Federal Courts
1/22/08
Class 1
What the course is about?
– series of relationships between federal courts and state courts
– federal courts and executive/legislative actors, especially in enforcement of federal law vis a vis state law.
– Legal doctrine concerning federal jurisdiction, substantive law (specifically 14th Amend.), and remedies.
Not going to cover…
– federal court’s relationships between themselves
– specialized areas of the federal courts like bankruptcy or admiralty
– Federal Circuit
– From 1866-71- burst of federal action proposing
– What are the policies driving the federal system?
– Judicial federalism- this is the focus of the course and what drives the federal system
2 Contexts to consider this course: Functional Context (ie. Martin v. Hunters Lessee), Historical Context (ie. Habeas Corpus policies- new policies established depending on federal goals of the era)
Part II- Which court (federal/state) will exercise trial jurisdiction? Removal doctrines or injunctive relief
Parts III, IV- relationships between federal courts and the states- the use of the federal courts to ensure compliance with federal law. How do federal courts use the 14th Amend to enforce federal law upon the states in the face of the 11th Amend?
Assignment: Read 1-1 to 1-17
It?s a challenge to § 25 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. [The 1789 Act was written by many of the same authors of Art. III.] Martin upholds the Act.
Q: Why is it constitutional? What was J. Story?s answer? What was VA?s argument?
Problem: 1-17; was it a fair use of Martin? Why/why not? Write 1-2 ¶.
Before 12: Martin I began in state court.
Q: What were issues in Martin I? What was the federal question in state court? What was the holding as to the federal Q? [Trial ct. jdgmt]
-At VA Ct. of Apps; then USSC decides Martin I.
-THEN VA Ct. decides that USSC was NOT binding on state court.
Q: What was the basis of jurisdiction under Martin I and Martin II? Judiciary Act is copied in the materials? holding is that §25 is constitutional. What?s the STATED reasoning and UNSTATED reasoning?
1/24/08
Class 2
Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
– all about federalism and problem solving.
– Hunter’s Claim and argument
o Claims title to land in VA via a deed received from the state in 1789- wants Martin off his land (action for ejectment). Claims Martin’s title is invalid because in a 1782 statute, VA took the land before 1783- this should be
quirement. USSC orders a judgment entered for Martin in the state court.
· Hunter objects and turns to Sect. 25 “But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of reversal in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute.”- ie. The USSC is not supposed to decide state law questions, but rather the USSC is only allowed to answer the federal questions, leaving the state matters to the state courts.
· Martin’s reply- you have to evaluate the entire case since title is a common law (state law) construct- thus to determine the nature of the treaty you must determine the meaning of “confiscation.” Therefore, imbedded in the federal question/language is a state law question.
· In Bush v. Gore, USSC relies upon Martin I to decide a state law question in conjunction with the federal question.
