act coincided with Congresss consideration of the Bill of Rights, which offered further assurances that the federal courts would respect traditional liberties such as trial by jury. The Judiciary Act of 1789 represented a compromise between those who wanted the federal courts to exercise the full jurisdiction allowed under the Constitution and those who opposed any lower federal courts or proposed restricting them to admiralty jurisdiction. The act acknowledged the legitimacy of the state courts and protected individual rights at the same time that it assured the supremacy of the federal judiciary. Extending the jurisdiction of the circuit courts to cases in which the parties were residents of different states greatly enhanced the importance of the federal courts. One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities. That and other provisions, such as the requirement for circuit riding, provoked frequent demands for revision of the act, but the basic outline of a multi-tiered federal court structure operating alongside state courts survives today. Just a Note: In 1789, Washington was President.

Section 2: Judicial Review Judicial review is the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice. The court has the power to strike down that law, to overturn the executive act, or order a public official to act in a certain manner if it believes the law or act to be unconstitutional or to be contrary to law in a free and democratic society. If the Judiciary played a minor role back then, what changed that? Marbury v. Madison The history of this case shows that there was an extreme hatred between the Conservative Party (Washington, Adams) and the Liberal Party (Jefferson). Well, the election in 1800, Jefferson, a liberal, won. In 1801, he was going to take an oath. Adams, a conservative, got together with other conservatives because they wanted their people (other conservatives) to be appointed federal judges. One week before Jefferson took office, Adams appointed 42 nominations and were approved for judgeship. In those days, the Secretary of State, which was John Marshall, signed the commissions. John Marshall was also one of those to be appointed Chief Justice. Marshall signed the commissions (of course), but they remained to be DELIVERED! In the 1800s!!! Well, Marshall sent his brother James to deliver the 42 commissions. James went on a MIDNIGHT RIDE and delivered 39 of them before Jefferson said I DO. Jefferson made James Madison his Secretary of State. Jefferson instructed Madison not to deliver the 3 commissions that were left. This lack of power very much upset the Conservatives. Conservatives told Marbury to sue using a Writ of Mandamus (which orders a judge to do something) stated in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Why sue Madison? Well, its no good to get a judgment against President. Five justices convened for trial as did Marbury, but not one showed up for Madison (Jefferson told him not to go). What next? Judgment would not be obeyed and trial would be a problem. John Marshalls (poor side of the family) arch rival was Thomas Jefferson (rich side of the family); however, they were cousins. Trial commences but there was no one to call, but Justice Marshall, the one who signed as Secretary of State. Well the court submitted questions in writing (seems to be like depositions by written questions), which Jefferson and Madison did answer. The question now is, does Marbury have a legal right and has it been infringed upon? If so, what is the remedy? Well, for a cause of action you need FACTS + LIABILITY LAW + REMEDY. If he has all three, then his issue can be addressed in court. Plaintiff: Marbury Defendant: Secretary of State Madison Facts: Signed appointed was never delivered to him Law: Judiciary Act of 1789 Section 13 Remedy: Writ of Mandamus. Sec. 13. That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature , where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction. And shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have or exercise consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul shall be a party. And the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court in all actions at law against citizens of the United States shall be by jury. The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states in the cases hereinafter specially provided for and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principle and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office under the authority of the United States. (Statute Marbury v. Madison was filed on) Marbury vs.Madison Established 5 important principles concerning the federal judiciary.

1. Marbury established the power of the federal courts to review the action of the executive branch of government. 2. political questions were not reviewable by the federal courts. This is a principle that certain matters are not judicially reviewable because they are committed to the other branches of government. Although court can look at behavior of executive office, they cant review discretionary functions. The president is invested with certain important political powers in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to this country in his political character and to his own conscience Those matters committed solely to the executives discretion are not justiciable. 3. Art. III creates the ceiling on the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction. That is Congress cannot authorize the Supreme Courts original jurisdiction greater than that provided for within Art. III. (a) Congress created the judiciary Act of which authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usage of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the U.S. However the constitution vests the supreme courts original jurisdiction in cases..and the judicial power to extend to casesThis law was struck down as unconstitutional and in conflict with the Constitution because Congress cannot mess with the Supreme Courts Original Jurisdiction. conflicts with the constitution. 4. federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Federal courts may not hear matters unless there is constitutional authority or federal law established by Congress, and Congress may not expand the jurisdiction granted in Art. III. 5. Marbury established the power of the federal courts to declare federal statutes unconstitutional. 6. The court is the authoritative interpreter of the Constitution, thus a law which Congress creates which gives court authority or power jurisdiction to hear case, that law that congress created cannot be repugnant to constitution if so it is void. (a) a Connecticut statute was held invalid because it conflicted with the treaty of peace, and of another holding a Maryland law to impair the obligation of contract. 7. Where a law passed by congress and the constitution apply to a particular case, and that law is in conflict to the constitution, then the constitution prevails. 8. Is it the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, which it revises and correct the proceeding s in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause. (a)To issue a mandamus to an officer for delivery of a paper is in effect the same as to sustain an original action for that paper and therefore is not appellate jurisdiction, or be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. Section 3. Justiciability and Standing Justiciability Doctrines: I. Case or Controversy: Article III states that the judicial power of the federal courts extends only to cases and controversies which arise under the Constitution, federal laws of the United States and its treaties. This remains the overlying principle by which the courts determine whether or not an issue is justiciable, and has led to the establishment of the justiciability doctrines. These doctrines are used to determine whether a case or controversy actually exists, and if one does then the issues are considered justiciable. II. Advisory Opinions: Since Article III mandates that the judiciary only has power over cases and controversies, the Supreme Court has held that where a case or controversy does not exist, the judiciary is not to issue any advisory opinion regarding the matter. This prohibition against advisory opinions helps to serve separation of powers: by not issuing advisory opinions, the federal judiciary is keeping the courts out of the political process, and leaving that process solely to the discretion of the legislative and executive branches. Additionally, by not issuing advisory opinions, the judiciary is conserving its resources for cases that actually need adjudication. Three basic requirements must be met so that the judiciary may hear a case and issue an opinion that would not be advisory. First, the case needs to present an actual dispute, not a hypothetical legal question. By requiring an actual dispute, the judiciary is ensuring that any decision issued in the case is the final one because it was based upon concrete facts and not upon some fanciful situation which may not have presented a complete picture of the controversy. The second requirement is that the dispute is between adverse litigants. Adversariness is required to ensure that the case brought before the courts truly involves a controversy that is in need of a resolution; if the opponents are not true adversaries, then any issued opinion would be advisory. The last requirement is that if a decision is issued in favor of the claimant, there is a substantial likelihood that it would

have some effect. In any situation where the opposing party could ignore the ruling, then the opinion lacks finality and is in effect advisory. Declaratory judgments are justiciable as long as they present a real controversy. Declaratory judgments that meet these criteria are themselves justiciable. Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 (1937). III. Mootness and Ripeness: Mootness and Ripeness both deal with the existence of an actual controversy; mootness with whether the controversy has terminated, and ripeness with whether it is ready for adjudication. A case will be declared moot if the defendant dies during a criminal trial, if the plaintiff dies during a civil action and the action does not survive the death (usually by statute), and if the parties settle between themselves before a final judgment is entered. In these situations the issues are no longer redressable. Exceptions do exist to the mootness doctrine which allow a case to be heard: where secondary injuries exist that may be addressed by the court; cases which involve a wrong that is capable of repetition and likely to evade review; where an illegal practice has been terminated but it could be resumed at any time; and in a properly certified class action suit. Cases are declared not ripe because the injuries are either too speculative or they may never occur. The rationale behind the ripeness doctrine is that a court should not issue premature judgments based on abstract disagreements. Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 u.s. 136 (1967). Ripeness typically arises when preenforcement review of a statute is sought, at which point to considerations are examined, and both must be present in order for an issue to be ripe. First, the plaintiff must show that a hardship is likely to be suffered in the absence of a judgment. This hardship could be caused by the law as it will eventually be applied, by collateral injuries, or because compliance with the law causes the hardship, and the only other choice is to break the law with the resulting consequences of being prosecuted. The second consideration is whether the issues are fit for a judicial decision. An issue that specific facts would assist in the judicial consideration will be found not ripe, while an issue is ripe when it is mostly a question of law, one which does not depend on context. IV. Standing: A determination that a person lacks standing means that person is not the proper party to bring the issue before the court for adjudication. The Standing Doctrine is viewed as a tool that promotes both the Separation of Power and judicial efficiency. Separation of Power is achieved through limiting the issues the judiciary hears, thus limiting review of the other branches of government. The limiting of cases before the courts promotes judicial efficiency, and this limiting also improves the decision-making ability of the judiciary through ensuring a specific controversy and that an advocate with a stake in the outcome is present to pursue the matter. Four requirements must be met before a party will be granted standing in the federal judiciary, all of which must be met. The first three requirements are based upon Article III as Constitutional barriers to standing, and the last is an exercise of judicial restraint which may be overridden by Congressional statute. The first requirement is that the parties must be adversaries. This is shown through the plaintiff having suffered or imminently likely to suffer a distinct and palpable injury. A mere interest in the problem is insufficient to establish standing. Therefore, the complaint must specifically allege that the plaintiff has suffered or is likely to suffer a distinct injury. The injury may even be one of aesthetic concerns, so long as it is personally suffered and is legally cognizable. U.S. v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669 (1973). Additionally, a plaintiff seeking declaratory or injunctive relief must show a likelihood of injury in the future. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983). Injuries which are sufficient to satisfy this requirement have generally been found to be any injury based on the common law and injuries based on a violation of the Constitution. Congress may create adversariness through statute, but it cannot create standing so that the public in general satisfies the statutory requirement. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130 (1992). Along this same line of reasoning, the Court will not permit an individual to sue the government on the basis of being a taxpayer or forcing the government to comply with the law. The second and third requirements are that the named defendant(s) be the causation of the injuries and that the injury is redressable through the court. The Supreme Court has declared that these are separate inquiries, but they are very often examined at the same time. The plaintiff must show that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant through a causal nexus linking the action of the defendant with the injury. The link must usually be a direct one, without the intervention of a third party. Where there is the intervention of a third party, the court may find that there was no causation, or that the injury is not redressable. In examining redressability, the court looks to the remedies sought in the pleadings and examines those for the likely affect they would have on the injury. When the injury depends on the actions of a third party, a court order will not affect that party, and the injury cannot be redressed. However, an injury caused by the defendant can be directly compensated for by the court. V. Political Question: An issue, even a Constitutional one, which the Court feels is best resolved by one of the other branches of government may denied judicial review under the Political Question Doctrine. These issues are generally political in nature, and the court feels that the political system of accountability is the best mechanism to

resolve the issues, as opposed to a mandate from the courts. Often, these issues are either given wholly to another branch of government in the Constitution, or there is a lack of judicially manageable standards for resolving it, or for a number of other reasons. See Baker v. Carr, 396 U.S. 186, 217 (1962). These principals have been applied in such areas as the republican form of government clause in Article IV, 4, foreign relations, and Congress' control of its own internal processes. VI. Judicial Restraint: Judicial restraint has two aspects to its nature. The first is the use of discretion in granting certiorari, and the second is a set of prudential rules used to deny a party standing in a particular case. Currently, the Supreme Court has the power to deny certiorari in any case. Congress, however, has the power under Article III to require Supreme Court review for any issue. The prudential restraint rules focus on whether the plaintiff's own rights are being asserted, or whether someone else's rights are being asserted. There is no general third party standing, except in cases of the 1st Amendment and where a special relationship exists between the injured party and the party asserting the right. The special relationships which are permitted to exert third party standing are very limited. A close relationship is required between the third party and the right being asserted, such as an association which is closely tied to the claimed right or a party which has a zone of interest encompassing the right. Congress may also change any of these rules since they are not based within the Constitution. Warth v. Seldon Standing is present when a Plaintiff alleges a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the courts remedial power. Court recognizes the historical constitutional and prudential considerations. The court held that the P must himself have a personal stake in the matter before jurisdiction can be invoked. Not found here, associations for house building cant assert for potential residents. There must be an injury in fact threatening immediate and personal harm. Abbot v. Gardner Actual conflict must exist at all states (trial and appellate level). Ripeness can be satisfied where injury has occurred or is imminent. U.S. Parole Commission v. Gerahty The requisite personal stake must exists at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence. Without a certified class action the case will be deemed moot when main members cases are moot; however, if it is certified then when the members cases are moot, the cases will not become moot so long as other members still have a live controversy (personal stake). Mootness has two issues: 1. Issues are no longer live (no actual controversy) 2. Parties lack a judicially cognizable interest in the outcome (personal stake) Standing Measured at beginning Mootness- Can occur throughout the lawsuit Baker v. Carr In instance of nonjusticiability (inappropriateness of subject for judicial consideration), consideration of a cause is not wholly and immediately foreclosed, but rather inquiry proceeds to point of deciding whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded. Among the tests for determining the existence of a "nonjusticiable" or "political" question is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving the question. Section 4. Congressional Power to Curtail Jurisdiction Congressional Power to Curtail Jurisdiction: Article III of the United States Constitution is the source of Congress power to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts. Jurisdiction means a courts power to hear and decide particular types of cases. For example, state courts have jurisdiction over laws passed in their states, therefore court cases

involving state law can be heard by a state court. Article III, Section 1 states: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. This section has been widely interpreted to mean that Congress has broad power to both set up lower federal courts and to determine what types of cases those courts will be able to hear and decide on. As for the Supreme Court, Section 2 states in part: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. This part of Section 2 gives the Supreme Court the authority to hear certain cases firsthand, without those cases having to go through the lower courts. It also sets up the Supreme Courts role as an appellate court with the authority to hear cases that have proceeded through the lower courts. The phrase with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make, has been widely understood as giving Congress the power to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases on appeal. Congress authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is potentially a threat to judicial independence. Misuse of this power could lead to a lack of uniformity in the law because the Supreme Court would no longer have the final say on the issues withdrawn from its jurisdiction. Stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear certain issues would vest ultimate judicial authority in the lower federal and state courts, producing contradictory and conflicting legal doctrines. Congress can also use its power over federal and Supreme Court jurisdiction to demonstrate its dissatisfaction with certain rulings. As Professor Gerald Gunther of Stanford Law School points out, this is inappropriate and ineffective. Appellate jurisdiction-stripping laws are not truly effective means for implementing congressional dissatisfaction with Court rulings because disfavored rulings would remain on the books as influential precedents. When Congress uses its power to determine jurisdiction it is often attempting to change constitutional law without complying with the procedural rules for amending the constitution. Since constitutional amendments are difficult to get passed, Congress will often attempt to alter court decisions by changing jurisdiction. Congressional attempts to circumvent the established means of registering dissatisfaction with the courts do not effectively remove the offensive ruling. Sheldon v. Sill Congress has never extended its powers to every State. Courts created by statues can only have jurisdiction that the statute confers. Ct refused to expand judicial power to hear action on promissory note. The disposal of the judicial power belongs to Congress and the court is not bound to enlarge that jurisdiction. Ex Parte McCardle Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. When an act of legislature is repealed, it must be considered, except as to transactions past and closed, as if it never existed. Jurisdiction is the power to declare the law and when it ceases to exist, the only f(x) remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the case. Congress has the full power to regulate and limit the Supreme Cts appellate jurisdiction. However, it may 1) eliminate certain avenues for Sup.Ct. review as long as it does not eradicate them all, 2) may eliminate Sup.Ct. review of certain cases w/in judicial power, must permit jurisdiction to remain in some lower court, 3) denial of all Sup.Ct. review = due process violation. Section 5. Judicial Power Outside Article III Judicial Power Outside of Article III: Only in three narrowly circumscribed instances may judicial power be distributed outside the Article III framework: in territories and the District of Columbia, that is, geographical areas in which no State operated as sovereign and Congress exercised the general powers of government; courts martial, that is, the establishment of courts under a constitutional grant of power historically understood as giving the political branches extraordinary control over the precise subject matter; and the adjudication of ''public rights,'' that is, the litigation of certain matters that historically were reserved to the political branches of government and that were between the government and the individual. In bankruptcy legislation and litigation not involving any of these exceptions, the plurality would have held, the judicial power to process bankruptcy cases could not be assigned to the tribunals created by the act.

 5 Judicial Power Outside Article III: Under what circumstances can Congress be allowed to set up courts under Art I? 1) United States territories and possessions 2) Military courts 3) United States Court of Claims (Adjunct) 4) Criminal matters between private citizens Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipe Line A Judiciary free from control by the Executive and Legislature is essential if there is a right to have claims decided by judges who are free from potential domination by other branches of government. Here, there is a concern about checks and balance when judges are having to concern themselves with removal and pay ranges. Although Congress has the plenary power to delineate the jurisdictional limits of Art III judges (original [lower courts] and appellate), it is bound by the standards of judicial power set forth in Art III as to subject-matter, parties, and the rqmts of case or controversy. Congress impermissibly removed most if not all of the essential attributes of the judicial power from the Art III district court and it has vested those attributes in a non-Art III adjunct. Case also establishes the public rights doctrine based upon sovereign immunity recognizing that certain rights are of the form a court is capable of acting upon them. Stuck down the bankruptcy (BK) act of 1978 because BK judges were not life tenured. Why if Article I courts are allowed, such as Territorial courts, Military courts, District Court of Columbia, Administrative Agencies? Well, there is no clear answer. National Mutual Insurance v. Tidewater Transfer Congress may clothe District of Columbia courts not only with the jurisdiction and powers of the federal courts in the several states but with such authority as a state may confer on her courts. . Those who invoke federal jurisdiction are placed with the burden of proof to show the federal judge has authority to hear that particular lawsuit. Parties cannot agree to jurisdiction. Judges have limited authority to raise authority on their own except for ruling of SMJ . Was not one of the original 9 areas under Art III 2, but in this instance Art III gives Congress exclusive power to create D.C. courts. Art I. Courts staffed with Art. III judges = OK Art III Courts staffed with Art I judges = PROBLEM

Chapter Two:

Federal-Questions and Admirality Cases

Section 1. Identifying Federal Question Cases Federal Question: Federal courts may decide cases that involve the United States government, the United States Constitution
or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. A case that raises such a "federal question" may be filed in federal court. Examples of such cases might include a claim by an individual for entitlement to money under a federal government program such as Social Security, a claim by the government that someone has violated federal laws, or a challenge to actions taken by a federal agency.

Federal court has exclusive jurisdiction: 1) Bankruptcy 2) Patent or copyright 3) U.S. is a party -----> no jurisdiction unless u.s. consents To suit 4) Defendant consuls or vice-consuls 5) Antitrust statutes 6) Admiralty and maritime 7) Foreign or state agency 8) Post office

9) Internal Revenue Service 10) Securities Exchange Act Federal Question (arising under) Arising under must appear on the face of the well-pleaded complaint. Ps claim must be based on federal law. Federal defenses dont count. Not easy in a declaratory judgment because real parties are reverse. Therefore, a federal Q exists if the claims for a federal declaratory D would have been based on federal law (which is essentially, the real Plaintiff). Pendant or supplemental jurisdiction if a federal claim and a state claim share a common nucleus of
operative facts, the federal court MAY (not must) hear the pendant state claim.

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley It is the settled interpretation of these words, as sued in this statute, conferring jurisdiction, that a suit arises under the constitution and laws of the US only when the Plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. Well Pleaded Complaint Rule: It is the settled interpretation of these words as used in the statute, conferring jurisdiction, that a suit arises under the constitution and laws of the US ONLY when the Ps statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that constitution. It is settled law that a suit arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon those laws or that Constitution. The court found that where jurisdiction arises by an anticipated defense jurisdictional authority is not present. Skelly Oil v. Phillips Petroleum Not every question of federal law emerging in a suit is proof that a federal law is the basis of the suit. A suggestion of one party, that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of

the US, does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws. The Ps claim itself must present a federal question unaided by anything alleged in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is though the defendant may interpose.

Well settled doctrine provides that where a suit is brought in the federal courts upon the sole ground that the determination of the suit depends upon some question of a Federal nature, it must appear, at the outset, from the declaration or the bill of the party suing, that the suit is of that character. Where, as here, a matter in controversy does not appear, dismissal is proper.

T.B. Harms v. Eliscu Just because an issue involves a copyright does not make it a federal issue. Court applied the Holmes test that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. Case was about a K dispute over an assignment of copyright. It did not substantively deal with the copyright statute, therefore jurisdiction was found lacking. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson Where it appears from the bill or statement of the P that the right to relief depends upon the construction or appreciation of the constitution of the laws of the US. Whether a claim arises under federal law must be determined by reference to the well pleaded complaint rule. Mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal question jurisdiction. Court concluded that where a complaint alleges a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state cause of action, when Congress has determined that there should be no private, federal cause of action for the violation, does not state a claim under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Section 2. Identifying the Scope of a Case

Finely v. US There are two things necessary to create jurisdiction: 1) The Constitution must have give the court capacity to take it, and 2) an act of Congress must have supplied it. The relationship exists when the federal and nonfederal claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts and are such that a P would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding. The court affirmed the lower courts judgment holding that the district court could not assert jurisdiction over parties who were not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction in petitioner widow's action against respondent government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Pendent jurisdiction was not available because the FTCA conferred federal jurisdiction only over claims against the government. Jurisdiction arises as a result of a constitutional capacity and a congressional provision to exercise such authority.

Chapter Three: The Diversity Jurisdiction and the Appropriate Federal Forum
Diversity Jurisdiction: A case may be filed in federal court based on the "diversity of citizenship" of the litigants, such as
between citizens of different states, or between United States citizens and those of another country. To ensure fairness to the out-of-state litigant, the Constitution provides that such cases may be heard in a federal court. An important limit to diversity jurisdiction is that only cases involving more than $75,000 in potential damages may be filed in a federal court. Claims below that amount may only be pursued in state court. Moreover, any diversity jurisdiction case regardless of the amount of money involved may be brought in a state court rather than a federal court.

Diversity jurisdiction arises when the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over diversity cases to protect nonresident parties from local bias in state courts. Two requirements include: 1. Controversy must meet a jurisdictional amount in excess of $75,000; 2. Diverse citizenship between the Plaintiffs and Defendants (no Plaintiff can be from the same state as any Defendant); or a state citizen & citizen of a foreign state or citizens of different states and a citizen of a foreign state are additional parties or Plaintiff from a foreign state and citizens of a state or different states Section 1. The Determination of Citizenship
Individual citizenship -----> domicile Individual new citizenship -----> physical presence + intent to remain Nonresident us citizen -----> not a citizen of any state and is not an alien. no citizenship so no diversity jurisdiction here Resident alien (non-us citizen) -----> if admitted to the us for permanent residence -----> citizen of the state domiciled. Can sue and be sued. However, there is no diversity between two permanent resident aliens A Suit against an insurer without joining the insured -----> the insurer is a citizen of all of the following places: place of incorporation, insurer's principal place of business, and the insured's state of citizenship Legal representative of an infant, incompetent, descendant estate -----> domicile of the represented Class action -----> domicile of named members of the class + jurisdiction amount for each class member

Diversity of Citizenship Citizens of different states State v. citizen of another state Citizen of state v. citizen of a foreign country Over $75,000 exclusive of interests and costs Complete diversity required (all Ps must be diverse from all Ds, but Ps dont have to be diverse from each other and same goes for the Ds). Corp is a citizen of the state or states when it is incorporated and its principal place of business. Partnership or limited partnership is a citizen of every state of which any member is a citizen.

10

Ancillary jurisdiction includes: Compulsory counterclaims, Cross claims, Intervention as of right, Impleader of 3rd party Ds. Can come in regardless of jursidictional amount and diversity.
Ancillary jur does not include: Permissive counter claims, Permissive intervention, Joinder of necessary and indispensable parties. They must meet their own diversity requirements.

Sadat v.Mertes 28 USC section 1332a1 creates the federal courts jurisdiction over actions b/w citizens of different states. For a natural person to fall w/in this provision he must 1) be a citizen of the US and 2) a citizen of a particular state. State citizenship is made by determination of established domicile 1) physically present and 2) intent to make the place his home for a time. Section 2. Complete Diversity and Ancillary Jurisdiction Complete diversity: must occur when the cause of action is commenced. After the action commences -----> ok if diversity is destroyed. Any third party claims after an action has commenced must have complete diversity. If the court realigns the parties according to interest -----> alignment may create or destroy diversity Assign claim to another party for collection while retaining an interest -----> no jurisdiction unless assignment is absolute Fraudulent joinder to defeat diversity will not bar removal to federal court In a shareholder derivative action -----> corporation is usually aligned as a Defendant Special Diversity Rules for Statutory Interpleader and Rule 22 Interpleader: Statutory Interpleader statute -----> need diversity only between two adverse claimants + > $500 Rule 22 interpleader -----> complete diversity between stakeholder and claimants + Plaintiff $75,000 in value Ancillary or Pendent Jurisdiction Over State Claims (Supplemental Jurisdiction): Pendent jurisdiction means Plaintiff has both federal and state claims against a Defendant. The court has discretion to exercise pendent jurisdiction over claims based on state law if both claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts and the claims should be tried in one proceeding. The pendent claim is transactionally related to the claim of another party that invokes federal jurisdiction under the supplemental jurisdiction statute After federal claims are dismissed before trial -----> the court can maintain state claims but should dismiss them without prejudice (particularly if the state claims are novel or predominate over the federal claims) or remand to state court. For example, in an action based on diversity jurisdiction where a defective prescription drug claim was dismissed prior to landlord-tenant claims normally brought in state court -----> the court would likely dismiss the landlord-tenant claims without prejudice or remand to state court. In another example, a federal court cannot award relief against a state official based solely on state law so the court would dismiss the remaining action without prejudice Diversity required
Amendment replacing claims or a party with a replacement party through impleader Plaintiff asserting a claim against a third Party Defendant Joinder of additional parties (necessary or permissive) Rule 22 interpleader (only need stakeholder diversity from all other parties) Statutory interpleader (only need two adverse claimants with diversity) Permissive counterclaims Compulsory counterclaims Joinder of claims -----> only need pendent jurisdiction

No diversity required

11

Permissive intervention and Plaintiff intervention as of right

Defendant intervenor as of right when claims an interest relating to property or the transaction and disposition of the action may adversely affect their interest. A Plaintiff cannot intervene here under ancillary jurisdiction since an independent basis for jurisdiction would need to exist. Substitution of parties due to death, incompetency of an original party. The original party's citizenship controls, not the substitute party. Impleader where the Defendant joins the original action as a third party. Here, Plaintiff is not a party to the third party controversy. The third party action is ancillary to the main claim. Here, Plaintiff cannot assert a claim against the third party Defendant unless diversity exists. Cross-claims where a co-party asserts a claim against another party invokes supplemental jurisdiction if the claim is transactionally related to the underlying action. Indemnity and contribution claims do not require any independent jurisdiction ground.

Strawbridge v. Curtiss Diversity must be complete! All the Ps must be diverse from the Ds. Simply put, there must be complete diversity between opponents in order for diversity jur. to exist. Treinies v. Sunshine Mining The district courts have jurisdiction of suits in equity, interpleading two or more adverse claimants, instituted by complainants who have property of the requisite valued claimed by citizens of different states. Stakeholder is in possession of property, but he knows the claimants want it. He wants to force them all in one single case. Rule Interpleader is just a diversity case and stakeholder must be diverse form every claimant. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Statutory Interpleader only asks for one claimant to be diverse from one claimants and the amount in
controversy is $500 or more.

A lack of diversity of citizenship between adverse claimants is typically fatal. But under 28 USC 1335 stat. Interpleader, you only need diversity among the adverse claimants seeking resolution of the disputed property and an amount in controversy greater than $500. This section did not abolish the equitable remedy available under 28 USC 1332, where there is diversity of citizenship between the stakeholder and the claimants. For FRCP 22 interpleader amt in controversy must exceed $75 or more.

Owen Equipment & Erection v. Kroger Impleader (3rd party practice) is when D joins someone who owes contribution on the underlying
claim. There must be indemnity for the contribution on the underlying claim. The P must assert a case against third party D for the same transaction or occurrence. The third party D may assert a case against the P for same transaction or occurrence.

Where it was discovered after trial had commenced that the parties lacked diversity, the Court was unable to maintain jurisdiction. Ancillary jurisdiction could not be maintained as the claim was new and independent and not ancillary or dependent.

American Fire & Casualty v. Finn Removal is the Ds tool to remove the case from State to Federal court.

12

Not removable if party in interest as Ds is a citizen where the action was brought. After suffering a fire loss, the insured filed suit against the insurer, not a resident corporation of the forum state, and two codefendants, one of whom resided in the forum state. The insurer and a codefendant removed the suit from state court to federal court. Subsequent to the district court's finding against it, the insurer argued that removal of the suit from state court was improper. The district court denied the insurer's motion to vacate the judgment and remand the case to state court, and the court of appeals affirmed. On certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court held that there was no right to removal because the claim against the insurer was not separate and independent from the claim against the non-diverse codefendant as required under 28 U.S.C.S. 1441(c). In reaching its conclusion, the Court held that the suit involved a single wrong to the insured that involved an interlocking series of transactions. The Court then held that the insurer was not estopped from protesting the removal action because a lack of party diversity deprived the district court of original jurisdiction over the action. Section 3. Corporations and Other Associations
Corporation citizenship -----> any state of incorporation and one state as the principal place of business. The opposing party cannot be a citizen of the same state as the corporation. The corporation can have multiple states of incorporation Corporation's executive office and operations are in two states -----> principal place of business is state of operations. If the corporation's operations are in many states -----> principal place of business is the executive office A Suit against an insurer without joining the insured -----> the insurer is a citizen of all of the following places: place of incorporation, insurer's principal place of business, and the insured's state of citizenship Business trust -----> domicile of trustee Legal representative of an infant, incompetent, descendant estate -----> domicile of the represented Foreign corporations are considered aliens for purposes of diversity jurisdiction -----> citizen of the foreign country of incorporation Unincorporated association citizenship -----> where each member is domiciled (compare this to an unincorporated association venue where it does business)

Carden v. Arkoma Associates Diversity jurisdiction is a suit by or against the entity depends on th e citizenship of all the partners

(including limited partners).

We dont have to focus on the citizenship of only the general partners even thought they are the decision makers. Not up to Judges to change statutes; thats Congress job.

Kelly v. US Steel Principal place of business is where the corporate policy is formulated. Where a principal place of business determines citizenship. The court determined that the place of a corporation's activities, rather than the place where its directors meet occasionally, indicated the principal place of business. The court looked to the location of the committee responsible for the day-to-day operation of the corporation, the location of a majority of the corporate officers, and the location of the majority of exempt and non-exempt employees to determine that Pennsylvania was the place of the corporation's activities. The court also compared the manufacturing operations and tangible property holdings of the corporation in both New York and Pennsylvania and determined that the corporation had greater operations and holdings in Pennsylvania than New York. Therefore, the court held that the corporation was a citizen of Pennsylvania. Smith v Sperling District court shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.

13

There can be no jurisdiction of matters relating to domestic relations or probate. Antagonism is determined upon the face of the pleadings absent collusion. Collusion can either create or destroy diversity. The court, sua sponte, is free to realign in this situation. The focus is the partys objectives of litigation Section 3. The Jurisdictional Amount

Jurisdictional Amount: required is when the controversy is valued greater than $75,000 exclusive of interest and costs from the Plaintiff's view in good faith. Look at Plaintiff's value never Defendant's cost or value Statutory fees (punitive and attorney fees) are included in the amount in controversy If Defendant proves with legal certainty that Plaintiff could not have recovered greater than $75,000 -----> court will deny subject matter jurisdiction by diversity of citizenship With installment contracts, only the amount due matters, not the entire contract. Properly issued bonds include the entire bond amount With injunctions, the value is the right protected or extent of injury prevented, not the amount a Plaintiff may recover If separate claims are aggregated -----> each claim must meet the jurisdictional amount. If one Plaintiff is suing many Defendants -----> aggregate claims only if Defendants are jointly liable If many Plaintiffs sue one Defendant -----> ok to aggregate claims only if Plaintiffs are enforcing a right with an undivided interest Permissive counterclaims need to meet the jurisdictional amount but other counterclaims do not When a case is removed by a Defendant -----> Plaintiff still must meet the jurisdictional amount. This could be a basis where Defendant's petition to remove is denied Snyder v. Harris When 2 or more Ps, having separate and distinct demands, unite for convenience and economy in a single suit, it is essential that the demand of each be of the requisite jurisdictional amount. For multiple Ps claims cannot be aggregated; they must both satisfy the jurisdictional amount. Deciding upon the issue of whether separate and distinct claims could be aggregated, the court held that Congress enacted aggregation for claims that arise out of a common nucleus or same transaction.

Chapter Four: The Applicable Law

Section 1. The Erie Problem ERIE DOCTRINE = BOA BALANCE STATE INTERESTS OUTCOME DETERMINATIVE AVOIDS FORUM SHOPPING Erie Doctrine Tips: Erie Doctrine involves the law applied under diversity jurisdiction. State substantive law and federal procedural law are applied by federal courts, including state conflict of law rules. Federal court applies state law where the federal court sits. Federal procedure law will not be applied in a diversity case if it defeats the statute of limitations. State law controls the statute of limitations. State law procedures apply if there is no federal statute or rule. State substantive law is applied when outcome determinative. However, if there is a countervailing federal policy -----> federal law applies Erie Railroad v. Tompkins If there is not federal law on point, then use the state law. The federal court must apply substantive law. If that issue is substantive state law then you have to
apply state law.

14

The court holding that there was no federal general common law, and that except in matters governed by the U.S. Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied by the federal courts in diversity cases was the law of the state. Eliminate General common law.now only federal or state but no such thing as general. Erie questions whose law will apply not which court. Erie is not limited to diversity cases. When a federal question cases brings in a pendant state claim, that claim is governed by substantive state law even though the case originated as a arising under case. Applies to substance not procedure.

Guaranty Trust v. York Outcome Determinative Test: If the state law will determine the outcome, then apply the state law. However, if there is an overriding federal interest, then apply federal law. In determining whether the statute of limitations acts as a substantive or procedural rqmt, the court held it was immaterial whether the SOL are substantive or procedural. The Court noted that under the Erie Doctrine, in all cases where a federal court had jurisdiction solely because of diversity of citizenship, the outcome of the litigation in the federal court should be substantially the same, so far as legal rules determine the outcome of a litigation, as it would be if tried in a state court. The doctrine required the federal diversity court to follow state law, and if the statute of limitations under state law barred recovery in a state court, the federal court could not afford recovery. The Court reiterated that the source of substantive rights enforced by a federal diversity court was state law, and that this law determined the outcome regardless of the forum or whether the remedy was in law or in equity. Hanna v. Plumer Supremacy Clause: If there is a federal directive, it wins because it the supreme law of the land. In determining whether FRCP 4 is substantive thereby necessitating accord with state law, the test must be whether a rule really regulates procedure (the manner and means of applying the state substantive law). The outcome determinative test must be read with reference to the twin aims of Erie: 1) discouragement of forum shopping and 2) avoidance of inequitable administration of the laws . Where action could have been brought in either ct, the local cts rules should probably be applied. Federal procedural rules applies to all federal cases. Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Prohibition declared in Erie against independent determinations by the federal courts extends to the field of conflict of laws. The conflict of laws rules to be applied to be applied by the fed. Ct. must conform to those prevailing in the state in which it sits. Concerns choice among state laws; not sure which state law applies to an issue. When a federal court is required by Erie to apply state substantive law it follows the conflicts rule of the state in which it sits. Section 2. The Federal Common Law 28 USC 1345: Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the US, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.

Erie eliminated general common law endorsed in Swift v. Tyson. Today all law is state or federal. What is post-Erie federal common law? Judge made federal law. When do federal judges make up the law? When there is good reason to protect uniquely federal interests. Federal law governs the rights and duties of the United States. When rights and duties of the US are directly at issue, the federal law almost always applies.

15

State law governs the rights and duties of private parties.

Clearfield Trust v. US In the absence of an applicable Act of Congress it is for the federal courts to fashion the governing rule of law according to their own statutes. Where the conflict of state law, even w/out the conflict of laws rules of the forum, would subject the rights and duties of the US to exceptional uncertainty, federal C.L. may be employed. Said the decision to create federal common law involves 2 questions 1. Are rights and duties of the US directly in issue, and if so, then federal law controls. 2. Is there need for a uniform federal rule of decision? No, then federal courts will apply state law as the federal rule of decision. If yes, federal courts will create federal common law. Bank of America v. Parnell Dont look at the labels, look at the parties. When there is a suit between private parties then no real governmental interest exists to justify application of federal law. Federal law governs the interpretation of the nature of the rights and obligations created by Gov. bonds themselves. Therefore, a decision regarding the interpretation of overdueness is within their purview. Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino No state can undermine the federal interest in equitably apportioned interstate waters even if its deals with private parties. Scope of the act of state doctrine must be determined according to federal law. The court held that the act of state doctrine precluded United States courts from inquiring into the validity of the public acts that a recognized foreign sovereign power committed within its own territory. The court further found that the scope of the act of state doctrine must be determined according to federal law, and the doctrine proscribed a challenge to the validity of the Cuban expropriation decree. Therefore, the court found that any counterclaim based on asserted invalidity must fail. Transamerica Mortgage Advisors v. Lewis A person w/ the power to void a contract ordinarily may resort to a court to have the contract rescinded and
to obtain restitution of consideration paid. Limited private remedy to void an investment advisors contract but act confers no damages.

The question of pvt rt of action a matter of statutory construction. To determine apply: 1) whether language of legislature intended to do so? 2) Whether there is evid. of express/implied legislative intent to negate the claimed pvt rt of action. 3) Is the pvt. Rt. of action w/in the legislative scheme? 4) Whether the subject matter of the C/A has been so traditionally relegated to the state law as to make it inappropriate to infer a fed. Cause of action? Section 3. Remedies Against Government Officials

Monell v. Department of Social Services Municipal government can only be sued for their own constitutional or illegal policies. It may not be sues for acts of their employees. Doctrine of Respondent Superior or Vicarious Liability do not apply to municipalities. The court, unrestrained by stare decisis, overruled Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, which had held that municipal corporations could not be sued under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983. The court, however, upheld the rule that respondeat superior was not a basis for rendering municipalities liable under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 for constitutional torts of employees. Only when execution of a government policy inflicted the injury could a governmental entity be responsible under 42 U.S.C.S. 1983. Since the present case involved official policy as the violation, the appellate court's decision was reversed.

16

Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Suits for damages based on violations of federal statutes lacking any express authorization of a damage remedy, this court has authorized such relief where, in its view, damages are necessary to effectuate the congressional policy underpinning the substantive provisions of the statute.

The court disagreed, saying that the relationship between federal agents acting unconstitutionally, and a private citizen, differed from that between private citizens. Because agents had a far greater capacity for harm, the Court reasoned, the Fourth Amendment limited the exercise of federal power. Explaining, the Court said that the Amendment did not proscribe only those acts engaged in by private citizens that were condemned by state law, that the interests of state laws regulating invasion of privacy and the Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches could be inconsistent, and that the awarding of damages to petitioner following a violation of the Amendment by federal agents was a remedy normally available in the federal courts. Courts may adjust their remedies so as to grant the necessary relief, and it is well-settled that where legal rts have been invaded and a fed. Law grants a gen. Rt. to sue for invasion, fed cts may use any available remedy to make good. Held that you can sue a federal officer for money damages for an unsconstitutional search and seizure.

Tarbles Case The fed=l cts and judicial officers are clothed w/ the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus in all cases, where a party is illegally restrained of his liberty by an officer of the US, whether such illegality consist in the character of the process, the authority of the officer, or the invalidity of the law under which he is held. The state courts are limited in jurisdiction and sovereignty. The supremacy clause provides that where a conflict arises then the law to be followed is federal law.

Chapter Five: Sovereign Immunity and Related Problems

Section 1. The 11th Amendment and Sovereign Immunity Hans v. Louisiana The judicial power of the US shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the US by citizens of another State or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. 1. Consent to waive sovereign immunity 2. Congress can override the 11th Amendment 3. Name the State official as the D, not the State It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of the immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain w/ the states and this only by proper legislation. Public Policy- a) protect the Public Coffers b) King can do no wrong c) now, sovereign = people Ex Parte Young 11th Amendment did not bar an action in federal court seeking to enjoin the attorney general of
Minnesota from enforcing a statute claimed to violate the 11th Amendment of the Constitution.

The Court dismissed the petitions for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari, finding that the lower court had jurisdiction to enjoin petitioner because the penalties imposed by railway acts raised a federal question under United States Constitution, and the injunction did not violate the Eleventh Amendment because the court enjoined petitioner and not the state. Suit allowed, but note it is not for $$$ money. A state officer acting outside the law is stripped of his official or representative character and loses the protection of the 11 th amendment and sovereign immunity.

Edelman v. Jordan Not the same as Young; here, we are asking the state to pay the money and that is different than
enjoining an employee of the state (or a state official).

17

Even where the state is not a named party, the suit may nevertheless by barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Where the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and it is entitled to invoke sovereign immunity.

Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer The prohibitions of the 14th Amendment are directed to the States and they are to a degree
restrictions of the States power. Such enforcement is no invasion of state sovereignty.

Congress is expressly granted authority to enforce by appropriate legislation the substantive provisions of the 14th amendment. These act as limitation on the 11th amendments grant of sovereign immunity. Section 2. Official and Congressional Immunities

Harlow v. Fitzgerald A special functions rationale does not warrant a blanket restriction of absolute immunity for all Presidential aides in the performance of all their duties. Government officials were entitled to some form of immunity from suits for damages. Executive officials in general were entitled to qualified immunity that would be defeated if such officials knew or reasonably should have known that the action violated constitutional rights or if the action was taken with malicious intention to cause deprivation of constitutional rights. As such, the judgment denying petitioners' immunity defense was vacated and remanded. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the cause, holding that government officials performing discretionary functions were generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have had knowledge.

Chapter Six: Abstention and Such

Abstention: judge-made rules requiring federal district courts to withhold judgment out of deference to state courts or other forms of state process; Refusal to hear a case properly w/in federal courts decision on the grounds that it would interfere with state courts Procedure of Abstention a. The original procedure: 1. District court stays proceedings 2. P files action in state trial court seeking judicial declaration that state statute does not cover P's situation 3. In requesting interpretation of state statute, P must apprise state court of federal constitutional claims, 4. P may elect to litigate constitutional claim in state court, but may not then return to federal court 5. Better practice is to explicitly reserve right to return to federal court, but right to return is waived only when P clearly attempted to litigate all claims in state court 6. Case is appealed to state supreme court 7. If state courts rule that statute applies to P, federal district court dissolves stay and proceeds to constitutional question b. Certification 1. 45 statutes have statutes authorizing federal courts to certify questions of state law to state courts A. Only 26 states permit federal district courts to certify 2. Availability of certification may make abstention more appropriate 3. Where certification is available, resort to original Pullman procedure may constitute abuse of discretion Section 1. Pullman Abstention and Certification Pullman Abstention: Where adjudication of a sensitive constitutional question might be avoided by allowing a state court to interpret an ambiguous state statute, a federal district court sitting in equity must stay the action Railroad Commission v. Pullman

18

Where a sate law is uncertain and a clarification of the state law might make a federal courts determination of a constitutional question necessary the federal courts should abstain until the state court has had an opportunity to resolve the uncertainty of state law. Pullman Doctrine: A federal court should abstain form exercising jurisdiction when difficult and unsettled questions of state law must be resolved before a substantial federal constitutional question can be decided. The Court found that the doctrine of abstention was appropriate as the law of Texas appeared to furnish easy and ample means for determining appellant's authority, and if there were difficulties in the procedure, the issue of state law could be settled by appropriate action on the part of the state to enforce obedience to the order. The Court found that in the absence of any showing that the obvious methods for securing a definitive ruling in the state courts could not be pursued with full protection of the constitutional claim, the district court should have exercised its wise discretion by staying its hands. When a federal constitutional claim is premised on an unsettled question of state law, the federal court should stay its hand (abstain, temporarily), so as to give state courts a chance to settle the underlying state law question and thus potentially avoid the needless resolution of a federal constitutional issue.

England v Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners Trying the state law issue in state court following federal court abstention will not preclude later litigation
of the federal issues in federal courts.

In courts of equity where questions of construction and constitutionality prevail, the court may be required to employ abstention. But the court must retain the bill pending a determination of proceedings (final determination). Otherwise, res judicata applies. Therefore in order to preserve abstention: 1) inform state judge of fed. Claim and 2) make a motion to reserve fed. Question pending outcome on the state claim (plead or by motion). Section 2. State Administrative Agencies and Taxes

Buford v. Sun Oil Buford Doctrine: Federal courts would abstain form exercising their jurisdiction in deference to the state

proceeding of complex and administrative procedures.

Abstention because of complex state administration procedures does not postpone federal court jurisdiction it completely displaces federal court review. Where a state law has an adequate and elaborate scheme in place to deal with a situation, the court for the purposes of unification of methodology for formulation of policy and determination of cases should abstain. Federal court intervention would only lead to intolerable confusion (due process concerns are assuaged by the provision of such special programs and plans coupled with uncertain law).

Fair Assessment in Real Estate v. McNary Taxpayer are bared by the principle of comity from asserting 1983 actions against the validity of state tax
systems in federal courts such taxpayers must seek protection of their federal rights by state remedies. 1983 suit would disrupt the states taxing scheme and was barred by comity from federal court consideration.

Monroe v. Pape (comity doesnt apply where 1983 is involved)-may proceed directly to fed. ct. The principle of comity (the scrupulous regard for the rightful independence of state governments which should at all times actuate the federal courts, and a proper reluctance to interfere by injunction with their fiscal operations, require that such relief should be denied in every case where the asserted federal right may be preserved without it. Interference with state internal economy and administration is inseparable from assaults in the federal courts on the validity of state taxation, and necessarily attends injunctions, interlocutory or final, restraining collection of state taxes ) controls in barring the state taxpayers from seeking redress in federal courts under 1983. The state remedies should be the first line of redress where they are plain, adequate and complete. Section 3. Injunctions Against Suit

Mitchum v. Foster

19

Anti-Injunction statute: Prevents federal judges from enjoining state courts unless it fits into one of the expressly authorized exceptions. Doesnt need to expressly say it for it to be expressly authorized. Expressly authorized test: 1) federal law need not contain an express reference to that statute, 2) federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an exception, and 3) act of congress must have created a specific and uniquely federal right or remedy that could be FRUSTRATED if the federal court were not empowered to enjoin. 1983 purpose interpose the federal courts b/w the state and the people as guardians of the peoples rights; 1983 is an act of congress that falls w/in the expressly authorized exception. In determining whether an act 1983 comes within the expressly authorized exception to anti-injunction act, the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state courts proceedings except under special circumstances: 1) In rem - fed. Ct. may enjoin state in order to protect its jurisd. of res over which it 1 st had jurisd. 2) Relitigation state court issues already decided in federal ct. 3) Superior fed. Interests when the P is itself the US or a fed. Agency asserting superior fed. interests On appeal, the court held that federal injunctive relief was appropriate only where (1) the irreparable injury was both great and immediate, (2) the state law was flagrantly unconstitutional, or (3) there was a showing of bad faith that would call for equitable relief. The court added that to qualify under one of those expressly authorized exceptions, the federal law did not have to expressly reference 2283. The test was whether an act of Congress, clearly creating a federal right enforceable in a federal court of equity, could be given its intended scope only by the stay of a state proceeding. The court held that 42 U.S.C.S. 1983 fell within the exception.

Younger v. Harris Possible unconstitutionality of a statute on its face does not itself justify an injunction against good faith attempts to enforce it. The movant has to show bad faith, harassment or any other unusual circumstance
that would allow federal courts to intervene and grant equitable relief.

Although the statute may have challenged defendant's U.S. Const. amend. I freedom of speech rights and its enforcement might have a chilling effect on the speech of other persons; the court could not review the statute on its face. The limited circumstances under which a statute threatened great and immediate irreparable injuries were not present. Where absolutely necessary for protection of constitutional rights, courts of the United States have power to enjoin state officers from instituting criminal actions. But this must not be done, except under extraordinary circumstances, where irreparable loss is both great and immediate. The accused should first setup and rely upon his defense in the state courts, even though this involves the validity of some statute, unless it appears plainly that this course would not afford adequate protection. Statutory exceptions to 2283 are: 1) except as expressly authorized by Congress 2) where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction 3) to protect or effectuate its judgments You cannot be a federal P if you are already a state D because state Ds argue their federal rights are violated which causes delays and disruptions by interlocutory appeals every time they get a ruling they dont like.

Steffel v. Thompson When no state proceeding is pending and thus consideration of equity, comity and federalism have little

validity, the propriety of granting federal declaratory relief may properly be considered independently of a request for injunctive relief, because of the reason that although declaratory judgment has the force and effect of final judgment, it is a much milder form of relief than injunction and although noncompliance with its judgment would be inappropriate it would not lead to contempt.

Younger does not apply where there is no pending criminal litigation. The Court reversed because the abstention doctrine, precluding federal action to restrain a pending state criminal proceeding, did not apply where no prosecution had taken place. Because petitioner alleged an actual threat of prosecution, a case or controversy existed for purposes of declaratory relief. When no state prosecution was pending and a genuine threat of enforcement of the disputed statute had been made, federal declaratory relief was not precluded whether the constitutionality of the statute was challenged on its face or as it applied to petitioner.

20

Section 4. Pending Actions and Other Problems Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States Pendency of action in the state court is no bar to proceedings concerning the same matter in the Federal court having jurisdiction. The Court held the Amendment did not diminish the district court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.S. 1345, but that dismissal was proper in view of the concurrent state court proceedings. In so holding, the Court found that, under the Amendment, the state court had jurisdiction over Indian water rights and that, although the abstention doctrine did not apply, a number of factors counseled against concurrent federal proceedings. Those factors included the Amendment's clear federal policy of avoiding piecemeal adjudication of water rights in a river system, the adjudication system established by the state's Water Rights Determination and Administration Act and the extensive involvement of state water rights.

Chapter Seven: Appellate and Collateral Review in the Federal Courts

Section 1. Direct Appellate Review Henry v. Mississippi A litigant's procedural defaults in state proceedings do not prevent vindication of federal rights unless state's insistence on compliance with its procedural rules serve legitimate state interests, inquiry has been made as to whether enforcement of procedural forfeiture serves such a state interest, and state courts judgment rests on independent and adequate state grounds to avoid an advisory opinion or that the litigants procedural defaults have constituted a valid waiver of the Ds federal rights.
Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn

The First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent state sanctions for publication of truthful information contained in official court records which are open to public inspection Established the final judgment rule. The basic rationale is for conservation of judicial resources. In general, the rule requires that only after the highest court in a state has rendered a final judgment or decree is it permissible for appellate jurisdiction to ensue. There are four categories where the Court has treated the decision on the federal issue as a final judgment: 1) The case in which there are further proceedings yet to occur but for some reason the federal issue is conclusive or the outcome of further proceedings is preordained (dispositive). 2) The federal issue, finally decided by the highest court in the State, will survive and require decision regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings. 3) The federal claim has been finally decided, with further proceedings on the merits in the state courts to come, but in which later review of the federal issue cannot be had, whatever the ultimate outcome of the case Where the refusal to immediately review the state court decision might seriously erode federal policy, the Court has entertained and decided the issue. Section 2. Habeas Corpus and Post-Conviction Relief

Habeas Corpus: Cannot petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court until you have exhausted currently available remedies. Wright v. Sykes The prisoner had been convicted of third-degree murder in the Florida state court. He never challenged the admissibility of the inculpatory statements he made after being arrested. The prisoner brought this habeas corpus action asserting the inadmissibility of his statement to the police officers claiming that he did not understand his Miranda warnings. The lower courts found that the prisoner was entitled to a hearing in a state criminal trial prior to admitting inculpatory out-of-court statements. The court reversed and accepted the state's position that Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.190(i) required the prisoner to raise before trial the motion to suppress his testimony. The court held

21

that failure to timely object before trial to the admission of the inculpatory statements amounted to an independent and adequate state procedural ground which would prevent direct review by habeas corpus, absent a showing of cause and prejudice attendant to a state procedural waiver. Preiser v. Rodriguez The Department contended that the state prisoners were only entitled to bring their complaints as federal habeas corpus petitions and, therefore, that the complaints should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The United States Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision. When a state prisoner was challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he sought was a determination that he was entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy was a writ of habeas corpus. The state prisoners were therefore not able to proceed under 1983. Jones v. Cunningham The use of habeas corpus is not restricted to the situation in which the applicant is in actual, physical custody, it is sufficient that they are restrained in a manner not shared by the public in general. Peyton v. Rowe Custody commands the understanding that comprehends respondents status for the entire duration of their imprisonment. Thus, it is not necessary to wait till one term of imprisonment is finished to challenge for a crime giving the second.

22