Law Applied By Federal Courts

Question 1

Federal Question Cases

Answer 1

1. Ordinary
2. Embedded
3. Federal Common Law

Question 2

Ordinary FQ Cases

Answer 2

Most FQ cases involve a violation of federal statute or constitutional provision. In these cases, the court just applies the text of the federal law and any authoritative precedent.

Question 3

Embedded FQ Cases:

Answer 3

In cases in which a state law claim depends on a question of federal law, the court applies state law to the state law issues and federal law to the federal law issues.

Question 4

Federal Common Law Cases

Answer 4

• Federal common law is a body of precedent repeatedly applied and molded by the courts. This body of law is generally confined to the following fields of law:
• Maritime law
• Foreign relations
• Commercial rights and liabilities of the federal government
• Property rights and liabilities of the federal government
• In these cases, federal courts will apply (and, if need be, create) federal common law and ignore any state law that might otherwise apply.

Question 5

Diversity Cases: Erie Analysis

Answer 5

In diversity cases, federal courts will apply both state and federal law. The court conducts an “Erie analysis” – 2 step process:

Question 6

Step 1: Do what Congress or the Constitution says if it is valid and on point.

Answer 6

• If a valid federal statute or constitutional provision is on point, the federal court must apply the relevant provision. It is irrelevant whether the provision is “substantive” or “procedural,” or whether it causes forum shopping, or otherwise seems unwise to apply.
• Validity: The federal statute must be valid (Constitution is per se valid). If the statute is invalid, the court ignores it and moves to Step 2.

Question 7

Step 2: If there is no federal statute or constitutional law on point, do what would avoid unfairness and forum shopping.

Answer 7

• If there is no valid federal statute or constitutional law on point, the federal court should follow its ordinary practices (whether rooted in case law, written policy, informal practice, or simply habit) UNLESS doing so would lead to:
• a preference for one court * system (state or federal) over another; or
  fundamental unfairness.

Question 8

Unfairness or Forum Shopping:

Answer 8

• If Step 1 represented the entirety of the Erie doctrine, the federal judge in these cases would wear the wig in the first suit and dismiss the medical malpractice claim in the second suit. After all, no federal statute or constitutional provision instructs otherwise. But because of Step 2, the judge would not wear the white wig but would dismiss the medical malpractice case. The analysis is as follows:
• A finding of forum shopping will necessarily carry with it a finding of unfairness.

Question 9

Statutes of limitation are substantive.

Answer 9

When P sues D in a federal diversity action, P’s compliance with the statute of limitations will normally be controlled by state law. That is, there is normally no federal law on point, and the application of state law is necessary to prevent forum shopping/unfairness. Thus, state statute of limitations law is applied (and labeled “substantive”).

Question 10

Choice of law rules are substantive.

Answer 10

In a federal diversity suit, Erie requires that federal courts apply the choice of law rules of the state in which it is sitting. That is, there is no federal law on point and conjuring up distinctly federal choice of law rules would only encourage forum shopping. Thus, such rules are properly applied in diversity cases and labeled “substantive.”