Federal Courts Outline – Spring 2020

**add all of the actual constitutional/statutory language under the pertinent sections**

Article III – ALWAYS START WITH THE TEXT OF THE CONSTITUTION

 Ordain and establish clause: “in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to
time ordain and establish.
 Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity:
o Arising under clause: “arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made under their Authority.”
o Diversity clause: “between citizens of different states”
Differences between state and federal courts:
 Types of subject matter handled (nature of the case)
 Federal judges are appointed v. state judges who are elected
 Higher standards in federal courts
 Choice of law
 Jury pool is larger for federal court than for state county courts
 Jurisdictional issues – its harder to get into federal court
State courts – courts of general jurisdiction. State courts came first in America. The original
colonies that ratified the U.S. constitution already had their own courts – work that is done in
state courts is the most important judicial exercise in our country.
the general presumption is that a case should be filed in state court
Federal courts only have limited jurisdiction or certain enumerated powers. – Picture the door as
locked and bolted – you don’t get into federal court unless you have both keys (the statutory and
constitutional).
Federal “judicial power”
 The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the United States Constitution.
 Article III creates and limits the federal judicial power.
o Article III defines the outer limits of judicial power, congress cannot grant more
than Article III allows.
 While congress can do a lot to the courts, they CANNOT abolish the supreme court
o But they can abolish the lower courts – they created them under the ordain and
establishment clause.
o Congress both creates and defines the lower courts.
 Section 2 imposes the key limits on the federal court’s jurisdiction
 Hodgson v. Bowerbank, (1809): Congress cannot, by statute, extend the jurisdiction
beyond the limits of the constitution. (by waiver, estoppel, consent or means).
 Sheldon v. Sill, (1850): the constitution has defined the limits of judicial power, but has
not prescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the lower courts, consequently, the
statute which does prescribe the limits of their jurisdiction, cannot be in conflict with the
constitution unless it confers powers not enumerated therein.
 Knee v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc, (1968): decided by a district court NOT
SCOTUS. Federal subject matter jurisdiction can be argued at any time, even sua sponte.
It is the responsibility of parties to plead and prove jurisdiction.
  Federal jurisdiction cannot be supplied by consent. There must be constitutional and
statutory authority
 You cannot waive a jurisdictional argument.
 A federal court cannot pronounce any statute, either of a state or the United States, void
because irreconcilable with the constitution except as it is called upon to adjudge the
legal rights of litigants in actual controversies.
“cases and controversies” requirement – Justiciability
 The supreme court does not have jurisdiction to hear hypotheticals.
 Core definition of a case
o Concrete dispute between adverse parties
o If the court’s judgment would be considered “advice” by parties to the dispute,
then the dispute is not a “case” Hypos belong in the classroom not the courtroom.
o Substantial likelihood that a federal courts ruling in favor could have some effect.
o The 3 part test used by the supreme court is that the case is a concrete dispute
concerning legal rights, between adverse parties, and capable of judicial
resolution.
Political Question Doctrine: came from 1803 Marbury v. Madison case – political powers
of president  which he get discretion only accountable to the country and his conscience.
These issues are better heard at the ballot box than in the courts.
 How to determine the political questions:
o Step 1: does the text of the constitution assign responsibility to
decide this question to the political branches?
 Baker v. Carr (1962): if one of the following factors are inextricable from
the case, the case must be dismissed for nonjusticiability: 1. Textually
demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political department; 2. Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving it; 3. The impossibility of deciding without an
initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; 4.
The impossibility of a court’s undertaking independent resolution without
expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; 5.
An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision
already made; 6. The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious
pronouncements by various departments on one question.
o factor number one is thought to be the core of this test
 Zivotofsky v. Clinton, (2012):
 Rucho v. Common Cause, (2019): Dismissed for political doctrine on the
grounds of lack of a judicially manageable standards.
Standing
 Injury-in-fact: personal, concrete and particularized  this is the most important
and most tested factor of the test.
o The more people affected by the complained about action, the less
particularized it becomes.
 3rd party standing is an exception to the personal and individual
standard. – typically there is no right to raise another parties’
rights. Because we want disputes to be limited to the actual
 litigant. Limits the number of cases filed. Person would not be as
invested as the actual right holder but where there is a close
relationship and an impediment.
 Common situations are doctor/patient or parent/child.
 Traceability: defendants conduct caused the harm
 Redressability: remedy that will be effective.
o Courts consistently cites to Lujan v. defenders of wildlife for this standard.
Standing Doctrine: standing to sue is part of the understanding of a case or controversy. It
developed to ensure that federal courts do not exceed their authority. The irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing consists of 3 elements: (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that
is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, (3) that is likely to be redressed by
a favorable judicial decision. The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, has the
burden of pleading and proving each of these elements.
 Hollingsworth v. Perry, (2013): standing to appeal – proposition 8 California
issue where government won’t defend the issue. On appeal, the person invoking
the jurisdiction must plead and prove all 3 of the standing elements.
 United States v. Windsor, (2013): when prudential standing is implicated, the
court must also consider the countervailing considerations
o Both of these cases – decided the same day – deal with the standing to
appeal.
 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, (2016): Congress cannot give you a right to be in federal
court by creating a statute. You still have to plead and prove standing.
 Standing issues generally come up in environmental; political; civil rights
generally  the court is not going to transform hurt feelings into a concrete harm.
 if there is no standing then the case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and
everything done so far is void.
 Standing must persist through the litigation. The party invoking federal review
must have standing. Only one party has to have standing.
 Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, (2019): there was no standing
because there was no impediment to the state representing itself.
 Legislators who have not been allowed to vote on a law have standing to
challenge a law.  vote nullification.
 Organizational Standing: 1. Must be representing one of its members, 2. Must
be germane to the organizations purpose, and 3. Able to proceed without the
necessity of naming the member if the members identity is essential to the
judgment no organizational standing
Advisory opinions – the court doesn’t give advisory opinions because it is something that
may or may not be accepted by the political branches. Same with hypotheticals – the court’s job
is to define the rights and duties are; by giving advice that people can ignore, they have discarded
their authority.
Ripeness
mootness
Declaratory Judgements and Justiciability concerns
 Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Haworth, (1937): concerning the §2201 declaratory
judgment act. A declaratory judgment is a declaration of rights and other legal
 remedies. It acts as a final judgment. Court upheld the declaratory judgment act
stating that the case did not call for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis,
but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts.
 Controversies are only civil in nature. Cases are where the criminal
proceedings would fall.
 Golden v. Zwickler, (1969): a case must retain it justiciability throughout the
entire case.
 Boumediene v. Bush, (2008):
Special Justiciability concerns
 The debate among SCOTUS justices regarding their power to declare what the
law is continues to this day. On one side of the controversy there are the more
liberal justices who believe there is a duty to review all legislation or executive
orders to declare its constitutionality. However, there are more conservative
justices who believe that power only arises incident to their duty to decide cases
and controversies, but that the federal judiciary has inflated their role to judicial
supremacy.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction literally translates to declare law.

Jurisdiction

Subject Matter Personal

(due process)

general Federal
(states) (limited)

While a party can consent to PERSONAL jurisdiction they can not consent to SUBJECT
MATTER.
Subject matter jurisdiction – Black’s law dictionary - Jurisdiction over the nature of the case and
the type of relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the
status of things
5 main principles of federal (limited) jurisdiction
1. there is a presumption that the federal court does not have power
2. A party invoking the court’s power must prove it exists (so they have to rebut #1)
3. to establish a right to be in federal court, litigants must unlock the constitutional door
and the statutory door.
 4. parties cannot create subject matter jurisdiction by consent.
5. the supreme court has repeatedly held that federal courts have an independent duty to
examine their jurisdiction over the subject matter in every case.
if a case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, then nothing has happened because it is all
void
there are 3 types of limited jurisdiction: §1331 (federal question); §1332 (diversity); §1367
(supplemental).
Title 28 of the U.S. code is the judicial title.
For federal question jurisdiction:
Constitutional – Article III arising under clause
Statutory – 28 U.S.C. §1331

Osborne v. Bank of the United States, (1824): This case resulted in a very broad reading
of federal power. Justice Marshall wrote the opinion and he was a leading federalist. A case
arises under federal law when the federal issues is an original ingredient of the cause of action
being pled.  keep in mind that this case was decided before congress passed §1331.  the
federal thing does not have to be a main issue or even at issues at all. Just possible.
Arising under – when does a case arise under federal law?

Outer bounds
under Article III
Outer bounds
of §1331

The language of the constitution and the statute are the same. However, they have been
given very different meanings by the court
Albright v. Texas, (1883): The first time the court had the opportunity to analyze the arising
under test from the statutory standpoint  the statute was passed in 1875 (called the removal
act)  _To arise under federal law for purposes of the statute a party must assert a right,
privilege, claims, protection, or defense founded, in whole or in part, in any law of the united
states
Feibelman v. Packard, (1883): bond issue. Because the federal law created the bonds terms his
cause of action was created by the federal law.
Joy v. St. Louis, (1906):
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, (1908): Plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action
shows that it is based upon those law or that Constitution. Well pleaded complaint rule. defenses
that the defendant might set up are NOT good enough Only look at the facts in the complaint
necessary to create a cause of action.
One implication of the rule that the court adopted in motley is that congress knew of that
decision and could have amended the statutory text to be sure it mirrored the interpretation given
to Article III, but they never did.
Cause of action: a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in court from
another person
 Applying the well pleaded complaint rule:
Start by reading the complaint and looking at either:
I. does the plaintiff’s cause of action state a federal claim or cause of action; or
American Well Works Co: a suit arises under the law that creates the
Most of the case cause of action.
come in here Bell v. Hood: read the complaint and defer to what the plaintiff’s are
claiming under and if it is the federal law they can bring it in federal court.
there is a distinction between jurisdictional analysis and merits
based analysis. But the court as of late has been reluctant to
apply bell
II. state a cause of action that has an embedded federal issue
a. is necessarily raised
b. actually disputed
Grable Test c. substantial; and
d. capable of resolution in federal courts without disrupting the
federal-state balance approved by congress.
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, (2005): does a state
claim raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may
entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial
responsibility.
Gunn v. Minton, (2013): Lawyer malpractice case that analyzes whether the underlying patent
claim is an embedded issue that necessarily required to be solved by federal courts.
if you read an opinion interpreting §1331 or §1338 it applies to BOTH.
Federal question Jurisdiction summed up:
Arising Under
Constitutional Key Statutory Key
Article III, Sect. 2, Cl. 1 28 U.S.C. §1331
“Case, in law and equity “civil actions arising under”
Arising under” *more narrowly construed
Constitutional Test – a case “arises under” federal law when a question of federal law form an
ingredient of the original cause. Although other questions of fact or law may be involved in it.”
Osborne
Statutory test – for statutory purposes a cases can “arise under” federal law in two ways – 1) the
cause of action is a federal one or 2) Gunn v. Minton. 1. Federal law creates the cause of action
contained in plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint. Or in extremely rare circumstances 2. Plaintiff
states a state law claim which a) necessarily raises a state federal issue, b) which is actually
disputed, c) and substantial, d) which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any
congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial power.
if in doubt, kick it out
Declaratory judgment and federal question jurisdiction – a plaintiff desiring a federal forum may
not depend solely on the federal declaratory judgment act to create federal jurisdiction. The
federal declaratory judgment act creates a remedy – NOT A CAUSE OF ACTION.
Skelly rule: if the plaintiffs only federal cause of action is the declaratory judgment act, then
jurisdiction is lacking. THE TEST IS, IGNORING THE REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT REQUEST, WHAT LAW DO THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES ARISE UNDER?
Verlinden B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria: Congress has authority to adopt other statutes to
expand federal question jurisdiction in other areas.

For statutory purposes, a case can “arise under” federal law in two ways. Gunn v. Minton.
A case arises under federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted.
However, even if a claim is from state law rather than federal law, there is a special and
small category of cases in which arising under jurisdiction still exists. Gunn v. Minton
states that when a state law necessarily raises a federal issue, which is actually disputed and
substantial which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally
approved balance of federal and state judicial power.
In determining whether the plaintiff’s claim arise under federal law, the court will look to
the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint. Louisville v. Mottley. The court will consider the
plaintiff’s own statement of the cause of action looking only to those facts necessary to
create the cause of action. Louisville v. Mottley. The claim arises under if those facts point
to a cause of action based on the federal laws or the federal constitution.

Diversity jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. §1332 requires complete diversity
Article III, Section 2 only requires minimal diversity.
Always start with federal question analysis, if there is none, then come to the diversity analysis.
1332(c) defines the citizenship of corporations.
The original diversity statute was the first act of congress – passed by the first senate.
Strawbridge v. Curtis: requires complete diversity of parties under the statute. “The court
understands these expressions to mean, that each distinct interest should be represented by
persons, all of whom are entitled to sue, or may be sued, in the federal courts.”
State Farm v. Tashire: Strawbridge was construing the statute, not article III. Article III allows
jurisdiction on minimal diversity. Minimal diversity exists when at least on plaintiff is from a
different state as at least one defendant.
Seyler: just briefly discusses supplemental jurisdiction statute. It preserves complete diversity in
the statute under 1367(b).
Morris v. Gilmer: The only time that matters for citizenship is the time that the case was filed.
Time of filing requirements. Citizenship is determined by the law of domicile. To be considered
a domicile there must be an actual residence in the state with the intention that it is to be a
principal and permanent residence.
Mas v. Perry: Domicile. A change of domicile may be affected only by a combination of two
elements: (1) taking up a residence in a different state with (b) the intention to remain there
indefinitely.
Hertz: Corporate citizenship: 1332(c) state of incorporation and their principle place of business.
The corporation’s principle place of business is its nerve center; the place where corporation’s
high level officers direct, control and coordinate the corporations activities.
§1332 does not apply to other legal entities – only to corporations. Carden Rule: except a
corporation, with respect to every other business enterprise, the business has the citizenship of all
its members.
Americold Realty: expands on the Carden rule. This case was a unanimous opinion of the court.
Lumberman case: Frankfurter’s concurrence is all that matters. The court was considering
diversity. Justice Frankfurter basically said that the federal courts are too good to deal with petty
state claims and diversity is dumb.
Grupo v. DataFlux: Jurisdictional facts are determined at the time federal jurisdiction is invoked
(so remember for removal it’s not the time filing).
Tank v. Chronister: reread to get the rule, but basically §1359 don’t collude and be sketchy.
Reread this case to under the caterpillar rule.
Federal courts have an independent duty to question and determine their own jurisdiction.
Congress has the power to ordain and establish lower courts. Sheldon v. Sill states that
power include the power to both limit and destroy the federal courts. This is how to start
analysis when discussing any statute regarding the jurisdictional requirements of the federal
courts.
Amount in Controversy Requirement:
$75,000 exclusive of interest and costs. Must be more than; So $75,000 and a penny!!!
How do you determine how much is in controversy?
Vance v. W.A. Vandercook Co.: jurisdiction will be defeated if the party opposing jurisdiction
can establish, to a legal certainty, that amount in controversy does not meet the statutory
requirement. Otherwise, you accept the well-pleaded complaint as the amount in controversy.
St. Paul Mercury Rule: the party invoking federal jurisdiction must state in their well pleaded
complaint/notice of removal that the amount in controversy exceeds the requisite amount.
The party invoking federal power has the burden to plead and prove federal jurisdiction.
Burns v. Anderson: a plaintiff’s good faith claim will satisfy jurisdiction unless it appears to a
legal certainty that the claim is for less than the jurisdiction amount. Time for calculating
damages is also at the time of filing/removal.
Hoffman v. Vulcan: amount in controversy when the plaintiff is seeking an injunction. Look at
the object of the litigation to determine the value. There are three different approaches that the
court’s use. If the matter in controversy cannot be translated into money, there is no amount in
controversy.
If the damages are unliquidated (not money) look at the value of the object in controversy.
3 ways to determine per the circuit split:
Plaintiff perspective – look at the value through the plaintiff’s eyes.
Defendant viewpoint – look at the value through the eyes of the defendant.
Either viewpoint – evaluates per everyone involved in the litigation.
If the right or matter in controversy cannot be translated into terms of money, there is no amount
in controversy.
The amount in controversy is determine by reading the face of the pleadings at the time that
federal jurisdiction is invoked.
This case was decided by a trial court, because there is no binding precedent here. Courts are
all over the place.
Barnes v. Parker: discusses whether counterclaims are included in the amount in controversy
calculation. While the St. Paul rule says no, this case says that if a counterclaim is compulsory,
then it is included in the amount in controversy. However, SCOTUS has still not addressed this
issue.
Elgin v. Marshall: do not consider collateral consequences when calculating the amount in
controversy.
Aetna Casualty: Installment contracts; If the law would allow you to recover the full amount, you
can consider the full amount. However, if the law only allows installment by installment,
Beaman: 4th circuit. Calculating benefits of social security plaintiff – essentially an installment
scheme. The court focuses on what the plaintiff is entitled to recover at the end of this case.
Pinel: If a case involving a single plaintiff, that plaintiff can aggregate the claims even if they are
unrelated. In a case involving multiple plaintiffs, they may not aggregate their claims. Both must
meet the requisite amount!
Brainin v. Melikian: in determining the jurisdictional amount, interest imposed as a penalty for
delay in payment is excluded. However, interest which is exacted as the agreed upon price for
hire of money is included in the amount to which claimant is entitled.

Supplement Jurisdiction
Constitutional Basis for Supplemental jurisdiction
Prior to 1934 plaintiffs had to choose a cause of action through a single writ, so supplemental
jurisdiction was never an issue. These issues only arose once the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure were passed. [13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 23]
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs: the federal court may hear a state claim attached to a
federal claim if it includes a common nucleus of operative facts. This inquiry is fact
determinative. The facts that matter are the ones that are related to the cause of action so the
elements needed to plead and prove your claim.
The relationship between that claim and the state claims made in the complaint permits the
conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises one constitutional case. Courts are
permitted by Article III, Section 2 to hear cases.
Pendant = attached to/hanging from.
Owen Equipment v. Kroger:
Finley v. United States:
 Does the court have original
jurisdiction over at least one
claim?

Yes No

Are all of the claims part of

the same case or controversy?
or do the other claims arise No Supplemental jurisdiction
from a common nucleus of
operative facts?

Yes No

Is the court's original

jurisdiction based solely on No supplemental juridction
diversity?

Yes No

Is the plaintiff asserting claims

against a defendant made by Do the factors of 1367(c)
a party by GET SPECIFIC RULES weign in favor of dismissal?
OF JOINDER

if Yes. dimiss no supplemental If no, Supplemental

If No, look at 1367(c) factors. If yes, Dismiss
jursdiction jurisdiction is proper.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc.:
Smith v. Amedisys, Inc.:
Artemis v. District of Columbia: the tolling language of 1367(d) means to stop the limitations
period. _this rule incentivizes plaintiffs attorneys to file in federal court claims supplemental
jurisdiction while holding limitations period so they can refile in state court once they get their
case together.

Removal
Constitutional bases of removal
Statutory bases of removal
28 U.S.C. §1441
Procedure and timeline
In order for a case to be removed to federal court, it must be determined that the court would
have original jurisdiction over the case.

Jurisdiction to determine Jurisdiction

Remember where there is a lack of jurisdiction whatever the court did is void/a nullity. This
excludes orders it puts in place to maintain the status quo while determining its jurisdiction.
Baldwin v. Iowa Men’s Traveling Association: a party who appears and litigates
jurisdiction cannot later collaterally attack that jurisdiction.
Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter State Bank (1940): The court has the authority to
pass upon its own jurisdiction and its decree sustaining jurisdiction against attack, while open to
direct review, is res judicata in a collateral action.
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. (1999):
United States v. United Mine Workers of Am.: Any action by a federal court lacking
jurisdiction is void. But, federal courts have an inherent power to determine whether the have
subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, federal courts have inherent power to issue orders to
preserve the status quo while the court examines its own jurisdiction. Also, orders entered by a
federal court regarding jurisdiction are entitled to res judicata effect.

Conflicts Between State and National Judicial Systems – “Our Federalism”

State Enforcement of Federal Law
Howlett by Howlett v. Rose (1990): A state may only refuse to hear a federal
claim of action if they have a valid excuse.
Vendco Co v. Lektro-Vend Corp (1977):
State Injunctions Against Federal Court Proceedings or Federal Officers
Donovan v. City of Dallas (1964):
State Sovereign Immunity (the Eleventh Amendment)
 State sovereign immunity is a major limit on federal judicial power, but it also
limits the authority of state courts.
 Sovereign Immunity: a judicial doctrine which precludes bringing suit against the
government without its consent. The doctrine bars holding the government or its
political subdivisions liable for the torts of its officers or agents unless such
immunity is expressly waived by statute or by necessary inference from
legislative enactment. – Black’s law definition.
  11th amendment – Federal 81 – both relate to the fact that sovereignty implies not
to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.
Chisholm v. Georgia: South Carolina citizen lent money to Georgia and Georgia
refused ot pay it back. Supreme court held that Article III expressly authorized
suits against states.
o States had a negative reaction to the opinion and within 3 weeks, both
houses of congress approved the text of the 11th amendment.
o 2 theories of how to interpret the 11th amendment
 Immunity – totally bars subject matter jurisdiction of the federal
courts to all suits against state governments
 Diversity – a restriction only on the diversity jurisdiction of the
federal courts.
Suits barred by the 11th amendment
Suits against state governments by citizens of another state or a foreign country
Suits against state by its own citizens (Hans v. Louisiana)
Suits against state by foreign nations – or Indian tribes
Suits against state in administrative agency proceedings
Suits against state in state’s own courts
Congressional authorization of suit (Unless passed pursuant to the 14th amendment
section 5)

Suits allowed in Federal court

Suits by U.S. government against a state
Suits by states against another state
Article III, Section 2
States cannot sue to protect the individual rights of its citizens
Suits where the state consents or waives immunity
Suits against cities, counties, or similar subdivisions of the state (school boards)
Suits that are pursuant to congressional authorization passed pursuant to Amendment 14,
section 5

Ways for citizens to protect individual federal rights

1. Ex Parte Young (1908): If a state government in acting in violation of federal
law, pursuant to an unconstitutional statute or regulation, suit to enjoin enforcement may be
brought by naming a state officer rather than the state. May only seek prospective, injunctive
relief. NO MONEY DAMAGES.
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): limits ex parte young by holding
that it does not apply where Congress enacts a remedial scheme for the enforcement of a
particular federal right. Article I does not give Congress power to abrogate state immunity.
This holding required the court to overrule Union Gas
2. Abrogation of Eleventh Amendment Immunity
Congress abrogates state immunity by legislation allowing states to be sued by
individuals in federal court.
Supreme court NARROWLY construes Congress’s power to abrogate state
immunity:
In order to be a valid abrogation of State immunity must be:
 1. expressly made and unmistakably clear in the plain language
of the statute, and
2. Congress must abrogate pursuant to a valid exercise of power.
(meaning that it was adopted under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment states that : “Congress
shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
The test for determining whether congress is validly
exercising section 5 power is found from City of Boerne v. Flores:
1. Imposes a significant limitation on congressional
power
2. congress may not exercise its section 5 power to
create new rights
3. Section 5 legislation must be “narrowly
tailored” to providing a “remedy” for violations of existing constitutional rights.
4. The remedy must be “proportionate” and
“congruent” to a record of existing constitutional violations.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004): in order to determine if legislation is an appropriate
remedial and preventative measure (vs. a substantive change in rights)
Is there a record of injury to constitutional rights existing prior to passage
of the legislation?
Is there “congruence and proportionality between the injury to be
prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end”?
The Statutory Restrictions on Ex Parte Young Exception
The Three Judge Court Statute
 Three judge panels were required to issue any federal injunction against the enforcement
of state law with direct appeals to SCOTUS (was burdensome and costly so was
modified in 1976)
o Only required now under the Voting Rights Act, apportionment of Congressional
districts, and some suits under the Civil rights act (public accommodations and
employment discrimination)
28 U.S.C. §2284 Three Judge Court; When required; composition;
procedure
28 U.S.C. §1342 Rate Orders of State Agencies – Johnson Act
28 U.S.C. §1341 Taxes by States – Tax Injunction Act
3. Consent to suit in federal court
The Abstention Doctrines – judicially created doctrines. These doctrines are designed to
implement federalism.
 Federalism – interrelationships among the states and relationship between the states and
the federal government.
 Equal dignity between state and federal courts
 Madisonian Compromise – article III created one federal court. Allowed congress to
ordain and establish. Balance between concerns of federalists and anti-federalists.
 Abstention doctrines are named after the cases that established them.
o Equity is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district judge. Abstention is
discretionary.
o Always remember that there is no legal right to an injunction.
 o The Supreme Court retains ultimate appellate review of federal questions
implicated in these cases.
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. (1941): when a case presents both
state and federal constitutional grounds for relief, but the proper resolution of the state ground is
uncertain but could be capable of resolving the controversy complete, in the absence of any
showing that an action in state court cannot be pursued with full protection of the constitutional
claims, the district court should exercise its wise discretion by staying its hands.
The district court will retain jurisdiction. This will preclude a binding determination of the
federal issue in state court. This is an exception to normal rules of res judicata precluding
claim splitting.
This case is most controversial because of the delay with a Pullman stay (Reetz v. Bozanich)
Added expense that comes from duplicative proceedings (Wilton v. Seven Falls Co.)
Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943): Federal courts should not enter injunctions
disrupting comprehensive schemes of state administration related to natural resources. Requires
dismissal of federal proceedings.
Reetz v. Bozanich (1970):
Wilton v. Seven Falls Co (1995):
“Our Federalism”
Younger v. Harris (1971): a federal court may not enjoin pending and ongoing
state criminal proceedings. Extraordinary circumstances exception: bad faith or harassment
prosecutions or where a state statute is so flagrantly and patently violative of express
constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph.
When a state criminal proceeding under a disputed state criminal statute is pending against a
federal plaintiff at the time his federal complaint is filed . . . unless bad faith enforcement or
other special circumstances are demonstrated, principles of equity, comity, and federalism
preclude issuance of a federal injunction restraining enforcement of the criminal statute and, in
all but unusual circumstances, a declaratory judgment upon the constitutionality of the statute.
Steffel v. Thompson.
 The state proceedings must be a criminal proceeding or a state enforcement proceeding.
Meaning in aid of and closely related to State criminal statutes akin to criminal
proceedings.
Wooley v. Maynard (1977): license plate case. There was no pending criminal
proceedings at the time.
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs (2013): federal courts have a duty to
exercise federal jurisdiction. Judges cannot abstain from their judicial duty without reason.
Parallel state proceedings do not detract from obligation to exercise federal jurisdiction.
However, extraordinary circumstance are exceptions to the rule. See Colorado River and Wilton
v. Seven falls.
The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine – federal district courts may not exercise appellate
jurisdiction. Power to review and reverse decisions of state courts is vested solely in United
States Supreme Court. No matter subject matter jurisdiction.
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp (2005): state court judgment
precludes federal district court subject matter jurisdiction. Does not preclude subject matter
jurisdiction where there is a parallel state proceedings.
The Law Applied in the Federal Courts
The Erie Doctrine
Came out of Swift v. Tyson/Black and yellow taxicabs decisions criticism.
28 U.S.C. §1652. State Law as rules of decision (Rules of Decision Act): the laws
of the several states, except where the constitution or treaties of the united states or Acts of
Congress otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decisions in civil actions in
the courts of the United States, in the cases where they apply.
 Swift v. Tyson gave the original interpretation of the RDA, but said that only statutes
applied and where the states legislation was silent on the issue, we look to the general
common law.
28 U.S.C. §2072 Rules of Procedure and Evidence; Power to Prescribe (Rules
Enabling Act)
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938): Overrule swift as unconstitutional. Except
in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress, the law to be applied in
any case is the law of the state. The state law include judicial decisions.
Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. York (1945):
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. (1958): state law is
applicable where outcome determinative unless there is an important, overriding, federal interest
justifying application of federal rule.
Applying Erie
Hanna v. Plumer (1965):
Substance and Procedure after Erie
Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Woods (1987):
Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2001):
Federal Common Law and Implied Rights of Action
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States (1943):
De Sylva v. Ballentine (1956):
Carlson v. Green (1980):
Thompson v. Thompson (1988):
If a federal district court is required pursuant to Erie to apply state law, Klaxon requires the court
to apply the choice of law rules of the forum state in which it sits.
Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
 Original jurisdiction allows the court the power to conduct a trial (Findings of fact,
conclusions of law, and equitable orders)
 Section 2: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and
those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction
 28 U.S.C. §1251
o (a) the supreme court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all
controversies between two or more states.
o (b) the supreme court shall have original but not jurisdiction of:
 (1) all action or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers,
consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties.
 (2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
 (3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another
State or against aliens.
The original jurisdiction does not require a statutory key to get into federal court because it is
explicitly included in the Constitution.
28 U.S.C. §1251 Original Jurisdiction
 United States v. Texas (1892): Article III extends federal judicial power for 2 reasons:
The type of case = arising under and The United States is a party to the
Controversy
Article III grants original jurisdiction to SCOTUS in all cases in which a state
shall be a party. This includes all cases in which a state may be made, of right, a party defendant
or in which a state may of right be a party plaintiff. It is not limited to the specific enumerated
controversies mentioning a state party.
Recognition of the dignity of the state is why there is exclusive jurisdiction. Because state
governments will respond a little better to the idea of the Supreme Court of the United States
than an average joe district court.
States agreed to this exercise of federal judicial power by ratifying the Constitution.
Wyoming v. Oklahoma (1992): had to file a motion for leave to file a complaint with
SCOTUS you cant just file a complaint at the supreme court.
The supreme court’s original jurisdiction is discretionary not mandatory.
Scotus has imposed limits on use of its original jurisdiction
To avoid unnecessary interreference with state sovereign immunity
To remedy only serious invasions of personal rights.

Review Session:
State courts = courts of general jurisdiction.
Federal courts = court of enumerated (limited) jurisdiction
you want to litigate in federal court:
discussion of justiciability stay focused on the text of article III as the outer boundary of
judicial power.
“The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity [and] to Controversies.”

Venue:
Congratulations, you’re in federal court.

Rule Statements:

It must be a case or controversy – a concrete dispute between adverse parties where there
is a substantial likelihood that a federal court’s ruling in favor of one of the parties will have
some effect.
If the court’s judgment would be considered “advice” by the parties to the dispute, the
dispute is not a case. Hypos belong in the classroom, not the courtroom.
 Subject Matter Jurisdiction: In order to litigate in federal court there must be both a
constitutional and statutory basis for the subject matter over each of the party’s claims. The party
invoking the federal jurisdiction must plead and prove the requisite jurisdiction facts.

Diversity Jurisdiction: Constitutional diversity jurisdiction under Art. III section two has been
interpreted only to require minimal diversity, that is, one plaintiff is diverse from one defendant.
However, section 1332 diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity – no plaintiff is from the
same state as any defendant. See Strawbridge. The purpose of diversity jurisdiction is to provide
a “neutral” forum and to protect against local prejudice.