Federal Courts and Jurisdictions

Class Notes 8/22/16

How are federal rights, especially constitutional rights enforced by American courts?
Separation of Powers
Federalism
Supremacy Clause
Millers nave linear model
What if there was no right to sue government actions who violate constitution?
Could Constitutional still be law?
Marbury
What did he want?
What law did he rely on?
Thought experiments:
1. Imagine a federal statute enacted by congress that is a regulatory statute of some kind
and it is not enforceable by a private lawsuit filed in federal or state court by someone
whos rights under this statute are violated? (Ex: Occupational Safety and Health Act
minimum standards for working conditions for workplaces in the US)
IS THIS STATUTE STILL ENFORCEABLE LAW? It seems ceremonial. If there is
no right to sue then it doesnt matter. That is wrong. Can OSHA be enforced if there
are no way to file a suit? Its up to congress to decide whether they want to create a
private right to sue. Government enforcement is the other most common measure of
enforcement.
2. Looking at Constitution. Police officers conduct against blacks.
o Unconstitutional?
o Deprivation of rights?
o Imagine if constitution could not be enforced by a private lawsuit and no right
to sue when constitutional rights are violated.
3. Old case with a new angle of vision. Preliminary to the stuff in the handout about
Marbury.
o What source of law gave Marbury a plausible right to be a federal judge?
o Two kinds of federal claims? Statutory or constitutional claim? It was a
statutory claim (242). His right to be a judge is a statutory right.
o Leaving it as uncertain about whether it is statute or constitutional.
o He was seeking a write of mandamus.
3-hour open book exam
Chemorinsky Federal Jurisdiction (Aspen paper) treatise
Class Notes 8/24/16

Marburys Commission
1. Fed Right
Statute of 1801
Court requirement for appointment
2. Right to sue
Writ of mandamus
Was Marbury entitled to it?
What limits? Executive discretion? Political discretion?
3. First principle of Marbury v. Madison
Outcome of the case:
1. What else did Marbury need in order to win?
a. Need to be able to say that the court has jurisdiction over it
2. Why didnt he have it?
a. No original jurisdiction
b. Congress is in charge of prescribed courts
3. What was wrong with 13?
a. It does give jx over the writ but it is not constitutional
b. Congress could not give jurisdictional authority b/c if statute is unconstitutional
then granting of jx is unconstitutional so they cant hear the case
c. Courts can declare federal statutes unconstitutional
4. Could/Should Marshall have read it differently?
a. You would think mandamus would appear if it was about original jurisdiction
Constitutional avoidance
5. Second principle of Muir?
Federal statutory rights and federal constitutional rights
Marbury is asserting a statutory right
Presidential appointment b/c judgeship Marbury was appointed and confirmed
He may also have a constitutional claim, but certainly has a statutory claim.
Whether our rights are at stake and what kinds of rights are they?
Marbury had a right to sue
There is a writ of mandamus
Is there such a thing as federal common law?
Limit to authority: political question doctrine
There are certain areas that are specifically assigned to the executive branch and how
they carry it out is completely up to their discretion
This means theres a bunch of claims that cant be filed.
Marbury had a federal right and a right to sue.
He needed to have original jurisdiction and he didn't.
Whos in charge of the jurisdiction of federal courts? Who controls it?
Congress. Constitution in article 3 creates the Congress and authorizes Congress to create
the lower federal courts.
Suppose we have a constitutional rights case and congress has not passed a statute to authorize
this case? Can it still be heard?

In order to have jx, you have to have a statute that authorizes jx

Weak p.249
Intermediate power to decide cases
Strong supremacy uniform rules
If 13 is interpreted by Marshall for Congress not to authorize the jurisdiction, what is the
outcome? It is the same for Marbury. There is no jurisdiction over the case. Difference is we
don't have a federal statute on it.
It is better all things considered for the supreme court to interpret the state as not to do what the
party wants, but instead just say it is unconstitutional.
Section 3: Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions
Introductory Notes on the Power of the Supreme Court to Review State Court Decisions
Martin v. Hunters Lessee
Murdock v. City of Memphis
Class Notes 8/29/16
Ideas for Marbury so far;
1. Prerequisites for successful federal claim
Court of competent jurisdiction
right to sue granted by statute or common law
Are these always necessary?
2. Federal judicial power to conform executive branch conduct to law
Limit: political Q
3. Federal judicial power to hold acts of congress unconstitutional.
Doctrine of constitutional avoidance
What is the proper scope of federal court power of judicial review?
Weak (defensive) Marbury Sec 13 to decide case outside its authority
Intermediate Marbury Article III Power to decide cases within courts
jurisdiction decisions binding parties but not necessarily on president, courts,
or states.
Strong Marbury court decisions are authoritative statements of law other
branches should follow courts interpretation are superior
o Saying what the law is leads to strong Marbury
o The constitution is what the supreme court says it is
o Single uniform decision,
Federal courts decide cases and controversies. If you don't have a case or controversy you cannot
invoke the power of federal courts.

Examples of why difference matters

Lincoln & Dred Scott
Flag burning
State court resistance to Obergefell
Brown & Cooper v. Aaron
Supreme Court & ADA
Bush & Gitmo
Withdrawal of Jx
Establishment Clause
Martin v. Hunters Lessee
1. Madison compromise p. 249-250
2. No Fed Q. Jurisdiction until 1875, amount in controversy in 1980
Where would federal question cases be brought
State court
Class Notes 8/31/16:
Martin v. Hunters Lessee (70)
Proposition: Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over decision of highest state courts
raising federal questions
Questions:
1. What is source of supreme courts appellate jurisdiction?
- The Constitution (pages 1331, 1332)
- Statutes (page 70)
2. Was there a statute?
- Yes
- 1257 (page 1347)
3. Does constitution authorize it?
- Yes
Justice Storys Rationale: Cases doesn't make any distinction about what courts those
decisions come from. Just uses the words cases
1. Is there a respectable argument for Virginia?
- Each state is going to have its own self interest
- Congress confers federal question jurisdiction, and confers removal jurisdiction
2. What account of Marbury is Story applying?
- Uniformity, mistrust of other voice = stronger Marbury
Murdock (73): supreme court extends only to federal issues

Does supreme court ever decide questions of state law? Are there circumstances when
federal court address and decide matters of state court?
o Yes, in diversity cases where they have to apply state law

Questions from Martin:

1. What if no federal matter?
2. Did martin have a right to sue in state court?
- yes
3. Did state court have jurisdiction?
- Yes, because it was a state court of general jurisdiction that heard all these common law
cases
Howlett: 2 Ideas
1. Federal claim trumps state law defenses at all times. Why? the Supremacy clause
- Federal claim, state law defense = federal claim will always win
- If you accept defense P wins, if you dont D wins.
2. State courts must ordinarily hear and decide claims. Why?
- What are the obligations of the state courts as state courts?
o Supremacy Clause
Introductory Notes on the Duty of State Courts to Hear Federal Claims
1.
2.
3.
4.

From Power to Duty

Testa v. Katt
The FELA Cases
Howlett v. Rose

Haywood v. Drown (SC of the US, 2009) (Page 46)

Facts: Keith Haywood (plaintiff) was a prison inmate in a New York correctional facility,
who brought two civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Curtis Drown
(defendant) and other corrections officers, seeking punitive damages and attorneys fees.
Haywood acted pro se and filed the claims in the New York State Supreme Court, which
dismissed the claims for lack of jurisdiction, pursuant to New York Correctional Law
24, directing that claims against corrections officers must be brought against the state in
the court of claims. Under state law, plaintiffs in the court of claims must follow strict
requirements and are not entitled to a jury trial, attorneys fees, punitive damages, or
injunctive relief. The intermediate appellate court and New York Court of Appeals
affirmed. The court of appeals upheld the law as valid, because it treated state and federal
law claims the same. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the issue of
whether the states handling of 1983 claims against corrections officers violated the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
Issue: Does a state law barring civil claims against corrections officers violate the
Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution when it prohibits an inmate from
bringing a claim for a violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983?
Rule:

Holding: Yes. The Supreme Court held that New York's Correction Law 24, prohibiting
civil claims brought against corrections officers in their official capacities, as applied in
Mr. Haywood's case, violated the Supremacy Clause and thus was unconstitutional. The
Court noted that New York had passed 24 after determining most damages suits filed by
prisoners against state corrections officers were frivolous. However, the Court reasoned
that states may not relieve whole categories of federal claims from their courts merely to
avoid congestion.
o Dissent: Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and was joined in part by Chief
Justice John G. Roberts, and Justices Antonin G. Scalia, and Samuel A. Alito.
o He argued that neither the Constitution nor Supreme Court precedent requires that
states open their courts to 1983 claims. Thus, New York's law was not
unconstitutional.
Notes:

Additional Notes on the Duty to State Courts to Hear Federal Claims

Class Notes 9/7/16
Howlett v. Rose:
Principles:
1. Federal claims cannot be defeated by state law defenses
2. State courts must hear federal claims unless:
a. Neutral rule of judicial administration Treats federal and state claims the same
b. Examples: venue, personal jurisdiction, other rules of procedure
Howlett: Specific Questions
1. Where was case initially filed?
- Circuit court for Florida state so state trial level.
2. Who were Ds?
- School boards and three officials
3. What rights did P allege were violated?
- 4th amendment for illegal search.
4. What gave P a right to sue?
- 42 U.S.C. 1983 (page 1387)
- Authorizes suits when constitutional violations happen committed by defendants
described as Ds under 1983
5. Are all Ds persons under 1983? Monell (1978); Dictionary Act.
- Yes, school board is also a person. School boards and local governments are proper
defendants under 1983.
- You have to be a person to be sued under 1983. Entities that are not persons cannot be
sued under 1983.
- Does not protect persons under color of federal law. Only under color of state law.
6. Could case have been filed in federal court?
- Yes, because it is a federal claim. Under 1331 and 1343
7. Who was controversial D? Why?
- School board. In 1983, D has to be a person, cannot be an entity.

Both forums were available. Ds couldve removed it to federal court.

If P wants state court, then the D should want federal court. Party usually chooses which
court is going to give them the best outcome.
8. Did state court take jurisdiction over case?
- School board immunity. Source is Florida state law.
- They partly took over the case but not so far as the entity defendant, the school board.
9. How did Supreme Court characterize state immunity rule?
- A state-law sovereign immunity defense is not available to a school board in a 1983
action brought in a state court that otherwise has jurisdiction, when that defense would
not be available if the action were brought in a federal forum.
10. What source of law did supreme court rely on?
Class 9/12/16
Howlett (page 46)
Fed Right 4th Amendment
Right to sue = 1783
County with Jurisdiction: - ?
Why did supreme court see Florida rule as a substantive defense rather than a
jurisdictional limitation?
o Was circuit court of general jurisdiction? yes
o Did it hear 1783 claims?
o Did it hear claim v. local governments?
Was rule neutral? State claims
Haywood v. Drown
1. How did NY rule work?
- no damage suits by individual plaintiffs against guards in state courts of new york
2. Could a prisoner recover $ for guard
- suit versus state court
3. Was NY statue formally neutral as between state and federal claims?
- equally
4. Why did Stevens find it invalid?
5. Do state courts have to accept jurisdiction of federal claims?
Is there a jurisdictional rule that would work?
7 Honors Dissent:
1. What are state courts required by supreme court to do?
2. Can state jurisdictional rules treat federal claims differently from state claims?
3. What is the argument for state court jurisdictional autonomy?
4. Is there any jurisdictional obligation of state courts?
Neutral jurisdictional statute that excludes jurisdiction over some federal claims
McKessin
Class Notes 9/14/16

Haywood
- Does Thomas have a constitutional principle to stand on?
- Sandalow & clear statement rule p. 61-62
- Is there a state Jx restriction statute that could be constitutional if applied to exclude
federal claims?
HOWLETT
State
School Board/ Local
Government (Person)
4th

HAYWOOD
State
Guard (Person

MCKESSON
State
State Agency

Procedural Due
Process

Fed Source of Right

to Sue

1983

1983

Relief in Fed Court?

Did State Court
Accept JX?

Yes
Yes

Yes
No

Dormant Commerce
Clause; Procedural
Due Process Clause
Not 1983,
Coming from
Constitution (Naked
Constitutional claim
Constitution is
operating unclothed
by any federal
authorizing statute)
No, 11th Amendment
Yes Injunction
No - Damages

Court of original JX
Defendant
Right Violated

Next week:
M Finish McKesson and notes 1123-1137
W 63-67 Tarbles Case
Class Notes 9/18/16:
Constitutionally Required Remedies in State Court
McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (SC of US, 1990) (Page
1123)
Facts: The McKesson Corporation (McKesson) (plaintiff) was a distributor of alcoholic
beverages doing business in Florida. In 1985, the Florida legislature revised its liquor tax
laws to correct a discriminatory tax scheme that gave preferential treatment to companies
whose beverages were made from products grown in Florida. The revisions deleted the
express preferences for Florida products and instead provided tax rate reductions for use
of specific types of crops, all of which were commonly grown in Florida and used to
make alcoholic beverages. McKesson paid the taxes without discount until June 1986,
when it sought a refund of the excess taxes, claiming the tax was unlawful. After the state
denied the request, McKesson sued the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco and
other state agencies (defendants) in state court, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief

under the Florida and United States Constitutions, as well as a refund of the excess taxes
under state and federal law. The trial court granted McKessons motion for partial
summary judgment, holding that the tax scheme violated the Commerce Clause and
enjoining future enforcement. The trial court, however, did not order a refund or any
other relief regarding the previously paid taxes. The parties cross-appealed, and the
Florida Supreme Court affirmed. With regard to the refund issue, the Florida Supreme
Court found that the state collected the taxes in good faith reliance on a presumptively
valid statute, and that a refund would be a windfall to McKesson, who likely passed the
cost of the taxes on to its customers. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari
on whether McKesson was entitled to a partial tax refund under federal law.
Issue: Whether federal law prospective relief exhausts requirements of federal law?
Rule: General Rule: When there is an injured party whose Constitutional rights have
been violated, the state court must grant a clear and certain remedy, based on federal law,
regardless of whether that remedy would not have been allowed in a state court.
Holding: No. If a state places a taxpayer under duress promptly to pay a tax when due
and relegates him to a post-payment refund action, due process requires meaningful relief
o Due Process Clause requires state to afford taxpayers a meaningful opportunity to
secure post-payment relief (clear and certain remedy) for taxes already paid
pursuant to unconstitutional scheme
o 11th Amendment does not circumscribe appellate review of state-court
judgments
o Didnt provide for pre-deprivation opportunity give $ back as relief
Reasoning:
Notes:
o Out of staters could not participate. Favoring own residents and discriminating
against interstate commerce and the dormant commerce clause (Philadelphia v.
US)
o clear and certain remedy state court is required by the supremacy clause to
determine a clear and certain remedy for the violation
o equitable argument (footnote 34, page 1129) to get a refund from government
is to get money twice if windfall happened and thats not fair.
o General Oil v. Crain
o Ward v. Love County
o Think about what is the source of law that gave McKesson that right to file his
suit? Federal or state?
o Could a state court have a jurisdictional provision that would allow it not to hear
naked constitutional claims?
o Does a state court have to entertain a naked const. claim even if there is no state
law right to sue?

McKesson
Where was case filed?
Who were D's
- State agency

What Fed rights violated?

- Dormant Commerce Clause
- Procedural Due Process
What relief sought?
Was case brought under 1983
- No, not against a person. It is against a state agency.
- Cant bring a 1983 case against a state agency since they are not considered persons under
the statute.
What was fed source of right to sue?
Could suit have been filed in fed court?
- No this case could not have been filed in federal court
- 11th amendment is on page 1335 fits within literal meaning of this case. If this suit were
filed in federal court by a Florida citizen, it too would be barred by the 11th amendment.
Why do 11th bar to hear appeal in Supreme Court