Mr. Levin
Constitutional Law
POLS 5211
Fall 2010
Judicial Federalism and Jurisdiction
Terms:
unitary/federal/confederal government
compact theories
nullification
interposition
comity
abstention
Jurisdiction
Case or Controversy
Independent state ground
Assigned Cases:
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, Cooper v. Aaron, Younger v. Harris, Michigan v. Long; Jaffree v. Bd of
School Commissioners; KY v. Wasson
Questions for Reading Assigned Cases:
In Martin v. Hunter=s Lessee, identify all the different reasons for the Supreme Court=s power to
review state court rulings. Where in the Constitution does Story find this power? What federal law
also provides authority?
In Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court reasserts its power to interpret the Constitution. What are
some of the crucial reasons that the Court must be obeyed? Why not wait for the states? How does
the District Court’s decision in Jaffree v. Board conflict with Cooper?
What limits on state courts are to be found in Michigan v. Long? How does it rely upon Martin v.
Hunter=s Lessee? To what extent does Kentucky v. Wasson meet the standard set in Michigan v.
Long?
Additional Cases:
In Dombrowski v. Pfister (1965), the Supreme Court found that a Louisiana legislative committee
had acted in "bad faith" by continually harassing Dombrowski, a civil rights attorney, accusing he
and others of being communist agents because of their representation of civil rights protestors. The
Court found that abstention (respect for state courts) was not required when there was no
reasonable interpretation of a law which would make it constitutional. Younger v. Harris is often
seen as an answer to Dombrowski
In Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938), the Supreme Court announced that the federal courts would
follow state judicial interpretation of state laws whenever compatible with federal law. This ended
the era of a federal Acommon law@ in which the federal courts developed their own interpretation
of state laws regarding property, torts, contracts, etc. The previous approach had encouraged
Aforum shopping,@ in which litigants chose the more favorable approach when they filed cases,
and violated norms of abstention.