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

  1. Marbury v Madison: 9/2/09 ; Judicial review, for every right a remedy, courts say what the law is, courts resolve disputes
  2. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency: 9/9/09 ; just having standing doesn't get you what you want.
  3. Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation: 9/14/09 ; standard for taxpayer standing in the wake of Flast v. Cohen
  4. 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)
  5. DeFunis v. Odegaard: 9/16/09 ; a case is moot if deciding it wouldn't affect the litigants.
  6. 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.
  7. Ex Parte McCardle: 9/21/09 ; Congress can revoke grants of jurisdiction, and the court doesn't inquire into motivation for doing so.
  8. Ex Parte Yerger: 9/21/09 ; Habeas jurisdiction remains, inspite of the 1868 act discussed in McCardle
  9. Sheldon v. Sill: 9/21/09 ; The Congressional power to establish courts includes the power to limit their jurisdiction.
  10. Yakus v. United States: Not discussed ; Congress can deprive the courts of jurisdiction by regulation
  11. Battaglia v. General Motors Corp.: Not discussed ; congress is subject to the constraints of the constitution when granting, limiting, or witholding jurisdiction
  12. 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
  13. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm Inc.: 9/28/09 ; Congress can't force the reopening of cases; a final judgment is conclusive.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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)
  17. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley: Not discussed ; The well-pleaded complaint rule
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Finley v. United States: 10/14/09 ; no pendent-party jurisdiction
  24. Sparrow v. Mazda American Credit: 10/19/09 ; Supplemental jurisdiction over compulsory counterclaims
  25. 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).
  26. Hans v. Louisiana: 10/21/09 ; State sovereign immunity extends beyond the literal text of 11A
  27. Ex Parte Young: 10/21/09 ; Suits against state officials acting in their official capacity
  28. Edelman v. Jordan: 10/21/09 ; Ex Parte Young suits get prospective relief only, not money damages.
  29. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer: 10/26/09 ; 14A trumps 11A; congress can abrogate sovereign immunity
  30. 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.
  31. 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
  32. Monroe v. Pape: 11/2/09 ; § 1983 gives remedies to individuals deprived of their rights by officials
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. Mitchum v. Foster: 11/4/09 ; § 1983 is an "express" exception to the anti-injunction act
  36. 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
  37. Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Company: 11/9/09 ; Abstaining when a state law decision would terminate the federal controversy
  38. 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.
  39. Younger v. Harris: 11/9/09 ; Absent exceptional circumstances, we will not enjoin state criminal prosecutions
  40. 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
  41. Trainor v. Hernandez: Not discussed ; Younger-style abstention when there's a pending state civil case in which the state is a party
  42. 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.
  43. Martin v. Hunters Lessee: 11/16/09 ; The appellate power of the US extends to cases pending in state courts
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. Teague v. Lane: 11/18/09 ; The high standard for making or accessing new rules in habeas
  47. Terry Williams v. Taylor: 11/30/09 and 12/2/09 ; The "contrary to, or unreasonable application" requirement in § 2254(3)(1)
  48. 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