Select Page

Federal Jurisdiction
University of North Carolina School of Law
Nichol, Gene R.

 
Federal Jurisdiction, Fall 2014
 
I.                    Introduction
A.      Federal Court
–          Federal court is not a very rule bound courts. It’s have a power in constitutional law area.
–          Constitutional law now have been gigantic arise.
–          There are 2 courts systems: state courts and federal courts which are operate for some people, operating/applying same law, and each operates independently.
–           That’s two systems are interacting and sometimes colliding each other.
B.      Article III § 2 the US Constitution à is creating Supreme Court.
§  All cases (subject-based)::
1.       Arising under the Constitution, laws of the US, and treaties made under their authority (Federal Question)
2.       Affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
3.        Of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction
§  Controversies (party-based):
1.      To which the US shall be a party
2.      Between two or more states
3.      Between a state and citizens of another states
4.      Between citizens of different states
5.       Between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
6.       Between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects
C.      SCOTUS original vs. appellate jurisdiction: Art. III, § 2, cl. 2
§  Original jurisdiction:
1.       All cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls
2.       Cases in which a state shall be a party
§  Appellate jurisdiction: All other cases (both as to law and fact) mentioned in Art. III, § 2, cl. 2
3.       Exceptions: With such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make
D.      Supremacy Clause: Art. 6, cl. 2L “The Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
E.       11 Amendments: 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 United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state
F.       Congressional Power creates federal court;
G.     See Sheldon v. Sill which conclude that the power of congress to create federal power include supreme authority
H.      Because of this case: in federal case must prove:
i)         Statutory jurisdiction;
ii)       Statutory must be applicable.
§  Those two elements  are determined the right to be hear in the Federal court
II.                  Theory for Judicial Review
§   Introduction Marbury v. Madison
–          Supreme court have an authority of judicial review which is conflicting with constitution;
–          Judicial review also include a power to decline state court other governmental branches of federal government;
–          Marbury claims to be a conflict between the statute and the text on the US Constitution.
–          Congress gives power mandamus?
–          The judicial power look conflicts with article III of US Constitution.
–          Marshal stated that if there is a conflict between the statutes with US Constitution so the statute should be ignored.
–          what happened when there is a judicial review? If Supreme court decided that a particular statute is conflicting with US Constitution, so the statute is enforceable.
–          The statute itself not removed from the statute book, until the parliament pull out that statute.
–           Judicial power means there is a power to ignore the statute and not be intended to pull out the statute from case book.
A.      Marbury v. Madison (1803)
1.       Issue arose out of aftermath of 1800 election
i.           First time political power transferred due to an election—no real ground rules or sense of acceptable behavior during lame duck period
ii.          Adams created new federal judgeships to try to control judiciary
a.    In Feb. 1801, John Marshall was simultaneously Chief Justice and Secretary of State—not specifically excluded under Const.
b.    4 commissions for Justice of Peace accidentally not delivered by midnight the day before the inauguration
iii.        Jefferson attempted to undo Adams’ actions, including abolishing the new federal judgeships
a.    Question of whether this was constitutional given the lifetime tenure clause?
2.       Issues raised by the opinion
i.           The order of the questions discussed
a.    Does Marbury have a right to the commission? (advisory opinion)
b.    If he has the right, do the laws afford a remedy? (advisory opinion)
c.     If laws afford a remedy, is it a mandamus from the S. Ct.?
ii.          This order allows Marshall to reach merits of the claim and then decide that ct has no juris
a.    Whole discussion of first 2 questions is essentially an advisory opinion
iii.        Constitutional—expressio unius argument that original juris in Const was intended to be exclusive, and this act unconstitutionally attempts to add to the juris
1.         Could also argue that Art III does give Congress power to allocate cases between original and appellate juris of the court
2.         Assumption that the statute authorized the lawsuit
i.      Marbury had a legal right to the commission Þ every right has a legal remedy Þ Marbury can file lawsuit
ii.    Marshall implied a private right of action from the statute
3.         Marshal concludes that Marbury does have standing here because of his loss of salary
4.         Conclusion that this isn’t a political question issue, but there are certain issues that would be
i.      Ministerial action of delivering the documents, not an issue of executive discretion
3.       Significance for Fed Jur
§  Marshall justifies judicial review as growing out of the court’s power to decide cases
a.       Existence of jud rev linked to the existence of a case or controversy
b.      Private dispute resolution model—power to interpret constitution only exists when there’s standing, ripeness, etc.; no general power to interpret the Constitution
c.       Judicial supremacy model (public)— sees the judiciary as unique guardian of Const rights
b.      Syllogism Marbury v. Madison- logical claim? Why judicial review is acceptable in the Marbury case? According to Marshal
                                                               i.      The judicial branch is charged with deciding cases/a court job to decide a case
                                                             ii.      Cases are determined by law/According the law
                                                            iii.      The judicial branch is the branch which determine what the law is
                                                           iv.      The Constitution is law
                                                             v.      Statutes are law
                                                           vi.      Constitution prevails over statutes (supremacy clause)
                                                          vii.      Therefore, judges must decide based on Constitution if/when Constitution conflicts w/a statute
                                                        viii.      If there is a conflict between constitution and statute, the constitution prevail over the statutes;
                                                           ix.      Ignored the statute means judicial review.
 
c.       Conclusions from Syllogism
                                                            

plied the Constitution but it doesn’t take effect to the broader nation;
–          About the scope of judicial review? Marbury  established his power of the federal courts to review the actions of the executive branch of government. The court concluded that no person, not even the president or executive officials, can ignore the law.
–          Lincoln v. Nixon. In Nixon, the court rejecting the presidents claim that it was for the executive to determine the scope of executive privilege. Nixon could be read as supporting principle that the judiciary has the final say in assuring the availability for criminal trials.
–          Cooper v. Aaron. In Cooper, the Supreme Court rejecting a state’s claim that it could disregard federal court desegraton orders, the court invoked Marbury declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the constitution, and that principle ever since has been respected by this court and the country as permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.  Cooper is concerned with the obligation of state governments to follow Supreme Court decisions.
III.                JUSTICIABILITY
§   The most important limit on the federal judicial power is imposed by series of principles termed “justiciability” doctrines;
§   The doctrines determined which matters federal courts can hear and decide and which must be dismissed;
§   The justiciability doctrine includes the prohibition against advisory opinion, standing, ripeness, mootness, and political question doctrine.
§   Constitutional v. Prudential Requirements;
–           Constitutional requirements are result of its interpretation of Article III of the US constitution à consist of nine categories of cases and controversies;
–           The prudential requirements are result from prudent judicial administration à the court has decided that in certain instances wise policy militates against judicial review.
–           Congress by statute may override prudential restriction.
ii.                   Case or Controversy Requirement
a.       *Prohibition Against Advisory Opinions
b.      General Requirements:
                                                               i.      Standing
                                                             ii.      Ripeness
a.       Injury is too  prospective, has yet to occur
                                                            iii.      Mootness
a.       Injury is retrospective, and has since been removed
c.       *NO advisory opinions
a.       Fed. Cts can’t make advisory opinions. Calderon v Asmush *
i.                     No factual predicate to base decision on. Help to ensure that cases will be presented to the court in terms of spesific dispute, not as hypothetical questions.
ii.                   Law could be enforced constitutionally or unconstitutionally depending on executive branch.
iii.                  Also a separation of powers argument-would permit too much interference w/Executive & Leg. Branches. The judicial role is limited to deciding actual disputes.