1.13.09
I. Why do federal courts exist? Why do they exist in the way they are constructed under Article III?
a. What was important to the framers-
i. Selection of judges-
ii. Term-
iii. Jurisdiction-
iv. Payment of judges-
v. Court structure-
b. Values and principles of the judiciary-
i. AOC had very limited judiciary
1. Narrow jurisdiction
2. Congressional appointed
3. Wanted national independent judiciary
a. Free from whims of Congress, public, etc…
i. For liberty and freedom
b. Required to meet higher good
ii. VA Plan: Rejected Va Plan in its entirety-
1. Had Council of Revision
2. Legislators appointed judges, not executive
3. More than one SC
iii. Article III-
1. One SC, inferior courts created by Congress
2. Appointed by executive, with consent of Senate
3. Life tenure on good behavior
4. Salary not to decrease
5. Jurisdiction-
a. Most conferred by Congress via statute
b. Concurrent jurisdiction with states
c. Original for SC for some cases
d. Federal question
e. Diversity
f. Etc…
iv. Debate-
1. Why not have diverse courts that allows the multiple SCs to hear more courts
a. More specialization for each court
2. Strong national court was feared, because it may devour the state courts
3. Worried about an imperial judiciary
a. But- there is still a right to jury trial under 7th
4. Why no change?
a. Entrenchment
b. Judiciary Act of 1789 is easier to change
i. Change or take away jurisdiction instead of changing overall structure of the courts
c. It works
II. Background/Introduction-
a. Judiciary Act of 1789-
i. Established inferior courts
1. 13 courts (12 appellate and 1 federal circuit)
2. 94 districts
ii. Congress confers jurisdiction
b. Themes of the Course-
i. Federalism- the effect of federal courts on state courts:
1. Their very existence can be encroachment
2. Article III specifics can be encroachment
3. Judicial review
4. Congressional grants of jurisdiction
5. Section 1983
6. 11th Amendment
ii. Separation of Powers-
1. Zone of twilight
2. Too much power of judiciary was fear (more powerful than legislature and executive)
3. Balance?
iii. Parity- can state and federal courts be equal? Is federal better, worse? Does the feeling of parity come from Article III itself?
III. Limited Jurisdiction-
a. Marbury v. Madison 1803-
i. Marbury wants writ of mandamus to force Marshall to give him the commission.
ii. Issue 1- does P have right to commission
iii. Holding- yes.
1. Right originates from act of Congress
2. Nomination
3. President appointed
4. The Commission
5. Right vested in P (like a property right)
iv. Issue 2- do laws afford remedy?
v. Holding- yes.
1. Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy
2. No exemption- appointed was pursuant to act of law, not discretion of President (a mere political act)
vi. Issue 3- whether P is entitled to remedy he asks for (mandamus)
vii. Holding- he is
1. Can force President to do something
viii. Issue 4- whether SC can issue writ of mandamus
ix. Holding- cannot, because no original jurisdiction
1. There is an act, but it is contrary to Constitution
a. Constitution does not give SC OJ over writ of mandamus
b. Constitution expressly provides positive grants of OJ and negative, which are grants of OJ to inferior courts
i. That is it
ii. SC does not have original jurisdiction power to issue writ of mandamus
2. Conflict- Congress gave SC power, but Constitution does not allow it
x. Issue 5- wheth
trued it as exclusive, foreclosing state courts from hearing cases in the 9 categories).
ii. Sheldon v. Sill 1850-
1. Facts- P (NY assignee) held bond to recover against D (Mich). P received bond from X (Mich, assignor). P sues D to recover in federal court in Mich based on Diversity.
a. Judiciary Act 1789 restricted diversity jurisdiction of Circuit Court
i. Did not let assignee bring action in Circuit Court based on diversity, unless assignor could have originally brought suit based on diversity
ii. Assignment cannot create diversity where it would not exist without assignment.
2. Issue- whether there is Diversity, because original assignor was citizen of Mich.
3. Holding- Act is valid exercise by Congress
4. Reasoning-
a. Statute only violates Constitution if it confers jurisdiction not allowed by Constitution.
b. Congress can create or abolish courts (Ordain and Establish Clause).
c. Thus, Congress has lesser power to limit or eliminate jurisdiction.
d. Thus, statute can limit jurisdiction as much as it chooses.
iii. Notes-
1. Some wanted mandated inferior courts (Randolph, Pinckney). Some wanted only state trial courts (Rutledge, Patterson). Madison insisted on federal trial courts, because just having appellate courts would not be enough remedy for biased state trial courts.
a. Rutledge- wanted state courts to be first courts for all federal litigation; those decisions would then be appealable to the SC.
