FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION: ARISING UNDER JURISDICTION Flashcards
FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDICTION: ARISING UNDER JURISDICTION
Generally
Federal question arising under jurisdiction is all about Congress’ ability to grant lower federal courts original jurisdiction to hear cases that involve federal questions. In order to have arising under jurisdiction, there must be constitutional and statutory jurisdiction.
General Principle:
- Must have BOTH Article III (constitutional) and §1331 (statutory) jurisdiction to get to federal court on federal question.
ARISING UNDER JURISDICTION
Think about:
- When does the federal question come up? §1331
a. Must adhere to Mottley well-pleaded complaint rule. - Is it a substantially related to a federal question?
a. Consider Grable factors.
ARTICLE III ARISING UNDER JURISDICTION
BROAD GRANT OF FEDERAL QUESTION ARISING UNDER JURISDICTION THAT HAS BEEN LIMITED BY §1331 REQUIREMENTS
Article III Jurisdiction Requirements:
Can Congress give the federal courts jurisdiction over a case where the federal question is not likely to be contested in the lawsuit?
- Is there a federal ingredient in the case (lurking in the background) despite the fact that the lawsuit was about state law?
i. If YES, then Congress has given federal courts jurisdiction. This has basically been made IRRELEVANT by §1331 requirements—in other words, this bar is so low, just move to §1331 requirements that are more restrictive.
a. See Gully v. First National Bank (federal question has to be central—it must be contested and substantial, which is contrary to Osborn’s original ingredient).
The meaning of “arising under” in Article III of the Constitution comes from Osborn v. Bank of the United States, which held that the Constitution allows federal courts to hear a case as long as federal law is a “potential ingredient” in the case.” This power is sweeping: not only does the power include cases where federal law creates the right of action, but it also includes lawsuits where federal law—although possibly relevant—never actually enters the litigation. This power is broader than 28 U.S.C. §1331.
- Osborne v. Bank of America (if at any point a FQ could be hiding in the case, then that is enough to justify grant of jurisdiction to lower federal courts).
i. Bank is creation of federal law, so any action it brings arises under federal law because litigant can always challenge the Bank’s charter.
ii. The question that arises under federal law forms an “ingredient of the original cause” even if not explicitly contested.
28 U.S.C. §1331 JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS
MUCH NARROWER GRANT OF FEDERAL QUESTION ARISING UNDER JURISDICTION AND IS ABOUT WHETHER THE FEDERAL QUESTION IS NECESSARY TO PLAINTIFF’S CASE, WHETHER CONGRESS CREATED A COA,WHETHER CONGRESS INTENDED TO GRANT LOWER FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION
28 U.S.C. §1331 Jurisdiction Requirements:
What is the SCOPE of the Congressional statutory grant of jurisdiction? Is the federal ingredient POTENT enough to grant lower federal courts ORIGINAL jurisdiction?
- In §1331 cases, the Court is interpreting the scope of the statutory grant of 1331 jurisdiction.
i. Did Congress intend to grant jurisdiction over cases where the federal question will only arise because of the defense?
a. No – Mottley.
ii. Does the federal question have to be the issue that gives rise to the COA?
a. Yes – American Well Works (suit “arises” under the law that creates the cause of action so state law COA does not create FQ jurisdiction), but maybe not – a bunch of other cases, the leading one being Smith v. Kansas City.
iii. Not all federal COAs are justiciable under §1331.
a. Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter (Congress can create COA and direct that its intent was to have local law control despite the federal COA, so no §1331 jurisdiction).
In contrast, the meaning of “arising under” in 28 U.S.C. §1331 considers whether the federal component in a given case is of such character that the suit actually arises under federal law and thus, gives district courts original jurisdiction.
One must evaluate whether the federal question satisfies the Grable test:
- NECESSARY TO THE CASE aka WELL-PLEADED COMPLAINT rule
a. Well-pleaded complaint rule: the federal question is clear on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint and must be essential to complaint.
i. Louisville Railroad v. Mottley (face of P’s complaint must have FQ and be necessary to case). - ACTUALLY DISPUTED SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE
a. Federal law can be embedded in the state law ,k where federal law is an actually disputed substantial issue (contrast Merrill Dow & Grable):
i. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson (incorporation of federal standard in state law private negligence action did not confer arising under jurisdiction).
1. Congress did not create PROA to sue for violation of mislabeling, so negligence claim does not arise under federal law.
ii. Grable v. Darve (arising under jurisdiction because need experience of federal judges in tax code and uniformity in federal law despite state COA). - APPROPRIATE BALANCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE POWER
a. Can a federal forum can entertain the suit without disturbing any Congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities?
i. Merrill Dow: Congress created a statutory scheme with a standard of conduct but did not create COA, so Supreme Court inferred that Congress did not want federal courts to adjudicate the standard of conduct in any private civil action.
1. But see Grable (consider not only whether Congress created COA, but also whether Congress intended for there to be federal jurisdiction).
Congressional Statutes and §1331: Federal Law Can Create a COA
- Congress can create a statute and a cause of action that allows a plaintiff to sue, satisfying the arising under requirements of §1331.
i. American Well Works Co. v. Layne (case arises under law that creates the COA, which in this case is state law so no federal jurisdiction). See also Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio (case did not arise under federal law because state workers’ compensation claim drives the case despite embedded federal law).
a. Even if substance of litigation will substantially concern issues of federal law, go with state law: NOTE that this has been undercut, not so clear anymore.
• See Smith v. Kansas City Title (claim arose under state law, but litigation depended on federal issue of bond constitutionality for plaintiffs to recover, so federal jurisdiction). - Not all federal COAs are justiciable under §1331.
i. Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter (Congress can create COA and direct that its intent was to have local law control despite the federal COA, so no §1331 jurisdiction).
28 U.S.C. §1331 Summary:
- Mottley: federal question must be on the face of the well-pleaded complaint.
- American Well Works: federal law can create the cause of action.
- Shoshone: not all federal causes of action are justiciable under § 1331.
- Merrell Dow: federal issue must be substantial.
- Grable: for state law claim, it must: (1) necessarily raise federal issue, which must be (2) actually disputed and (3) substantial, and which (4) federal forum can hear without disturbing balance of state and federal courts.
