Federal Courts

Professor: Monaghan (notes attribute analyses extensively to him) Semester: Spring 2017

Course Info

Federal Courts surveys the constitutional and statutory foundations of federal judicial power, focusing on tensions between federal supremacy and state sovereignty. The course is organized around two competing constitutional powers: the Marbury power of courts to declare what the law is, and the McCulloch power of Congress to legislate broadly. A recurring question is which branch — Congress, the federal courts, or state institutions — has authority to make, apply, and enforce law in a given domain.

Topics Covered

• Supreme Court review of state court decisions (§ 1257; independent and adequate state ground doctrine)
• Erie doctrine, Rules of Decision Act, and Rules Enabling Act
• Federal common law (Clearfield Trust, Boyle, Sabbatino, Lincoln Mills)
• Theories of statutory interpretation (Legal Process School vs. New Textualism)
• Federal question jurisdiction (§ 1331; well-pleaded complaint rule; Grable substantial-federal-question test)
• Supplemental jurisdiction (§ 1367; Gibbs; pendent party jurisdiction)
• Declaratory Judgment Act and Skelly Oil look-through test
• Implied private rights of action (Cort v. Ash; Alexander v. Sandoval)
• § 1983 suits against state officials (Monroe v. Pape; Monell)
• Bivens actions against federal officers
• Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity
• Ex Parte Young exception for prospective injunctive relief
• Congressional abrogation of state immunity (§ 5 of 14th Amendment; Seminole Tribe; City of Boerne)
• Habeas corpus
• Abstention doctrines (Younger, Pullman, Burford/Thibodaux, Colorado River)
• Federal officer sovereign immunity, FTCA, and APA § 702
• Standing, ripeness, and finality

Detailed Outline

I. Supreme Court Review of State Court Decisions

Establishing Appellate Jurisdiction

• Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816): S. Ct. has appellate jurisdiction over state courts on federal questions; rationale of uniformity and distrust of state courts.
• Judiciary Act § 25 requirements: (1) final judgment from highest state court; (2) federal right asserted; (3) question apparent on the face of the record.

Independent and Adequate State Ground Doctrine

• If the state court rests on a nonfederal ground that is independent of and adequate to support the judgment, S. Ct. lacks jurisdiction to review.
• Fox Film Corp. v. Muller (1935): judgment resting on both federal and nonfederal grounds — federal jurisdiction fails if nonfederal ground is independent and adequate.
• Plain Statement Rule: Michigan v. Long (1983): if state court decision does not clearly and expressly rest on an adequate independent state ground, S. Ct. presumes federal law is the basis for review.

Scope of Review of State Law Antecedent to Federal Claims

• Contract Clause antecedents: de novo (Indiana ex rel. Anderson v. Brand).
• Property antecedents: “fair or substantial basis” standard (Stop the Beach).
• Adequacy of state procedural grounds: due process invalidates state procedures that are novel, inconsistently applied, draconian, or unforeseeable.

Preservation of Federal Questions

• Cardinale v. Louisiana (1969): Court will not consider federal constitutional issues not raised below.
• Requirements: raised with “fair precision” and “in due time.”

II. Law Applied in the District Courts: Erie and the RDA/REA

Rules of Decision Act (RDA)

• Swift v. Tyson (1842): “laws of the several states” includes statutes and local usages but not state common law → federal courts free to apply “general law” to commercial transactions.
• Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938): overruled Swift; “There is no federal general common law.” State decisional law (including common law) is the law of “the several states” within the RDA.
  • Grounds: legal positivism; forum-shopping discrimination; separation of powers limit on judicial lawmaking without congressional delegation.

Rules Enabling Act (REA)

• Hanna v. Plumer (1965): when a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure covers the matter, apply it — the REA and not the RDA governs. The REA delegates to the S. Ct. the power to make rules “rationally classifiable as procedure.”
• 2d sentence of REA: rules shall not “abridge, enlarge, or modify substantive rights” — Stevens’ concurrence in Shady Grove would use this as an interpretive principle to avoid collision with state substantive policy.

Erie Framework After Hanna

1. Is there a Federal Rule (or federal statute) that directly controls? If yes, apply it (REA analysis — is it a valid exercise of rulemaking power?).
2. If no federal rule, is there a judge-made federal doctrine? Apply the twin aims of Erie: (a) forum-shopping effect; (b) inequitable administration of the law. If either aim would be frustrated by ignoring state law, apply state law (Guaranty Trust Co. v. York outcome-determinative test).
3. Countervailing federal interests (Byrd v. Blue Ridge) may justify departing from state rule even when outcome-determinative.

Key Erie cases:

• Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1945): statute of limitations is substantive under Erie; federal court cannot afford recovery if state law would not.
• Hanna v. Plumer (1965): service-of-process rule is governed by REA, not RDA.
• Gasperini v. Center for Humanities (1996): Ginsburg, J. reads Federal Rule narrowly to avoid collision with NY damages-review statute.
• Shady Grove Orthopedic v. Allstate (2010): four-Justice plurality (Scalia): Rule 23 valid under REA; Stevens concurrence adds 2d-sentence caveat.
• Semtek Int’l v. Lockheed Martin (2001): Rule 41(b) read as housekeeping rule; preclusive effect of diversity judgment governed by federal common law incorporating state preclusion law.
• Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. (1941): federal courts in diversity apply the conflict-of-laws rules of the state in which they sit.

III. Federal Common Law

Domains Where Federal Common Law Applies

• Commercial paper of the United States (Clearfield Trust, 1943): national uniformity required.
• Interstate disputes and compacts (Hinderlider): structural inference from the Constitution.
• Military contractor immunity (Boyle v. United Technologies, 1988): state tort law significantly conflicts with federal defense contracting policy.
• Act of State doctrine (Sabbatino, 1964): structural inference protecting executive’s foreign affairs power.
• Maritime law: substantive federal common law binding on state courts.
• Collective bargaining agreements (§ 301 of Taft-Hartley, Lincoln Mills): jurisdictional grant implies authority to fashion federal common law.

Choice of Law Within Federal Common Law

• Kimbell Foods (1979): presumption favoring state law unless application would frustrate identifiable federal policy.
• Apply state law to the point of preemption (Young’s one-step approach).

Alien Tort Statute

• Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain (2004): ATS is a jurisdictional statute recognizing a narrow residual judicial power to enforce well-defined law of nations norms (crimes against safe passage, protection of ambassadors, piracy, and modern-day analogues).
• Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2012): presumption against extraterritoriality limits ATS claims arising outside U.S. territory.
• Linked to: Alien Tort Statute (ATS) (28 U.S.C. § 1350)

Theories of Statutory Interpretation

• Legal Process School (Hart & Sacks): interpret statutes to serve the reasonable purposes of reasonable legislators.
• New Textualism (Scalia, Manning): only enacted text has passed bicameralism and presentment; legislative history and purpose are unreliable.
• Meltzer critique of textualism: courts must fill gaps in complex regulatory statutes; the presumption against preemption serves this function.

IV. Federal Question Jurisdiction (§ 1331)

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

• Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley (1908): P’s cause of action must itself arise under federal law; anticipated federal defenses do not suffice.
• American Well Works (1916) (Holmes, J.): Holmes test — a suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.

State Law Claims with Embedded Federal Questions

• Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (1921): federal jurisdiction where state law claim necessarily raises a substantial, actually disputed federal issue.
• Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1986): violation of a federal statute as element of state tort claim does not confer jurisdiction where Congress has not created a federal cause of action.
• Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering (2005): substantial federal question test — state law quiet title action turns on meaning of federal tax-seizure notice statute. Jurisdiction proper when federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial to the federal system as a whole, and (4) resolvable without disrupting the federal-state balance.
• Gunn v. Minton (2013): codifies Grable’s four-part test; denies jurisdiction in state malpractice suit turning on patent law.
• Linked to: Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering

Declaratory Judgment Actions

• Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum (1950): “look-through” test — jurisdiction exists only if the declaratory P could have maintained a hypothetical coercive suit arising under federal law.

Complete Preemption

• Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge (1968); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor (1987): when a federal statute preempts a field so completely that any state cause of action in the area is recharacterized as a federal one, D may remove even under a facially state-law complaint.

V. Supplemental Jurisdiction (§ 1367)

• Constitutional baseline: United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966): same “common nucleus of operative fact” = one constitutional case; federal court has power to decide state claims.
• § 1367(a): grants supplemental jurisdiction over all claims forming “part of the same case or controversy.”
• § 1367(b): in diversity-only cases, excludes claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14, 19, 20, or 24 if it would destroy complete diversity.
• § 1367(c): discretion to decline — novel/complex state law, state claim predominates, all federal claims dismissed, other compelling reasons.
• Finley v. United States (1989) overruled by § 1367(a) with respect to pendent-party jurisdiction.
• Linked to: Supplemental Jurisdiction

VI. Implied Private Rights of Action

• Cort v. Ash (1975): four-factor test — (1) P is in class meant to benefit; (2) legislative intent to create right; (3) consistency with statutory scheme; (4) not traditionally relegated to states.
• Cannon v. University of Chicago (1979): implied right from Title IX.
• Alexander v. Sandoval (2001): no private right to enforce § 602 disparate-impact regulations under Title VI. Private rights must be created by Congress; agency regulations cannot imply rights of action.
  • Only factor that matters after Sandoval: congressional intent, best evidenced by the statutory text.
• Linked to: Alexander v. Sandoval

VII. Remedies for Constitutional Violations

Bivens Actions Against Federal Officers

• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971): implied right of action and damages remedy from the 4th Amendment itself against federal officers.
• Extension to 5th Amendment equal protection (Davis v. Passman) and 8th Amendment (Carlson v. Green).
• Retrenchment: Bush v. Lucas (1983); Schweiker v. Chilicky (1988); Hui v. Castaneda (2010): no Bivens remedy when Congress has provided an alternative remedial scheme.
• Linked to: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

§ 1983 Actions Against State Officials

• Monroe v. Pape (1961): § 1983 covers state officials acting “under color of law” even if they act ultra vires state law; exhaustion of state remedies not required.
• Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978): municipalities are “persons” under § 1983 but are liable only for constitutional injuries inflicted pursuant to official policy or custom — no respondeat superior.
• Individual qualified immunity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 1982): shielded unless conduct violates clearly established law that a reasonable person would know.
• Linked to: 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Monroe v. Pape, Monell v. Department of Social Services

Standing

• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): Article III requires (1) concrete and particularized injury in fact, (2) causation, (3) redressability. Procedural injury doctrine and citizen-suit provisions cannot bypass these requirements.
• Massachusetts v. EPA (2007): States have special solicitude in standing analysis; state’s procedural right under CAA and risk of future climate harm satisfies injury requirement.
• Linked to: Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, Massachusetts v. EPA

VIII. Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity

Scope

• Hans v. Louisiana (1890): sovereign immunity extends beyond the literal text of the 11th Amendment to bar suits by a state’s own citizens.
• Ex Parte Young (1908): 11th Amendment does not bar federal injunctive relief against state officers acting ultra vires to the Constitution; the officer is stripped of state authority and treated as a private individual.
  • Limits: prospective relief only (Edelman v. Jordan, 1974); does not extend to state law violations (Pennhurst, 1984).
• Linked to: Ex Parte Young, Hans v. Louisiana

Congressional Abrogation

• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996): Congress cannot abrogate state immunity under Article I powers; overrules Union Gas.
• City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): under § 5 of the 14th Amendment, abrogation must be “congruent and proportional” to a pattern of unconstitutional state conduct.
• Nevada Dep’t of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003): FMLA’s family-leave provisions valid under § 5 because of documented history of sex discrimination.

Suits by the Federal Government and Other States

• Not barred by 11th Amendment.
• Suits against local governments also not barred (Lincoln County v. Luning, 1890; Monell).

IX. Judicial Federalism: Abstention and Related Doctrines

Pullman Abstention

• Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. (1941): where a state law issue could terminate the case and avoid a constitutional ruling, federal courts abstain to allow state courts to interpret state law first.

Younger Abstention

• Younger v. Harris (1971): absent extraordinary circumstances, federal courts must refrain from enjoining pending state criminal prosecutions; comity and federalism principles.

Burford/Thibodaux Abstention

• Burford v. Sun Oil Co. (1943): defer to unified state-court review of complex state administrative regulatory schemes.
• Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Thibodaux (1959): eminent domain — uniquely sovereign function closely tied to state policy.

Colorado River Abstention

• Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976): in parallel federal-state litigation over the same issues, federal court may defer to avoid duplicative proceedings, weighing factors including order of filing and whether federal law supplies the rule of decision.

Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283)

• General bar on federal injunctions against pending state proceedings.
• Exceptions: expressly authorized by Congress (e.g., § 1983 under Mitchum v. Foster, 1972); in aid of federal court jurisdiction; to protect or effectuate judgments.

X. Federal Officer Immunity and Sovereign Immunity Waivers

FTCA

• Waives sovereign immunity for torts by federal employees within the scope of employment, except for: (1) discretionary functions (Dalehite); (2) combatant activities; (3) injuries incident to military service (Feres).
• Westfall Act (1988): FTCA is the exclusive remedy for official-capacity federal employee torts.

APA § 702

• 1976 amendments broadly waive sovereign immunity for nonmonetary relief against federal agencies.

Qualified and Absolute Immunity

• Qualified immunity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald): objective test — clearly established law.
• Absolute immunity: legislators (speech-or-debate clause); judges; prosecutors for prosecutorial acts.
• Presidential absolute immunity (Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 1982): all acts within the outer perimeter of official responsibilities.

Key Doctrines

• Erie Doctrine
• Subject Matter Jurisdiction
• Supplemental Jurisdiction
• State Action Doctrine
• Substantive Due Process
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Ex Parte Young
• Alien Tort Statute (ATS) (28 U.S.C. § 1350)

Key Cases

• Marbury v. Madison — judicial power to declare what the law is; structural counterweight to McCulloch
• Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee — Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over state courts
• Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins — no federal general common law; state decisional law governs in diversity
• Guaranty Trust Co. v. York — outcome-determinative test for Erie
• Hanna v. Plumer — REA governs when a Federal Rule covers the matter
• Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering — substantial federal question in state law cause of action
• Alexander v. Sandoval — no implied right of action to enforce agency regulations under Title VI
• Monroe v. Pape — § 1983 covers ultra vires state official action; no exhaustion required
• Monell v. Department of Social Services — municipal liability under § 1983 requires policy or custom
• Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents — damages action against federal officers from 4th Amendment
• Ex Parte Young — federal injunction against state officer enforcing unconstitutional law
• Hans v. Louisiana — sovereign immunity bars suit by state’s own citizens
• Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife — three-part Article III standing test
• Massachusetts v. EPA — state standing; procedural injury; climate change as cognizable harm

Exam Approach

1. Supreme Court Review of State Decisions

• Is there a final judgment from the highest state court?
• Is there an independent and adequate state ground? Apply Michigan v. Long plain-statement rule.
• What is the scope of review of antecedent state law questions (de novo for contract; fair support for property)?

2. District Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction

(a) Federal Question (§ 1331)

• Well-pleaded complaint: does the claim arise under federal law on its face (Mottley; Holmes test)?
• State law claim with embedded federal question? Apply Grable four-part test.
• Complete preemption? Declaratory judgment? Apply Skelly Oil look-through test.

(b) Diversity (§ 1332)

• Complete diversity of citizenship? Amount in controversy exceeds $75,000?

(c) Supplemental Jurisdiction (§ 1367)

• Same constitutional case (Gibbs common nucleus)?
• Any § 1367(b) exclusions (plaintiff claims against Rule 14/19/20/24 parties in diversity cases)?
• Any § 1367(c) discretionary grounds to decline?

3. Choice of Law / Erie

• Is there a Federal Rule (or federal statute) that directly governs the matter? → REA analysis (Hanna): is it rationally classifiable as procedure?
• If no Federal Rule: do the twin aims of Erie (forum-shopping / unequal administration) counsel applying state law?
• If countervailing federal interests exist (Byrd), they may override the state rule.

4. Suing Government Officers

• Federal officer: Bivens claim (4th, 5th eq., 8th Amendments)? Is there an alternative congressional remedy that displaces Bivens?
• State officer: § 1983 (color of law; constitutional or federal statutory right violated)?
• 11th Amendment bar? Is the relief prospective (Ex Parte Young applies) or retrospective (barred by Edelman)?
• Monell: Is the defendant a municipality? Was the constitutional injury caused by official policy or custom?

5. Congressional Abrogation of State Immunity

• Article I power insufficient after Seminole Tribe.
• § 5 of 14th Amendment available only if legislation is congruent and proportional to documented unconstitutional state conduct (City of Boerne).

6. Implied Rights of Action

• After Sandoval, focus exclusively on whether Congress intended to create a private right and a private remedy, using the statutory text as primary evidence.
• Under § 1983, Congress must have unambiguously conferred a private right; § 1983 supplies the remedy.

7. Abstention

• Younger: Is there an ongoing state judicial proceeding? Extraordinary circumstances (bad faith, harassment)?
• Pullman: Unsettled state law that would avoid a constitutional ruling?
• Burford: Complex state regulatory scheme with unified state-court review?
• Colorado River: Parallel federal-state litigation? Apply multi-factor balancing (which court first acquired jurisdiction, whether state or federal law governs, etc.).

8. Standing

• Injury in fact (concrete and particularized; actual or imminent)?
• Causation (injury traceable to defendant’s conduct)?
• Redressability (favorable ruling would likely redress the injury)?
• Special solicitude for states (Massachusetts v. EPA)?