Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What is a state statutory right of action in tort (not originally recognized at common
law)?
Wrongful death caused by negligence
What’s the source of law for breach of contract? Common law
UCC also provides source of law for redress
Standing - plaintiff must have some injury to file case (unless suing as class
representative or minor)
9-1-09
Testa v. Katt
What was right of action?
What was cause of action?
Plaintiff sued in state court in Rhode Island
Rhode Island courts said the federal law was "foreign" in "private international"
sense?
Full faith and credit clause v. Supremacy clause
Rhode Island had concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts under the statute
involved here
What if: RI legislature created its own statute setting cap for these type of claims at
$1K? Then it could deny jurisdiction
"Valid Excuse" doctrine - where state somehow has sufficient excuse to deny
jurisdiction, e.g., no jurisdiction
however, state courts have general jurisdiction to hear just about any claim not
expressly excepted by federal government
Supremacy clause refers to supremacy of law, not supremacy of courts
Howlett v. Rose
right of action = 1983 claim
cause of action = 4th amendment via 14th amendment incorporation
Court: state courts don't get to say who has immunity under 1983 claims
States can't discriminate against federal laws
Federal laws created under constitution are the same against all citizens of every
state
"Existence of jurisdiction creates implication of duty to exercise jurisdiction"
there can be neutral reasons for declining jurisdiction (like caps on amounts
claimed, etc.)
9-8-09
Franchise tax board:
Plaintiff doesn’t need to plead a defense as part of cause of action
Supreme court - no statutory fed question jurisdiction under 1331
If there’s no original jurisdiction in federal court, why does supreme court have
appellate jurisdiction?
One might assume that sup ct’s jurisdiction is derivative of fed court’s original
jurisdiction
Supreme court has broader jurisdiction - asserts under Constitution
Fed courts can only assert jurisdiction uner 1331 or 1332, 1330, etc
Supplemental Jurisdiction
28 usc 1367
must be common nucleus of operative fact, and form part of "same case or
controversy" under Article III of constitution
*** dual sovereignty doctrine allows fed courts to prosecute people acquitted by
state courts, or vice versa (e.g., Rodney King case)
constitution permits prosecution by one sovereign after acquittal by the other, in
certain cases
What would happen if plaintiff brought 1983 action, without suing for battery,
assault, etc. (state rights of action)
Potential for res judicata to apply; however, if it can be determined that fed court
would not have exercised supplemental jurisdiction, then
state court may still be able to handle other rights of action
OK to split cause of action if, and only if, fed court would not have exercised
jurisdiction over certain state law rights of action
Res judicata applies if federal court would have had supplemental jurisdiction
Allen v. McCurry
"bad facts make bad law"
Cause of action = warrantless entry of defendant's home; he opened fire on cops
and was imprisoned
Defendant filed motion to suppress at trial, but lost and was convicted
Motion to suppress involved litigation of 4th amendment rights (substantive rights)
Lost some portions of motion to suppress, won on some others
Later sued for 1983 claim;
4th amendment issues had been litigated at criminal trial via motion to suppress
McCurry tried to relitigate 4th amendment issues in 1983 civil claim
court said collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) applied because 4th amendment
issues were litigated in criminal trial
This case is flawed because McCurry had no opportunity to bring 1983 claim in
criminal case (unlike Migra situation)
*** motions to suppress are based on preponderance of evidence standard; burden
is on movant to prove constitutional violation
Under Allen v. McCurry rule, is it impossible to sue under 1983 for damages after
succeeding on motion to suppress in criminal trial?
In Haring, there was a guilty plea, followed by 1983 claim; no preclusive effect on
constitutional right issue since it wasn't actually litigated
If issue was not litigated thru motion to suppress, but case went through trial, it's
possible to still bring 1983 claim later
litigation in criminal context can preclude you from relitigating in civil context
* See: Section 1738 *
Full faith and credit - federal courts have to give same preclusive effect to state
court judgments as state courts would;
a "piggybacking" statute - fed courts are piggybacking on state law of res judicata
and collateral estoppel
res judicata/collateral estoppel laws are taken from the state where judgment was
rendered
there is no "federal law of res judicata/collateral estoppel"; it's all drawn from state
law.
Kremer v. Chemical
When state court affirms an administrative ruling, that can have preclusive effect
9-15-09
Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
Can't challenge a state court judgment that is "putatively unconstitutional" in
federal district court
Federal court review would be tantamount to appellate jurisdiction
Later, the supreme court confined Rooker-Feldman doctrine to its facts, so it's not
frequently invoked anymore
must bring constitutional challenge in state court litigation if that's where you're
going to file.
Rooker-Feldman limited to where state court loser is trying to subsequently file in
federal court
Parratt v. Taylor
Cause of action:
Prison guards lost prisoner's $23 hobby kit; may or may not have been deliberate -
plaintiff asserted negligence
Right of action:
1983 suit for damages
Substantive right = right to private property
Procedural = deprivation of right without proper procedure
Court: when state provides adequate post-deprivation remedy, federal claims are
preempted
why wasn't there a proc due process violation here? because state had adequate
procedure for addressing (e.g., state tort remedy)
for procedural due process issue, plaintiff must not have been given process that
was due
in this case, court looked to state of Nebraska's tort claims act
Daniels v. Williams - can no longer sue for negligent deprivations of procedural due
process
there must be intent to sue under 1983
"State action" and "under color of law" are basically synonymous
9-22-09
***re police 1983 liability; acts undertaken must be in some way related to police
duties
acts in 'ambit of private personal pursuits' are outside scope of 1983 liability
Even if an individual official might have qualified immunity, city could remain liable
due to customs & policy
if a city can't be vicariously liable for acts of employees, why should it be able to
assert good faith immunity defense of its office (can't share immunity w/ employee)
the is no "vicarious immunity" for the municipality (same line of thinking as no
vicarious liability for acts of employee)
plaintiff can't get punitive damages when employee gets immunity and city doesn't
Presidential immunity
no immunity for pre-presidential acts (Clinton v. Jones)
defendant can say he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal
standard, or "clearly established" right
Court must grant defendant's motion for summary judgment if the substantive
rights plaintiff seeks to enforce had not yet received
"widespread judicial recognition" when the alleged violation took place
----------
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
City of LA v. Lyons
461 us 95
Right of action = 1983 action, which also sought injunctive relief
Cause of action = plaintiff suffered chokehold from police officer during arrest
(chokehold tactic was part of LAPD custom and policy)
Plaintiff could win $$ damages, but couldn't get injunctive relief
what justiciability element was key here?
standing
no likelihood of future similar harm
"too speculative"
10-6-09
11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit
in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by
Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
Ex Parte Young
Young (Minnesota AG) was held in contempt by federal court in MN for attempts to
enforce allegedly unconstitutional law
Sovereign immunity is dependent on the remedy (can't seek retrospective money
damages)
Prospective (i.e. injunctive relief) claims - can be made against actors in official
capacity
Why should remedy make a difference in attempt to "pierce veil" of sovereign
immunity?
* suing state actor in official capacity is tantamount to suing the state itself
Court in Young: essentially strips Young of his state/official capacity due to
unconstitutionality of acts
It's a legal fiction
Personal capacity suit - only binds the person - doesn't bind the office
Official can be STATE actor for 14th amendment purposes, but PRIVATE actor for
purposes of 11th amendment
Ex Parte Young paradox
State sovereign immunity is different from qualified & absolute immunity
Qualified/Absolute immunity is a judge-made doctrine deriving from common law (to
protect judges, legislators, etc.)
(comes from legislative history of Section 1983)
State sovereign immunity is constitutionally based (11th amendment)
Look at CAPACITY and REMEDY when analyzing these cases
Pennhurst: court held fed court couldn't enjoin state of pennsylvania from action
under pendent jurisdiction
key distinction - actions in Pennhurst alleged to violate state law, not federal
(constitutional) law
* If a suit seeks prospective relief only, state can be held accountable for that
Frew v. Hawkins
supported Verizon; plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against state officials claiming
11th amendment immunity
enforceable because state actors entered into consent decree relying on federal
law;
Provided a statute passes "clear statement" test, congress can authorize plaintiffs
under section 5 of 14th amendment to bring suit against states
OK to sue for any type of damages
14th amendment "trumps" 11th amendment (since it was passed after 11th
amendment; subsequent amendments apply to earlier amendments as well as body
of original constitution)
Boerne v. Flores
conflict between Congress and Supreme Court; congress can remedy 14th
amendment rights, but can't alter substantive rights under Section 5 of 14th
amendment
discrimination against members of a suspect class can lead to suits against state
there must be "congruence" and "proportionality" of remedy to alleged 14th
amendment violation
Hibbs
FMLA was congruent and proportional to 14th amendment violations for sex
discrimination
congress could abrogate state sovereign immunity under FMLA
does congress have power to abrogate state sovereign immunity in their own state
courts? No, under Alden
Does congress have power to abrogate sovereign immunity under Article 5 of 14th
amendment?
distinction from Alden is that it involved abrogation under Congress' Article 1 power,
not 14th amendment power
Most likely, congress still has power to abrogate sovereign immunity under Article 5
of 14th amendment
could be violation of supremacy clause for a state to argue otherwise
supreme court hasn't settled the issue
10-13-09
Tax Injunction Act of 1937
district courts can't enjoin collection of taxes under state law where "plain, speedy,
and efficient" remedy is available in state courts
exhaustion requirement only applies if state remedy is plain, speedy, and efficient
Fair Assessment in Real Estate v. McNary
an important case - suit under 1983 to redress unconstitutional administration of
state property tax system
suit for damages, not injunctive relief (problem: can't sue state actor in official
capacity for damages)
- court saw around attempt to evade 11th amendment prohibitions and Tax
Injunction Act
comity - where federal and state courts are supposed to respect each other's
authority
importance of Atlantic Coast Line - state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over
federal issues, so proper procedure is to appeal up through state system
union should have appealed to state appellate court, then state supreme court,
then U.S. supreme court
* could union have brought 1983 claim? where was the state action?
assuming union could have brought state law claims with federal claims, could it
have gone to both courts? no - claim preclusion
fed court can enjoin relitigation of issue/claim in state court, but only if state would
relitigate same issue under same law
(Chick Kam Choo, 486 us 140 - forum non conviens issue would not have been
precluded under Texas law - fed court could only enjoin choice of law issue)
Dombrowski v. Pfister
involved state prosecution against NAACP protesters (generally used to harass and
cause needless litigation)
sheer multiplicity of suits created inadequate remedy at law
- led to flood of litigation against pending state prosecutions, which led to Younger
v. Harris
- these cases were decided under equitable restraint, not Anti-Injunction Act
Younger v. Harris
What is the right of action?
- 1983 suit alleging 1st and 14th amendment violations
- Younger was district attorney for county, not state (so no 11th amendment
problem)
What is the cause of action?
- Harris was arrested and indicted for violation of "criminal syndicalism act"
- was passing out literature and speaking against capitalism
anti-injunction act - why wasn't it raised in Dombrowski? because you can't enjoin
state courts
it was raised in this case, but court avoided ruling based on Section 2283
if statute was clearly unconstitutional, why can't Harris enjoin the DA from criminal
prosecution?
- Harris had opportunity to defend his rights in state court (adequate remedy at
state law; could have appealed through that system)
* what is the name of that doctrine?
"Equitable restraint" - when federal courts respect the state procedures re: trial
and appeal
- key theme to remember from Younger
"Our Federalism" - this term originates in Younger; term of art created by the
court.
- not necessary for this case; probably added by court to make policy point
- could almost be considered dicta
Hicks v. Miranda
Was state prosecution "pending" at time federal case was initiated? (no, it was filed
a day later)
involved seizure of films from adult theater
judicial proceedings were begun to have film declared legally obscene
- theater owners and employees beat prosecutor to court, sought declaratory relief
re: constitutionality of obscenity law
1st ground of holding: theater owners' interests were already at stake in criminal
prosecution of its employees (even though they weren't a party in interest)
2nd ground of holding: for Younger v. Harris to apply, pending prosecution doesn't
have to exist on day suit is filed; where proceedings are begun while
federal case exists, but before any proceedings of substance on the merits in the
fed case, the criminal prosecution can't be enjoined - must be allowed
to run its course
"constructively pending" criminal prosecution
- allows state prosecutors to effectively "reverse remove" federal litigants to state
criminal court as long as they do it in time
what about filing for a TRO? Does that count as a proceeding of substance on the
merits of case, to bar "reverse removal" by state prosecutor?
Wooley v. Maynard
plaintiffs sought injunction to prevent future prosecutions of license plate ordinance
- fact that they'd been prosecuted in the past did not bar federal injunction
proceedings (contrast with Lyons)
if case starts at federal district court level, defendant has right to appeal through us
supreme court, then seek collateral review via 28 USC 2255 (goes back to district
court level, usually same judge that heard case in first place).
28 usc 2254 - can't do federal habeas corpus for state law violations
Stone v. Powell
multiple respondents alleging 4th amendment violations
issue: whether state prisoners that had full and fair adjudication in state courts
could relitigate the 4th amendment claim in fed court on habeas review
Exclusionary rule - policy rationale is to deter unreasonable searches and seizures;
a judicially created remedy
Why couldn't defendants bring the 4th amendment claim on habeas corpus claim
since it was a constitutional argument?
Because they had opportunity to fully litigate the issue in state court system;
Deterrent effect is attenuated if 4th amendment review process goes all the way
through federal collateral review
This case rules out federal habeas review on 4th amendment exclusionary rule
issues
is the exclusionary rule really working?
is this the best way to vindicate 4th amendment rights?
is 1983 a better vehicle for addressing 4th amendment violations?
Jackson v. Virginia
Standard established: "no rational trier of fact could find guild beyond a reasonable
doubt"
appellate court being asked, on habeas, to second-guess a jury's decision (rarely
granted);
must find that no rational trier of fact could have found the same
*** remember for exam
Herrera v. Collins
*actual innocence is not a determinative issue in this case
defendant gathered evidence showing that he did not commit crime
actual innocence not litigable in and of itself (it's not a constitutional issue)
BUT it could be litigated on habeas on a due process argument
Teague v. Lane
Rule: new constitutional rules of law announced by supreme court are very rarely
retroactive for habeas purposes
e.g., Crawford v. Washington - doesn't apply retroactively to people w/ witness
confrontation issues
retroactivity rule only applies on collateral review, not on direct review
example:
defendant convicted of flag-burning in 1987, exhausts all of his appeals by the end
of 1988;
Texas v. Johnson gets decided in 1989, giving constitutional protection to flag-
burning;
can defendant try to fight case on habeas corpus? maybe
only time supreme court has applied exception was in Penry v. Lynaugh (re:
execution of mentally retarded)
execution of juveniles is probably retroactive for collateral review as well, under
new law regarding those cases
new rule = result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time defendant's
conviction became final
11-17-09
AEDPA - 1996
Terry Williams v. Taylor
What does it mean for a decision to be "contrary to" clearly established federal law?
"Contrary to" = state court ruling that contradicts governing supreme court law
(precedent established in federal supreme court holdings), or state court decides
differently from US Supreme Court on materially indistinguishable facts (this wasn't
the case in Williams v. Taylor)
example: Crawford v. Washington (us supreme court) Drew Peterson case (new IL
hearsay law, being argued in IL courts) - involving out-of-court statements offered
for truth of matter asserted, where defendant doesn't have ability to cross-examine
witness giving statement
What if Peterson was convicted under new IL law, that potentially conflicts with
Crawford rule?
Are facts distinguishable, or "materially indistiguishable"?
Peterson facts may be materially indistinguishable from Crawford, and any verdict
against Peterson could be challenged under AEDPA/Williams v. Taylor rule
State courts have a lot of latitude under AEDPA - can't just be wrong, have to be
unreasonable, etc.
See Yarborough v. Alvarado
"Clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States," means holdings, not dicta
28 U.S.C. 2244(d)
1. One-Year Statute of Limitations
runs from the latest of various tolling provisions:
a. date judgment became final
b. date when impediment to filing application created by state action in violation of
constitution or federal laws is removed (e.g., corrections officer impedes inmates
ability to file claim);
c. date on which constitutional right asserted was initially recognized by the
supreme court, and expressly made retroactively applicable to cases on collateral
review;
d. date on which factual predicate of claim/claims presented could have been
discovered through the exercise of due diligence (e.g., discovery of new evidence,
see Herrera v. Collins).
***Need to know these four statute of limitations provisions for final
2. time in which a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other
collateral review with respect to the pertinent judgment/claim is pending does not
count toward any period of limitation under this subsection (s.o.l. tolled by pending
post-conviction proceedings - once they become final, then the statute of limitations
kicks in)
28 USC 2244(b):
b-1: claim presented in second or successive habeas corpus application that was
presented in a prior application shall be dismissed (basically, res judicata)
b-2: Exceptions:
a. applicant shows that claim relies on new rule of con law made retroactive to
cases on collateral review by supreme court (e.g., Teague exception)
b(i) factual predicate for claim could not have been discovered previously through
exercise of due diligence;
b(ii) facts underlying claim, if proven, would be sufficient to establish by clear and
convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder
would have found applicant guilty of the underlying offense (e.g., Jackson v.
Virginia)
(* hard to make a case under subsection B of this rule)
** we don't need to know all subsections of these statutes by number for exam -
just need to know how 2244 and 2254 work together for habeas purposes
* Before bringing federal habeas corpus action, a person in state custody must
exhaust all currently available state remedies
See 28 USC 2254(b)(1)
Mixed petitions:
federal courts now have limited discretion to stay and hold in abeyance a state
prisoner's habeas petition if it contains unexhausted as well as exhausted claims.
SEE HANDOUT
exhaustion requirement applies even to clear errors (such as Gideon violations)
exhaustion of analogous state constitutional rights is not tantamount to exhaustion
of federal constitutional rights - habeas petitioner must alert state courts that they
are asserting a federal constitutional right
Custody:
Test is whether a person is subject to restraints not shared by the public generally.
Must be in "custody" to use federal habeas corpus to mount a collateral attack on
state court judgments
Custody does not just pertain to actual imprisonment; extends to parolees,
convicted defendants released after sentencing but prior to incarceration, etc.
Procedural Default:
Wainwright v. Sykes
Facts:
Cause of Action: Criminal defendant made inculpatory statements after being
read his Miranda rights; did not object to admission of statements at trial; appealed
through state court system unsuccessfully, then raised habeas claim in federal
district court in Florida; Federal District court held in his favor, supreme court
reversed and remanded
Right of Action: Federal habeas action asserting Miranda/5th amendment rights
against self-incrimination
During respondent's trial for murder, inculpatory statements made by him to police
officers were admitted into evidence. No challenge was made on the ground that
respondent had not understood warnings read to him pursuant to Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U. S. 436; nor did the trial judge sua sponte question their admissibility
or hold a fact finding hearing. Respondent, who was convicted, did not challenge
the admissibility of the statements on appeal, though later he did so, unavailingly,
in a motion to vacate the conviction and in state habeas corpus petitions. He then
brought this federal habeas corpus action under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, asserting the
inadmissibility of his statements by reason of his lack of understanding of the
Miranda warnings. The District Court ruled that under Jackson v.Denno, 378 U.S.
368, respondent had a right to a hearing in the state court on the voluntariness of
the statements, and that he had not lost that right by failing to assert his claim at
trial or on appeal. The Court of Appeals agreed that respondent was entitled to a
Jackson v. Denno hearing and ruled that respondent's failure to comply with
Florida's procedural "contemporaneous objection rule" (which, except as specified,
requires a defendant to make a motion to suppress evidence prior to trial) would
not bar review of the suppression claim unless the right to object was deliberately
bypassed for tactical reasons. Held: Respondent's failure to make timely
objection under the Florida contemporaneous-objection rule to the
admission of his inculpatory statements, absent a showing of cause for
the noncompliance and some showing of actual prejudice, bars federal
habeas corpus review of his Miranda claim. Davis v.United States, 411 U.S.
233; Francis v.Henderson, 425 U.S. 536. Pp. 77-91.
A rule which, as applied to a state criminal proceeding in a state having a
"contemporaneous objection" rule requiring objection to admission of a criminal
defendant's confession into evidence either before or at the time of the state
criminal trial, bars review in a federal habeas corpus proceeding of any claim based
on the admission of a confession not objected to in conformity with such a rule,
absent a showing of cause for the noncompliance and some showing of actual
prejudice resulting from the alleged constitutional violation, affords an adequate
guarantee, because of its "cause" and "prejudice" exception, that the rule will not
prevent a federal habeas corpus court from adjudicating for the first time the
federal constitutional claim of a defendant who, in the absence of such an
adjudication, will be the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
11-24-09
Procedural default in Habeas cases
Failure to assert federal claim in manner prescribed by state law will prevent him
from obtaining federal habeas relief unless:
a. procedural default not obstacle to direct/collateral review within state system
b. state procedures didn't afford prisoner full and fair opportunity to litigate fed
issue, or
c. prisoner can show good cause for noncompliance and can prove that violation of
federal rights caused actual and substantial prejudice
What is "cause"?
- Futility in raising objection = no
- Novelty of constitutional claim = yes, but new law must fit within Teague
exceptions (e.g., death penalty for juveniles, mentally retarded)
- Inadvertence of counsel = no
- Ineffectiveness of counsel = yes (*but failure to timely raise ineffective assistance
can be its own procedural default)
Actual Innocence
Murray v. Carrier - in extraordinary case, where constitutional violation has probably
resulted in conviction of the actually innocent, habeas court may grant writ in
absence of cause for procedural default (supreme court has never found a case
fitting this exception, however)
Syllabus 7
Supreme court authority to review state court judgments (*this stuff will be
on exam)
28 USC 1257
if there's a federal issue lurking in an appeal, but outcome doesn't depend on it
(hinges more on state issues), that might divest court of jurisdiction
Murdock v. Memphis
involved deed of land between private individual and City of Memphis/US under
specific conditions
held reversionary interest in case Memphis changed purpose of deeded land
plaintiff's case:
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius" - the expression of one is the exclusion of the
other
in this case, the other way around - omission of certain statutory clause opened up
entire case for review, including issues of state law
Supreme Court said state court cases revolving around state law will not be subject
to supreme court review just because of related federal statutory issue
* supreme court might have been doing legal gymnastics - this was a time when
supreme court was wrangling with serious federalism issues and changed
relationship between federal and state governments.
* did an adequate independent state law remedy (statute re: clear intent of voter)
exist in this case
12-1-09
final exam:
32 questions, 90 minutes
closed book
will cover every major topic area we've covered
know bolded cases by name (at least the important ones), and know the principles
set forth within those cases
read every question and all qualifiers carefully; questions will be deliberately tricky
a. Simulation model
state law operates of its own force and simulates federal law, which also operates of
its own force (visualize two parallel lines containing their sets of laws)
e.g., due process clauses of state and federal constitutions
- federal law has only persuasive effect on state ct interpretation of state law
---->state law is independent of federal law
b. Mirror-image model
State law operates of its own force and MIMICS federal law which also operates of
its own force (e.g., right not to incriminate self/right against self-incrimination -
language not identical but states same thing)
State law lacks any distinctive content, however, and thus collapses into federal law
Example: Illinois follows "lockstep" doctrine
just because right of action exists only by virtue of state law, that does not mean
there's not a federal question and that it's only a state law issue
don't think that Sec. 1331 is co-extensive with Supreme Court jurisdiction - Sup Ct
appellate jurisdiction is much broader than federal district court jurisdiction
when case contains genuine state questions and genuine federal questions, state
law is not independent of federal law
d. Wholly-gratuitous-incorporation model
e.g., federal evidence codes exist on their own, and even if they are incorporated
within state evidence codes, state codes are their own law - no federal issues for
courts to review
wholly gratuitous means = states don't HAVE to incorporate federal interpretations
of rules - they do so gratuitously/voluntarily and it becomes state's own law
* Distinctions between these models won't be tested on closely; they are too fine to
really test on; just need to understand how state law can diverge from federal law,
when it can or cannot do so, etc.
* not like abstention doctrines, which will be tested on
Adequacy analysis
- assuming state-law question is truly independent of the federal question, is the
state-law ground ADEQUATE to support the result?
i.e., even if state court had reached different conclusion regarding the federal
question, would loser still have lost?
bottom line = US Supreme Court has wide jurisdiction - can generally take 70-80%
of all cases if it wants to; see Bush v. Gore - supreme court can find ways to make
things a federal issue