Civil Procedure Brief/Notes 9-6 Federal Question Jurisdiction

Civil Procedure Brief/Notes 9-6 Federal Question Jurisdiction The Framers of the Constitution recognized that federal courts,
, created and administered by the federal government, must have the power to interpret and enforce federal law. Otherwise, the national government could be rendered powerless by hostile state court interpretations of the meaning and constitutionality of federal law. Early statutes authorized the federal trial courts to hear cases arising under particular federal statutessuch as the immigration and patent statutes. Most cases arising under federal law still were litigated in the state courts, subject of review in the US Supreme Court. It was not until 1875 that Congress, fearing that the state courts would not vigorously enforce the federal civil rights statutes enacted during the Reconstruction, granted broad jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law to the lower federal courts. Today, 28 U.S.C. 1331 grants jurisdiction to the federal district court over all cases arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. Suits to enforce those laws arise under federal law, so that federal courts have jurisdiction over them under 28 U.S.C. 1331. The Constitutional Scope of Federal Question Jurisdiction So long as there is federal ingredient in the action, whether it is introduced by the plaintiffs claims or by a defense asserted in the defendants answer, Osborn holds that Article III section 2 grants federal question jurisdiction over the case. o For example, if Conway sues Deliso under a federal statute that authorizes suits for violation of federal civil rights, the case arises under federal law. o Similarly, if Conway sues for libel, a state claim, and Deliso raises the defense that his First Amendment rights protected him, the case would satisfy federal question jurisdiction. THIS NO LONGER HOLDS. **The following case illustrates that there is a major difference between a case that involves federal law and one that arises under federal law.**
Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley 211 U.S. 149 (1908) Facts: The suit was filed because Mr. and Mrs. Mottley did not receive their end of a contract made between them and the railroad company. On October 2, 1871 the couple released the company from all damages or claims for damages they received by them on the September 7, 1871 due to a collision of trains on the railroad. The company agreed to issue free passes to the couple that year and renew them every year. It is alleged that the contract was performed by the defendant up until January 1, 1907. The defendant, at that time, declined to renew the passes because Congress passed an act on June 29, 1906 which forbids the giving of free passes or free transportation. The bill goes on to saw, however, that the act of Congress referred to does not prohibit the giving of passes under the circumstances of this case; and if the law is to be construed as prohibiting such passes, it is in conflict with the 5th amendment of the United States Constitution, because it deprives the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law. Issues:
Does the mere allegation of an anticipated defense that arises under federal law create a federal question giving a federal court jurisdiction? May a suit be dismissed at the appellate level for lack of subject matter jurisdiction?
Procedural History: The appellees, Mr. and Mrs. Mottley, brought this suit in a federal trial court of the United States against the appellant, Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. stating that it was a federal issue at hand. After the defendants demurrer was overruled (he demurred based on the bill that Congress passed), he appealed directly to Supreme Court. Judgment: Reversed Holding: The application of this rule (Tennessee v. Union & Planters Bank) to the case at bar is decisive against the jurisdiction of the federal trial court. It is ordered that the judgment be reversed and the case remitted to the circuit court with instructions to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction.
Rule: In Tennessee v. Union & Planters Bank, 152 U.S. 454, the state of Tennessee, brought suit in the circuit court of the United States to recover from the defendant certain taxes alleged to be due under the laws of the state. This suit was in violation of the provision of the Constitution of the United States which forbids any state from passing a law impairing the obligation of contracts. A suggestion of one party, that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States, does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws. The complainant in the first instance shall be confined to a statement of its cause of action. Reasoning: These two issues were brought up in lower courts, but the Supreme court did not deem it necessary to consider either of the questions because the court below was without jurisdiction of the cause. 1. Does the act passed on June 29, 1906 make it unlawful to perform a contract for transportation of persons who, in good faith, before the passage of the act, had accepted such contract in satisfaction of a valid cause of action against the railroad? 2. Is the statute in violation of the 5th amendment (due process)? The suit was brought because of a violation of contract, not under a federal statute or issue.
Notes The Mottleys case was based on Kentucky contract law, not federal law. It is often said that Mottley illustrated a well-pleaded complaint rule, which means that the defense brought up an argument that relied on federal law. If anticipating federal defenses sufficed to get a case into federa court, creative lawyers who wanted to litigate in federal court would doubtless manage to anticipate one. They would sue in federal court, plead their state law claim, and then allege some federal defense that might be asserted. But suppose the defendant didnt oblige; she answered the complaint raising only state law defenses. Presumably, the case would then have to be dismissed. The Mottley rule allows the court to determine its jurisdiction without demanding an immediate answer to the complaint or relying on the plaintiffs representations about likely defenses. The issues disputed in Mottley, were ironically, federal issues: the meaning of the statute and if the statute prohibited renewal of passes, did it deprive the Mottleys of due process? However, Supreme Court found that the case is not a federal question case. The only source of a right to relief against he railroad was the contract, so
their counsel would not be able to create a federal jurisdiction by redrafting their complaint. Tennessee v. Union found that anticipated defenses and rebuttals cannot be considered in determining whether the case arises under federal law. When Supreme Court dismissed the case it nullified the entire course of the litigation and left the parties back at square one. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action. In Mottley, for example, the law that created the plaintiffs cause of action was contract law; thus the suit arose under contract law, which is state law. Mottley would not satisfy the Holmes test. State courts usually may hear cases within the federal subject matter jurisdiction. They have concurrent jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, unless Congress specifies that particular type of federal claim must be brought in federal court.

Civil Procedure Brief/Notes 9-6 Federal Question Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Brief/Notes 9-6 Federal Question Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Procedure Brief/Notes 9-6 Federal Question Jurisdiction

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What was the issue in the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. v. Mottley case?

What rule did the Supreme Court establish in Tennessee v. Union & Planters' Bank regarding federal question jurisdiction?

Civil Procedure Brief/Notes 9-6 Federal Question Jurisdiction The Framers of the Constitution recognized that federal courts,

You might also like