1/18/11 Overview: It is conceivable, constitutionally that the entire court system could be constituted by SCOTUS + State Courts.

ts. Why do we have two parallel court systemswhy fed courts? What issues should federal courts hear? Who decides?

Major Themes: Judicial Federalism: federalism as expressed in relationship between federal court system and judiciaries of the states. o Habeus. Not a direct appeal in every instance, collateral review by dist. Courtsanother way state and federal systems are connected. o Many of the core topics in this court implicate this issue. Horizontal separation of powers, and vertical separation of courts. o Within federalism questions- split between federalist and nationalist perspectives. They take different stances on relationship between lower federal courts and state courts. Madisonian Compromise: instead of mandating lower fed courts, gave congress power to establish them. Second part is Supremacy Clause (art. VI). If no lower fed courts but federal law, then State Courts would administer federal law in the first instance in most cases Federalist Perspective: If constitution allows lower fed courts but doesnt mandate, then state and lower fed courts must be interchangeable in terms of their competency. Then, there is no problem with congress limiting the jurisdiction of the district courts. Federal courts should avoid subjects that imply lack of trust in competency or neutrality of state courts. Nationalist Perspective: Fact that Supreme Court has unquestionable power of review of state court decisions, shows that the two systems are not equal. Reconstruction amendments dramatically altered general relationship between state and federal govs. And reflected a lack of trust in state govs and courts. Expansion of power of federal review of state law/decisions involving federally protected rights. Laws that limit fed court access are deeply troubling, maybe even unconstitutional. Vindicating federal rights more important than state sovereignty and dignity.

o Jurisdictional Stripping: horizontal separation of powers issues. Congress depriving fed courts of ability to hear certain cases. Two perspectives. Because Madisonian compromise ongress can limit jurisdiction of lower fed courts to any extent because they have the power to establish the courts. Vs. Madisonian compromise must be limited. Congress cant limit federal courts for unconstitutional reasons or purposes. (Due process violation, e.g.). If Congress deprived ALL courts of jurisdiction, maybe that implicates due process. Cases involving detention. If congress stripped courts of jurisdiction to hear habeus claims, it implicate the suspension clause in art. I, which is understood to guarantee in certain circumstances access to court. These kinds of disputes are ongoing. No clear answer or winners. o Discretionary inaction: Blends separation of powers and federalism issues. When Fed. Courts decline to exercise jurisdiction granted by congress. When, if ever, is it appropriate for a federal court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction which it has been given. Frankfurters positions: federal courts should defer to side or act to preserve comity. Act in order to preserve resources of Courts to hear other cases if there are good reasons to do so. Furthermore, Courts should be able to take steps to minimize friction with other branches of government for trivial issues, so as to retain power in controversies that matter. Inaction to preserve action. Vs. It is treason to the constitution to sit not hear cases. Day 2: 1/19 What if there were no lower federal Courts? Taflin and Testa set rules for how state courts enforce federal law. Taflin RULE: State Courts are presumptively competent to hear federal claims. This presumption can be rebutted however when: (1) Explicit statutory directive, (2) Clearly incompatible with legislative history, (3) Clear incompatibility between state court jurisdiction and federal interest at issue. o OConnor: federalist perspective. State courts competency a deeply rooted presumption. What is the source though? Not the constitution Maybe preconstitutuional status of state courts. Belief that the federal constitution took state courts as they were and folded them into the plan.

Courts have traditionally been viewed as competent to hear any claimscourts of General Jurisdiction. (Not true of federal court enumerated power, like the government). Application of Tafflin rule: Statute at issuecivil RICO. You may sue therefore in any appropriate United States District Court. o (1) unless theres an explicit statutory directive. Court says congress could have been more explicit. Congress does no how to use magic words to confer exclusive jurisdiction on fed courtssee fed crim lawand it didnt do it here You dont need an express grant of jurisdiction to state courts, just no explicit prohibition. o (2) No legislative history one way or the other. o (3) Clear incompatibility with federal interests. Factors: (1) Desirability of uniform interpretation What is the basis for this rule? If concerns about inconsistency in federal law application can rebut state court presumption of jurisdictionwhy does this come out the other way? o Well, possibility of inconsistent application is possible with just federal courts anyway. So, What kind of inconsistency would be enough to rebut presumption? o Maybe when state courts would be particularly hostile? Think federal civil rights laws during 60s. (2) Presumed greater expertise of federal judges with respect to federal law. (3) presumption that federal courts will be a more hospitable forum with respect to federal claims.

Testa Taflin about when state courts may hear fed claims. Testa tells us when they must hear them. o In what circumstances may a state court decline to hear a federal claim? o Statute at issue: emergency price control act. You can sue if goods are priced in violation of act. Is there a Tafflin issue here at all? NO. Statute goes right out and says state courts have concurrent jurisdiction. Rule: Supremacy clause requires state courts to apply federal law where it applies. A state court may not refuse to hear a federal cause of action unless the state court has a valid excuse. o Should establish that jurisdiction would be outside of states obligation under the supremacy clause. o Follow on cases from text expand on when an excuse is valid.

o States may still establish their own procedural rules; however, the history of the invalid excuse jurisdiction in this area is still cloudy. Number one invalid excuse redflag: if federal claim is relying on 1983. Testa rests in substantial part on state law.

Day 3-1/24 Has congress exceeded constitutional bounds in telling state courts they must be open to here certain kinds of claims? Foreshadowing state sovereign immunitybeyond Testa. Appellate Review of State Court Decisions by the Supreme Court Can the Supreme Court Review State Court decisions? o Controversial up until Civil War. Some controversy again after Brown v. Board. o Martin v. Hunters Lessee: Supremacy clause and state Courts Facts: British subject, Virginia citizen leaves land to nephew, also British subject, also dies, leaves to Martin (lord Fairfax). After Revolutionary war, VA passes a law saying land of traitors is forfeit and goes to loyal subjects. Some of this land goes to Hunter. o However, this contravenes the Paris Treaty of 1783. Hunter brings ejection action, Fairfax says Treaty of Paris! VA courts says it doesnt apply. Supreme Court performs appellate review, says no, treaty of paris signed into law prior to giving land to Fairfax. Case goes back down and VA Court of Appeals says: SCOTUS has no power over us. Discussion: The constitution creates separate spheres for the state and fed govs and they cant touch each other, according to VA. Article III speaks of cases when referring to federal question jurisdiction, not Courts o VA responds, if you want Supreme Court to exercise this, create lower federal courts and start case their or removal to federal court. Good policy arg, but doesnt really address the actual wording or art III. Virginia is part of the Union, and what that means is to have the constitution apply to it and intrude upon it. The plan of the constiution contemplates a federal judicial rule to superintend how state judges honor their obligations under the supremacy clause. Taflin, Testa, and the Madisonian compromise: all deeply connected to this issue.

o Murdoch: The Erie of Appellate Review Facts: Murdoch leaves land to city, contingent on use as a naval depot. Land goes to United States, then back to City of Memphis. Murdoch sues in TN state court to get land back, loses. Appeals to Supreme Court. State law issues: did initial conveyance create a reversionary interest, did that interest contemplate returning of land from Fed gov. to Memphis. Also, did statute of limitations run? Federal Question: If Murdoch is right about theory of reversionary interest and statute of limitations had not run: Whether the Act which ceded land back to the city, did it convey it with the reversionary interest built in. Discussion Holding: Supreme Court has no power to review state law questionsconstruction of the initial conveyanceso they just hit the federal question o But, that limit was deleted! In an amendment to the judiciary act of 1789. Court says this would be such a radical change, Congress would have been more explicit. o Court will not presume that Congress meant a dramatic departure from traditional federal jurisdiction unless it has made it extremely clearclear statement rule. o Generally, Court tends to read jurisdictional statutes narrowly. Murdoch Rule: Supreme Court does not have to dismiss for want of jurisdiction if a federal question exists. It just cant reach the merits of state law questions. Thus, if addressing federal question would have no impact on the case and it should be dismissed. There are times when the question is sufficiently interwoven with federal law but thats not the case here. Takeaway- Statustory grant interpreted as saying Supreme Court doesnt have presumptive jurisdiction to take state law questions it can take Federal Question provided that resolving it will change outcome of the case. Day 4- 1/25- AISG- Direct Review Adequate and Independent State Law Ground AISG Did the state Court decisions rest on an AISG? Fox Film: Supreme Crts Authority to review state decisions o RULE: Court does not have jurisdiction to review if state court decision rested on an issue of state law where the state law is

independent of the federal ground and adequate to support the judgment. o Rationale: given Murdoch, nothing SCOTUS says about federal question in case that rests on AISG will effect the outcome. The Supreme Court reviews judgments, not opinions. o Discussion: Is the arbitration clause separable from the rest of the contract does this violate the Shearman Anti-trust Act? State Supreme Court only ruled on the severability issue, and ruling on that was an AISG. Given this, it doesnt matter whether the contract is valid under the Shearman Act. Key Point: when doing ASIG analysis, the question is not whether some ASIG exist out there, the question is whether there is an AISG supporting the decision actually rendered. Cardinalli v. Louisiana : Federal Question must be properly raised below o Whether the federal question was properly presented is a federal question itself. o If you didnt have a proper presentation requirementthere would be strange incentives about when and how to raise federal questions as a way of gaming the system to get around AISG. o Example: if you claim introduction of evidence against you violates both state and federal law, the fact that the state decided to only address the state unconstitutionality you are still okit is not an AISG. o Supreme Court always decides whether something is an AISG. If you have a state ground that was not unconstitutional but still inadequateit seems like maybe theres some federal common law at work Its a court generated question Staubo First amendment and fourteenth amendment claim regarding ordinance. Does not specify which parts of the ordinance. o Georgia Crt of Appeals says she didnt target specific provisions in the ordinance and rules that they dont meet state specific pleading requirement and thus dismisses. Rationale behind rule is saving tax dollars. State hired lawyers could burn a lot of resources defending every possible ground for invalidity. Makes litigation more efficient. o 28 USC 1257- Federal jurisdiction statute.