| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Canadian and Scottish plaintiffs took Benedictin and allege it's the cause of their childrens' deformities. |
| Posture: | Suits filed in Hamilton County, OH. Removed to federal district court. Plaintiffs move to remand back to state court. District court denies the motion for remand. 6th Cir. Ct. App. reverses. Appeal. |
| Issue: | Is this suit within "federal question" judisdiction? |
| Holding: | No. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | A defendant can only remove a case to federal court if the suit could have been vrought there in the first place, so the well-pleaded complaint is dispositive. If congress hasn't provided a private cause of action for violation of a statute, then a state complaint whose elements include an allegation of that violation doesn't make out a claim "arising under" the federal law. |
| Reasoning: | This is what Frankfurter was talking about in his Lincoln Mills
dissent: we have a federal law issue in a state suit. And a case
might arise under federal law when the vindication of a state
right turns upon someconstruction of federal law. But both
sides agree there's no private cause of action for violating the
FDCA.
The mere presence of a federal issue doesn't confer federal-question jurisdiction. Yes, we want uniformity of interpretation of federal laws, but that doesn't mean we have original jurisdiction every time a federal statute gets mentioned, and besides we can review on appeal. |
| Dicta: | Brennan (dissenting): Federal courts have expertise in interpreting federal law. When Congress's meaning is unclear, it calls for interpretation, and that ought to be done by the people best positioned to give the federal law the effect Congress intended. |