z
PACE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Syllabus (Revised 2/25/2015)
Professor Doernberg
Spring Term 2015
Page references are to FEDERAL COURTS—A CONTEMPORARY APPROACH (5th ed. 2013). The 2014
Supplement is online; you get access to it with the purchase of the text. “S/T/W” means that the
materials are available from the 2014 Supplement, TWEN® and my web page
(http://www.pace.edu/lawschool/dld). 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 email 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
1-8
Preliminary Thoughts on Separation of Powers and the Judiciary
8-13
Some Observations on Parity
13-14
Burt Neuborne, The Myth of Parity
14-16
Text
16-19
Erwin Chemerinsky, Ending the Parity Debate
19-21
Text
21
Note
on
the
Class
Action
Fairness
Act
and
the
Parity
Debate
T/W
Wed.
1/21
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
Mon.
Complaint Rule Sabotages the Purposes of Federal Question
1/26
Jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1331
Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley
American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co.
Wed.
Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust
1/28
Gully v. First National Bank in Meridian
Note on Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson
Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & ManuMon. 2/2
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
Mon. 2/9
Complaints in American Well Works v. Layne & Bowler Co. and
E.Edelmann Co. v. Triple-A Specialty Co.
Wed. 2/4
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
Spring Term 2015
CHAPTER 5—FEDERAL COMMON LAW
Section A. Introduction
Wed.
2/11
Wed.
2/25
Mon. 3/2
Wed. 3/4
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.
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)
3. Implying Private Rights of Action
Introductory Paragraph
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics
Cannon v. University of Chicago
California v. Sierra Club
Schweiker v. Chilicky
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
527-36
536-53
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. 3/9
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
Wed.
3/11
Text
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
Note on Post-Harlow Developments
Page 2 of 4
564-84
584-601
601-21
621-26
626-35
635-42
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Spring Term 2015
CHAPTER 7—THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
Mon.
3/16
Section A. Introduction
U.S. CONST. amend. XI
643-44
1207
Section B. The Basic Doctrine—More Than Meets the Eye
Introductory Paragraph
644
644-56
656-63
Hans v. Louisiana
Giles v. Harris
Wed.
3/18
Mon.
3/23
Wed.
3/25
Mon.
3/30
Section C. The Basic Doctrine—Less Than Meets the Eye
Ex parte Young
Section D. Extending and Cabining the Doctrine: The Limits of
Limits
Edelman v. Jordan
Note on Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
Text
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
Text
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
Section E. The Eleventh Amendment and Supplemental
Jurisdiction
Introductory Paragraph
Pennhurst State School v. Halderman
Note on Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports
Authority
CHAPTER 8—REFUSING TO ALLOW THE EXERCISE
Tues.
OF JURISDICTION: ABSTENTION AND
3/31
RELATED DOCTRINES
(4:30
p.m.)
Section A. Introduction
Wed. 4/1
Section B. Congressional Doctrines of Restraint
(9:30
Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive
a.m.)
Engineers and Notes 1-4(c)
Section C. Judicial Doctrines of Restraint
3. Abstention: The Doctrine of Younger v. Harris
Younger v. Harris
Wed. 4/1
Steffel v. Thompson
(Regular)
Hicks v. Miranda
Mon.
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.
4/13
Note on Other Developments in Younger Abstention
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs
663-80
680-92
692-94
694-702
702-03
704-19
719-20
721-55
756
757-80
780-82
783-84
784-98
821-36
837-48
849-57
857-70
870-75
S/T/W
CHAPTER 9—SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF STATE COURT DECISIONS
Wed.
4/15
Section A. Introduction
28 U.S.C. § 1257
905-07
1221
Section B. Preliminary Jurisdictional Considerations
908-09
Page 3 of 4
Federal Courts, Sec. 300
Spring Term 2015
Murdock v. City of Memphis and Notes 1-5(c)
Mon.
4/22
Wed.
4/24
Mon.
4/29
Section C. Insulating State Decisions from Supreme Court Review
1. With Substantive Law
a.Adequacy, Independence and Certainty
Fox Film Corp. v. Muller
Delaware v. Prouse
Minnesota v. National Tea Co.
Michigan v. Long
2. With Procedural Law
Herndon v. Georgia
Note on Orr v. Orr
Henry v. Mississippi
3. With the Final Judgment Rule
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
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
Page 4 of 4
170-83