COURSE REVIEW
Federal Courts
Congress’ Limitation on Court Actions
• Congress can limit portions of how courts hear cases
• Statutory minimums (28 U.S.C. § 1332)
• Limitations on filing (Prison Litigation Reform Act)
• Administrative Agencies
Standing
Art. III, § 2
“case or controversy”
actual conflict – “injury in fact”
not for advisory opinions
• Not anyone who wishes a determination can get one.
1.
2.
3.
Plaintiff must identify a concrete injury suffered
Personal injury is ”fairly traceable” to defendant’s act/omission
A judicial order can remedy the claimed injury.
Taxpayer/Association Standing to Sue
question of “personal stake and interest”
1.
logical link between status and type of
legislative enactment attacked
2.
link between status and constitutional
claim
Private Rights of Action
• Express
• Implied
• Federal Common law (traditionally has been allowed to go
forward)
Ripeness and Mootness
• Controversy ongoing so as to effectuate relief
• Mere existence of a legislative act generally not enough
(facial challenge exception)
• No advisory opinions from the Court
• Probability of reoccurrence
Political Question
1. a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of
the issue to a coordinate political department, or
2. a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving it
Supreme Court Jurisdiction
• Original – 28 U.S.C. § 1251
original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies
between two or more States
original but not exclusive jurisdiction:
1.
all actions or proceedings to which
ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice
consuls of foreign states are parties
2.
all controversies between the United States
and a State
3.
all actions or proceedings by a State against
the citizens of another State or against aliens
Supreme Court Jurisdiction
• Appellate
Mostly discretionary (generally a direct appeal only if
a Circuit Court finds a federal law unconstitutional)
Writ of certiorari
From states
After exhaustion of appeals through State
court system – then via writ of certiorari (discretionary) on
any claimed federal constitutional issues or federal statutes
Habeas Corpus for Immigration
• Congress amended the Immigration and Naturalization
Act allowed “limited review” for “constitutional claims or
claims of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
• Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, ___ U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1062
(2020), the Court found that the law permitted judicial
review of the administrative action as a substitute for
habeas corpus
Erie Doctrine
• Look to see if purely substantive (apply State law)
(use choice of law test from forum state)
• If purely procedural, then apply federal law
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Federal Rules of Evidence
Judiciary Act
• If quasi-procedural, then modified outcome determinative
test
Theories of Federal Common Law
Federal courts possess general authority to craft
common law whenever federal interests are at stake.
2. Federal courts possess general authority to craft
common law only when it is traceable to a source of
federal authority derived from a federal statute or the
Constitution.
3. Federal courts possess general authority to craft
common law “as a form of implied statutory delegation
of power to federal courts to complete a federal
program in light of its apparent purposes.”
1.
Types of Preemption
1.
Express Preemption
2.
Implied Preemption
1.
2.
Field Preemption – when Congress intends federal law to
“occupy the field”
Conflict Preemption – where state law is in conflict with federal
law
Administrative Deference
• Chevron deference – courts defer to agency
determinations to interpret their own ambiguous statutes
unless the interpretation is unreasonable
• Auer deference – courts defer to agency determinations
to interpret their own ambiguous regulations unless the
interpretation is unreasonable
• Skidmore deference – courts defer to an agency's
interpretation of a statute that it administers according to
the agency's ability to demonstrate persuasive reasoning
Factors in Determining a Private Right of
Action
For a private right of action (all must be answered “yes”)
1. Is the plaintiff one of the class for whose benefit the
statute was enacted?
2. Is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or
implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one?
3. Is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the
legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the
plaintiff?
4. Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to
state law, in an area basically the concern of the States,
so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of
action based solely on federal law?
Subject Matter Rules from Mottley
• Rules from decision
1.
Court must have subject-matter jurisdiction
2.
If not raised by the parties, it must do sua sponte
3.
Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived (unlike personal
jurisdiction)
4.
We determine subject-matter jurisdiction from the allegations of
the complaint (and only the complaint) – the “well-pleaded
complaint” rule
5.
Without subject-matter jurisdiction, any prior judgment is void
Supplemental Jurisdiction
• Where there exists federal
question jurisdiction
• Any claims (even state-
based) or parties that are
“related” to federal
question
• No question of diversity
• No minimum amount in
controversy
• Where only in District
Court due to diversity
jurisdiction
• Adding diverse claims
cannot destroy diversity
• If minimum amount in
controversy met (no problem
– can aggregate other diverse
claims)
• Plaintiff vs. Defendant (cannot
destroy diversity) – however,
if a third-party claim
[interpleader] no need to
maintain diversity
Bars Under Eleventh Amendment
• Injunctions sought for retrospective relief barred under
Eleventh Amendment
• Suit for money damages is a bar under the Eleventh
Amendment
• Even injunctive relief where State is defendant (need to
sue official)
• Need to sue State employee or official in individual, not
official, capacity (general rule) under “color of state law”
Not a Bar Under the Eleventh
Amendment
• Fees and costs awarded for injunctive relief
• Where Congress has abrogated the right (a number of
federal statutes require the ability to sue when the state
receives federal funding)
Immunities
• Sovereign (Eleventh Amendment)
Must sue State actors in their individual, not official
capacities (exception where State has waived immunity –
usually by excepting federal funding or within legislation,
e.g. Title VII)
• Absolute (Judges, Legislators, Prosecutors [civil and
criminal])
• Qualified
1.
2.
Violation
If yes, was that right clearly established?
The Anti-Injunction Act
Act affects federal courts only (not all territorial courts)
Not just state injunctions, but also state declaratory
judgments (that have the same effect as an injunction)
There must be a state “proceeding” – generally means
court proceedings (not arbitration or administrative
proceedings)
Exceptions to the Act
(1) “as expressly authorized by Act of Congress,” –
Expressly Authorized Exception
(2) “when necessary in aid of” the federal court's
jurisdiction, or” – Aid of Jurisdiction Exception
(3) “to protect or effectuate federal court judgments.” –
Relitigation Exception
Exhaustion of State Nonjudicial Remedies
• A plaintiff may not sue in federal court for redress of
allegedly unlawful state action without first exhausting all
state administrative remedies.
• No requirement for exhaustion under § 1983.
• Exception to exception – Congressional statutes which require
exhaustion of state remedies, e.g., PLRA
Abstention
Four Types
1. Pullman
2. Burford
3. Colorado River
4. Younger
Abstention
• Pullman Abstention
The case presents both state grounds and federal
constitutional grounds for relief;
2. The proper resolution of the state ground for the
decision is unclear; and
3. The disposition of the state ground could obviate
adjudication of the federal constitutional ground.
1.
Burford and Thibodaux Abstention
• Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943)
1.
The case presents "difficult questions of state law bearing on
policy problems of substantial public import whose importance
transcends the result in the case then at bar," or
The adjudication of the case in a federal forum "would be
disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect
to a matter of substantial public concern.”
2.
•
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux, 360
U.S. 25 (1959)
•
•
Where a federal court sitting in diversity chooses to allow a state to decide issues of
state law that are of great public importance to that state, to the extent that a federal
determination would infringe on state sovereignty
Strong presumption against these types of
abstention
Abstention
• Younger abstention
Where ongoing criminal or civil enforcement in
State, federal court will abstain – exhaust all appeals in
State court before seeking a writ of certiorari
Exceptions
1.
Irreparable harm both great and immediate;
2.
State law flagrantly unconstitutional; and
3.
Bad faith or harassment
Colorado River Abstention
• Where state and federal litigation proceeding simultaneously
• Unlike other types of abstention – discretionary upon the court
to invoke
Factors • Which action was filed first?
• Which obtained jurisdiction over the parties first?
• Is the forum convenient to the parties (like an analysis under
forum non conveniens or 28 U.S. C. § 1404)
• Which action is proceeding more quickly/efficiently?
• Does the case turn on federal law?
• Does the state court adequately protect the rights of all parties?
Habeas Attacks on State Convictions
• Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 – 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (collateral attack of state criminal conviction)
• Bans successive petitions for habeas by the same person (limited
•
•
•
•
exceptions)
Requires exhaustion of both facility and State proceedings (in Illinois,
appeal and post-conviction petitions) where issues raised (generally
waived if not raised in State court)
Must entail claims of U.S. Constitutional violations
Prisoner must be in custody when filing petition (can be on parole)
Statute of limitations – one-year s/l from final judgment or exhaustion
of state remedies
• Impediment to filing (State caused) is removed
• SCOTUS recognizes a new constitutional right with retroactive application
• Claim could have been found with due diligence
Exception – “actual innocence”
Claim Preclusion
• Also known as res judicata
• The doctrine of claim preclusion prohibits “successive
litigation of the very same claim” by the same parties.
• When the barring of a claim that was previously litigated
unsuccessfully also extinguishes a claim that the plaintiff
could have but did not bring in the first case. (same
transaction test)
Issue Preclusion
Also known as collateral estoppel
When an issue is fully and fairly litigated in an earlier proceeding, that
issue can be precluded from relitigation
Diversity Jurisdiction
• 28 U.S.C. § 1332
• State citizenship
• U.S. citizenship and
• Domicile in a state (where a person “lives”)
• Only one domicile at a time (even though owns property in several
states)
Aggregation
• Two plaintiffs have the same claim – one meets amount,
one does not – aggregate if arises out of the same case
or controversy
• Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969)
• Two or more with separate claims cannot aggregate
• Multiple plaintiffs or defendants with a common undivided
interest and single title or right, look to value (if over) – not
if separate and distinct
Supplemental Jurisdiction
• 28 U.S.C. § 1367
• Plaintiffs cannot do in supplemental jurisdiction what they
cannot do under the statute
• Cannot destroy diversity
• Need to meet statutory minimums
• No problem for other parties
• E.g., compulsory counterclaims and impleaders