Thresholds: Article III, The Federal Judicial Power, and Justiciability
Why have federal courts at all? Why can’t the state courts alone do the job?
The starting point is the Constitution and Article III, mentions federal courts but not the state courts and power of judicial review, or tribal courts
Federal Courts, State Courts, and the third Sovereign, the Tribal one is present at the constitution albeit at the margins
The jurisdictional relationships is critical b/t STATE and FEDERAL
Concurrent jurisdiction – in most cases state court’s can hear a federal claim b/c the state courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and federal court’s which limited jurisdiction (diversity & amount- $75,000 OR federal question)
Basically means they can hear some of the same claims, except in cases where the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction
Diversity claims are state law claims is something a federal court can hear or Supplemental Jurisdiction 1367.
The state court’s are the adjudicative superior of federal courts
The federal court’s are so limited that they can only hear a case if they have dual authorization
Can only hear a case if you have explicit authority from two places –
Congress (vested this authority by a statute)
Constitution (Article III, section 2)
The state court’s predated the federal courts, and the federal courts were seen as a supplement to the state courts, so the state courts existed before the constitution and was already doing their thing before federal courts were founded
The federal courts were designed second in time and to go around the existence of the state courts
Are the federal courts a necessary redundancy?
Yes
State court’s are just as competent and are equally competent to hear other cases, they have parity or equal knowledge, that’s why we say that they have concurrent jurisdiction, that’s why state court’s have that greater jurisdictional reach
NO
We need one ultimate arbitrator that affects more than one single state like the Constitution
Uniformity
Offers a more neutral forum with a national perspective, we do not want state courts to put a local spin on the types of claims, and the federal courts offer a chance for a national perspective
The federal courts bring something different to the system; however Alleva focuses a lot of time in the following 4 areas, and believe that the federal courts are essential!
Expertise – the reality is the federal judge is more likely to be given federal questions, probably going to chose federal district court over state court, and historically that has proven to be true, the state court’s just don’t have the exposure
Receptivity – more likely to be more recepti
the United States in the Supreme Court and allows Congress to create lower courts
Accomplishes separation of judiciary power
Principle of dual authorization
Constitution and Congress must authorize which cases can be heard in federal courts
Congress had control over the creation of the courts, so it retains power to regulate jurisdiction of the courts
No perfect separation of powers
Checks and balances between branches
Courts also have power over legislature in the form of judicial review
Limited jurisdiction
Federal jurisdiction: questions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States
Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction
Where United States is a party
Controversies between two or more states
Between state and citizens of another state
Between citizens of same state claiming land under grants of different states
Diversity jurisdiction
Between citizens of different states
Between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens or subjects
28 U.S.C. § 1330 vests authority in the federal courts
