PACE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Revised Syllabus (October 6, 2015)
Professor Doernberg
Fall Term 2015
Page references are to FEDERAL COURTS—A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH (5th ed. 2013). The 2015
Supplement is online; you get access to it with the purchase of the text. “Supp.” means that the
materials are available from the 2015 Supplement. “T/W” means that the materials are available
on the web page and TWEN®. Assignments for each week will also be available on the web page
(and through TWEN®, which will direct you to the same place), and you can send e-mail either to
our listserv (fedcts-L@list.pace.edu) or to me directly from that page. Please note that the
assigned pages for each case include the notes following the case; be sure to read them carefully.
PROLOGUE
Henry J. Friendly, Federalism: A Foreword
Preliminary Thoughts on Separation of Powers and the Judiciary
Some Observations on Parity
Burt Neuborne, The Myth of Parity
Text
Erwin Chemerinsky, Ending the Parity Debate
Text
Note on the Class Action Fairness Act and the Parity Debate
Mon 8/31
1-8
8-13
13-14
14-16
16-19
19-21
21
T/W
CHAPTER 3—FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION
Section A. Introduction
277-79
Section B. Constitutional and Statutory “Arising Under”—Separate Strands Intertwined
U.S. CONST. Art. III, § 2
Osborn v. Bank of the United States
Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills
There's No Reason for It; It's Just Our Policy: Why the Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule Sabotages the Purposes of Federal Question
Thur 9/3
Jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1331
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley
American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co.
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust
Thur 9/10
Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian
Note on Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & ManuThur 9/17
facturing
Gunn v. Minton
Mushlin Proposal for Federal Question Jurisdiction
Verlinden, B.V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria
Section C. The Special Problem of Declaratory Judgment Cases
Introductory Paragraph
28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02
Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust
Thur 9/24
Complaints in American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co. and
E.Edelmann Co. v. Triple-A Specialty Co.
Mon 9/21
Page 1 of 4
1204
281-93
293-303
303-06
1223
307-13
322-24
325-30
331-33
333-35
335-47
347-54
T/W
313-21
355
1245-46
355-59
359-74
T/W
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Fall Term 2015
CHAPTER 5—FEDERAL COMMON LAW
Section A. Introduction
Mon 9/28
427-29
Section B. The Cornerstone
28 U.S.C. § 1652
Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Henry J. Friendly, In Praise of Erie—And of the New Federal Common Law
Section C. Choosing the Applicable Law and Determining Its
Content—Federal Interests or Lack Thereof
1. Spontaneous Generation
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States and Notes 1-9
United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc.
Thur 10/1
Boyle v. United Technologies, Inc.
Semtek International Incorporated v. Lockheed Martin Corporation
Note on Discerning the Content of State Law
2. Construing a Jurisdictional Grant as a Command to Create
Federal Common Law
Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills (Reprise)
Mon 10/5
3. Implying Private Rights of Action
Introductory Paragraph
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics
Thur 10/8
Cannon v. University of Chicago
Note 9
California v. Sierra Club
Schweiker v. Chilicky
Note 1a
4. Filling Statutory Interstices
Section D. Concluding Note
1243
430-40
440-42
443-51
451-61
461-78
478-86
486-87
487-96
496
496-510
513-26
Supp. 37
527-36
536-53
Supp. 37
553-60
561-62
CHAPTER 6—THE FEDERAL FORUM, THE
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871
Section A. Introduction
563
Section B. The Fourteenth Amendment and U.S.C. § 1983 in the
Remedial Scheme
1. Color of State Law
Mon 10/12
Monroe v. Pape
2. Municipalities as Defendants
Monell v. Department of Social Services and Notes 1-3
Board of County Commissioners v. Brown and Note 1
3. Officials’ Immunities
Thur 10/15
Text
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Addition to Note 5, page 634
Note on Post-Harlow Developments
Addition to the end of page 638
Page 2 of 4
564-84
584-601
601-21
621-26
626-35
Supp. 39-40
635-42
Supp. 40-41
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Fall Term 2015
CHAPTER 7—THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
Section A. Introduction
U.S. CONST. amend. XI
643-44
1207
Section B. The Basic Doctrine—More Than Meets the Eye
Mon 10/19
(Extended)
Introductory Paragraph
644
644-56
Supp. 43
656-63
Hans v. Louisiana
Note 5(c)
Giles v. Harris
Section C. The Basic Doctrine—Less Than Meets the Eye
Ex parte Young
Thur 10/22
663-80
No Class Scheduled.
Thank you very much for your flexibility.
Section D. Extending and Cabining the Doctrine: The Limits of
Limits
Mon 10/26
Edelman v. Jordan
(Extended)
Note on Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Text
Thur 10/29
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
(Extended)
Text
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
Section E. The Eleventh Amendment and Supplemental
Jurisdiction
Introductory Paragraph
Pennhurst State School v. Halderman
Mon 11/2
Note on Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State
Ports Authority
680-92
692-94
694-702
702-03
704-19
719-20
721-55
756
757-80
780-82
CHAPTER 8—REFUSING TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE
OF JURISDICTION: ABSTENTION AND
RELATED DOCTRINES
Section A. Introduction
783-84
Section B. Congressional Doctrines of Restraint
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Notes 1-4(c)
Thur 11/5
Note 7
Mon 11/9
Thur 11/12
Section C. Judicial Doctrines of Restraint
3. Abstention: The Doctrine of Younger v. Harris
Younger v. Harris
Steffel v. Thompson
Hicks v. Miranda
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
Note on Other Developments in Younger Abstention
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs
Page 3 of 4
784-98
Supp. 45
821-36
837-48
849-57
857-70
870-75
Supp. 45-52
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Fall Term 2015
CHAPTER 9—SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT
DECISIONS
Section A. Introduction
28 U.S.C. § 1257
Mon 11/16
Section B. Preliminary Jurisdictional Considerations
Murdock v. City of Memphis and Notes 1-5(c)
Section C. Insulating State Decisions from Supreme Court Review
1. With Substantive Law
a.Adequacy, Independence and Certainty
Thur 11/19
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
Delaware v. Prouse
Minnesota v. National Tea Co.
Michigan v. Long
2. With Procedural Law
Mon 11/23
Herndon v. Georgia
Note on Orr v. Orr
Henry v. Mississippi
3. With the Final Judgment Rule
Mon 11/30
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
905-07
1221
908-09
910-27
928-30
931-34
934-38
939-52
972-83
983
984-98
999-1017
CHAPTER 1—JUSTICIABILITY
Section F. Political Questions
Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting
Thur 12/3
Commission
Page 4 of 4
170-83
T/W