Federal Jurisdiction
Class Notes
Assignments
1. Introduction, Marbury 1-28
2. Justiciability and the Judicial Function 29-51
3. Justiciability and the Judicial Function, cont'd 52-65
4. Justiciability and the Judicial Function, cont'd 66-93
5. Congressional Control of Federal Jurisdiction 95-134
6. Congressional Control of Federal Jurisdiction 134-165
7. Arising Under Jurisdiction 239-258
8. Arising Under Jurisdiction 258-308
9. Diversity Jurisdiction 309-360
10. Supplemental and Removal Jurisdiction 361-418
11. Sovereign Immunity 419-438
12. Sovereign Immunity 438-465
13. Sovereign Immunity 465-511
14. Section 1983 513-536
15. Section 1983 536-568
16. Section 1983 568-606, 619-6213
17. Protecting State Courts from Federal Court Interference 625-646
18. Protecting State Courts from Federal Court Interference 646-663
19. Protecting State Courts from Federal Court Interference 663-701
20. Supreme Court Jurisdiction 803-833
21. Supreme Court Jurisdiction 833-864
22. Habeas Corpus 865-912
23. Habeas Corpus 912-940
24. Habeas Corpus 940-988
25. Habeas Corpus 988-1009
Case Briefs
- Marbury v Madison: 9/2/09 ; Judicial review, for every right a remedy, courts say what the law is, courts resolve disputes
- Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: 9/9/09 ; just having standing doesn't get you what you want.
- Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation: 9/14/09 ; standard for taxpayer standing in the wake of Flast v. Cohen
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner: 9/16/09 ; 2-part test for ripeness (fitness of the issues for judicial determination and hardship to the parties of witholding consideration)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard: 9/16/09 ; a case is moot if deciding it wouldn't affect the litigants.
- Nixon v. United States: 9/16/09 ; A political question is one that is explicitly delegated to another branch of government, and therefore beyond the judiciary's reach.
- Ex Parte McCardle: 9/21/09 ; Congress can revoke grants of jurisdiction, and the court doesn't inquire into motivation for doing so.
- Ex Parte Yerger: 9/21/09 ; Habeas jurisdiction remains, inspite of the 1868 act discussed in McCardle
- Sheldon v. Sill: 9/21/09 ; The Congressional power to establish courts includes the power to limit their jurisdiction.
- Yakus v. United States: Not discussed ; Congress can deprive the courts of jurisdiction by regulation
- Battaglia v. General Motors Corp.: Not discussed ; congress is subject to the constraints of the constitution when granting, limiting, or witholding jurisdiction
- United States v. Klein: 9/28/09 ; Congress can't dictate the outcomes of cases by dictating the meaning of the law to be applied
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm Inc.: 9/28/09 ; Congress can't force the reopening of cases; a final judgment is conclusive.
- Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.: Not assigned ; Congress can't vest essential attributes of the Article III power in an adjunct body
- Osborn v. Bank of the United States: 9/30/09 ; When there's a federal ingredient in the case, congress can grant federal courts jurisdiction to hear it
- Textile Workers of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama: 9/30/09 ; because there's a strong federal interest, and the statute grants federal jurisdicion over this whole class of disputes, congress intended for federal courts to develop common law to cover contract disputes between employers and unions (close to protective jurisdiction)
- Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley: Not discussed ; The well-pleaded complaint rule
- American Well Works Co. v. Layne and Bowler Co.: Mentioned in passing on 10/5/09 ; A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action
- Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson: 10/5/09 ; if the plaintiff's right to relief doesn't depend necessarily on a question of federal law (e.g., if congress hasn't specified a private remedy in its statute governing the area) the case doesn't arise under federal law.
- Grable and Sons Metal Products Inc. v. Darue Engineering and Manufacturing: 10/5/09-10/7/09 ; The test for when a state-created cause of action creates arising-under jurisdiction
- Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust of Southern California: 10/7/09 ; States shouldn't use federal courts to enforce state tax laws, declaratory judgment
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs: 10/14/09 ; Supplemental jurisdiction if there's a common nucleus of operative fact, so that you'd expect both claims to be part of the same case
- Finley v. United States: 10/14/09 ; no pendent-party jurisdiction
- Sparrow v. Mazda American Credit: 10/19/09 ; Supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims
- Salei v. Boardwalk Regency Corp.: 10/19/09 ; Removal of claims that fail the Gibbs test for supplemental jurisdiction may be beyond what Article III permits federal courts to do (i.e. § 1441(c) is unconstitutional).
- Hans v. Louisiana: 10/21/09 ; State sovereign immunity extends beyond the literal text of 11A
- Ex Parte Young: 10/21/09 ; Suits against state officials acting in their official capacity
- Edelman v. Jordan: 10/21/09 ; Ex Parte Young suits get prospective relief only, not money damages.
- Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer: 10/26/09 ; 14A trumps 11A; congress can abrogate sovereign immunity
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida: 10/26/09 and 9/28/09 ; If a statute has a detailed plan for remedies, the Ex Parte Young doctrine does not apply. Also, Article I powers aren't strong enough to overcome 11A restrictions on Article III courts.
- Central Virginia Community College v. Katz: 10/28/09 ; The power to make uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy was something that the states ceded to the federal government in the plan of the constitution
- Monroe v. Pape: 11/2/09 ; § 1983 gives remedies to individuals deprived of their rights by officials
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald: 11/2/09 ; In an effort to conserve resources, we're going to ditch the subjective prong of the test for qualified immunity
- Anderson v. Creighton: 11/2/09 ; The right claimed to have been violated has to be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official could understand whether the action in question would violate it
- Mitchum v. Foster: 11/4/09 ; § 1983 is an "express" exception to the anti-injunction act
- Atlantic Coastline Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers: 11/4/09 ; It is darn hard to qualify for the exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act
- Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company: 11/9/09 ; Abstaining when a state law decision would terminate the federal controversy
- England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners: 11/9/09 ; A party can reserve federal issues in a case diverted to state court uner Pullman, exposing them only as much as is needed for the state case to proceed.
- Younger v. Harris: 11/9/09 ; Absent exceptional circumstances, we will not enjoin state criminal prosecutions
- Steffel v. Thompson: 11/9/09 and 11/11/09 ; When no state prosecution is pending, and a federal plaintiff demonstrates a genuine threat of enforcement of a disputed criminal statute, declaratory relief is not precluded
- Trainor v. Hernandez: Not discussed ; Younger-style abstention when there's a pending state civil case in which the state is a party
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States: 11/11/09 ; When there's a clear federal policy to avoid piecemeal ajudication, and a comprehensive state system for ajudication exists, abstain.
- Martin v. Hunters Lessee: 11/16/09 ; The appellate power of the US extends to cases pending in state courts
- Michigan v. Long: 9/16/09 ; Unless there's a plain statement that the decision below rests on independent and adequate stae grounds, SCOTUS has jurisdiction.
- Coleman v. Thompson: 11/18/09 ; State procedural defaults bar federal habeas relief, absent a showing of cause and prejudice... also no right to counsel in post-conviction relief proceedings
- Teague v. Lane: 11/18/09 ; The high standard for making or accessing new rules in habeas
- Terry Williams v. Taylor: 11/30/09 and 12/2/09 ; The "contrary to, or unreasonable application" requirement in § 2254(3)(1)
- Michael Williams v. Taylor: 12/2/09 ; You can't get an evidentiary hearing if you've failed to develop the factual rule at trial: interpretation of "fail" in order to correct errors or misconduct at trial