FEDERAL JURISDICTION
COCHRAN
FALL 2005
Conservatives will do anything to get rid of a case: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, ??
Liberals want everything to be litigated: Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, & Breyer.
Title 28 - Jurisdiction. Title 42 - Causes of Action.
28 USC § 1331 - Fed Q - Cases “arising under” Con, laws, & treaties. (From Art III).
28 USC §§ 2201-2202 - Fed Cts can grant and enforce declaratory judgments.
42 USC § 1981 -
42 USC § 1983 - Applies when a defendant acts under the color of state law (or the state), deprives any citizen of the US of any rights secured under the Con or law (i.e.-ADA). D shall be liable in either law or equity.
I.JUSTICIABILITY
Standing: Whether a plaintiff can properly bring a matter before a court. PBOP.
a.3 Requirements:
- Injury in fact: Plaintiff must have actually suffered a “distinct & palpable” injury (judicially cognizable). Injury must be actual or imminent, not hypothetical.
- Just b/c someone is hurt, doesn’t mean this Plaintiff is injured in fact.
- Causation: Injury must be “fairly traceable” to the Defendant’s conduct.
- Redress: Plaintiff must show that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
- “Next Friend Standing”: When a third party is allowed to stand in for the person who is actually injured and bring suit.
- “Next friend” must have some close, special relationship with the real party in interest.
- The real party in interest can’t bring suit.
- Ex: Whitmore, 495 U.S. 149: Guy in jail with death penalty, didn’t want to appeal. A fellow inmate wanted to appeal on his behalf.
- Held - (1) no relationship, (2) Prisoner could bring suit.
- Kozlowski, 125 S. Ct. 564: Similar facts, but public defenders bring suit challenging statute that deprives Ds who confess to lawyers. CtState.
- Hamdhi: Public defender brought suit saying Hamdhi should have counsel. Here Hamdhi had no access to a L (distinguished Whitmore).
- Held - L had no “special relationship,” but Dad could bring suit.
- Newdow: Since mom had legal custody, so Dad couldn’t sue to protect child’s legal interests.
Allen v. Wright: Parents of black school kids (Wright) brought class action against IRS commissioner. IRS Code (Congress) allowed certain organizations to be tax exempt, but only if the org did not discriminate. IRS had regs to determine if org discriminated. Ps sued to have the IRS’s regs made stricter. Sought declaratory jmt under 28 USC 2201 & injunction (inherit power).
-ISSUE - Should individuals be allowed to “run” an agency pursuant to Art. III power?
-JURISDICTION - Fed Q (1331), “arising under” 42 USC 1981 (private person preventing blacks from contracting in violation of civil rights. Violation - badge of slavery. Note - XIV Amendment can’t be used to stop discrimination by private person).
- Exact same suit couldn’t have been brought in state court. McClung, 19 US 598 (holding that state courts can’t issue orders against federal officials).
-Mootness: After suit was filed, IRS changed the regs . . . did this make the case Moot?
- For a case to be mooted (dismissed) by the voluntary cessation of illegal conduct, it must be absolutely clear that the illegal conduct won’t reoccur.
- NOTE - IRS could change the regs back at any time. (i.e.-Reagan elected)
- City changes an ordinance - too easy to change back, not moot. Mesquite, 455 US 283. See also Milwaukee, 192 F. Supp. 2d 899; But see . . .
- If a legislature changes a statute, and the new law moots a case - It is moot. WV, 532 US 598. § 1988 says prevailing Ps get atty. fees . . . if mooted, NO FEES. Id.
- Therefore, if you are afraid a case will get mooted on you, you should think up some way to have damages (more than just a dec action/injunction). Not moot if damages.
-Standing: Injury in fact, causation, and redressability.
- Ps claimed Injuries -
- (1) Black kids were stigmatized by discrimination.
- HELD - This was only judicially cognizable injury for the kids who were denied equal treatment (i.e.-tried to get in and were kept out).
- Just b/c govt. violates law, doesn’t mean there is standing.
- (2) Denied the right to be educated in a desegregated school.
- HELD - This was a judicially cognizable injury.
- Causation - Ps injury (2) was not “fairly traceable to the IRS’s conduct.”
- IRS didn’t cause the injury (i.e.-segregation of schools).
- Redressability - Ps prayed for relief might have redressed the injury of helping integrate the schools b/c it would be more expensive to run non-exempt school.
MOOTNESS
A)For a case to be mooted (dismissed) by the voluntary cessation of illegal conduct, it must be absolutely clear that the illegal conduct won’t reoccur.
i)Congress/State Legislature changes statute, it is moot.
ii)City council or govt. agency (IRS) changes ordinance/reg, it IS NOT moot.
B)Ways to prevent your suit from getting mooted out.
i)Organizational suit - Ass’n sues on behalf of members. Hunt v. Washington Apple - 3 Req’ts for standing (if “member” is mooted, put up another one).
(1)A member of organization must have “injury in his own right” (e.g.-loss of business by a particular member in Hunt)
(a)You must specifically plead in the complaint that a particular member was injured, how so, and by the D’s violation of what law.
(b)It can’t be some business merely masquerading around as an association.
(2)Suit must be germane to organization’s purpose (ie.-protect WA apple producers)
(3)The suit isn’t one that requires the individual member to sue.
(a)Suit for damages requires an individual member.
(b)Suit for an injunction does not require an individual member.
(c)Also, while the other two requirements can’t be waived by Congress, this one can . . . (not required by art. III).
ii)Class Actions under FRCP 23(b)(3): After a class is certified, it can no longer be mooted away. Mooted as to representative P, another P takes his place. Sosna.
(1)Certify a class - Numerous Ps, common Qs of law/fact predominate . . . factors.
(2)If certification was denied, and while it was waiting appeal it was mooted, but the denial was then reversed, the case is not mooted.
(a)E.g.-prisoners challenging parole stds. Cert. Denied, then paroled - rev, not moot.
iii)Capable of Repetition by evading review (fairly rare/limited) 2 Req’ts
(1)The type of injury is one that is limited in time so that the cases won’t be litigated before the injury is over, and
(2)This type of injury is likely to happen to this same plaintiff again.
(a)E.g. - Roe v. Wade: limited duration (9mos), likely to happen again.
(b)E.g. - Super Tire Eng’g: Workers get welfare on strike, E/er challenges statute. Limited duration, RPP would believe that this will happen to P again
(c)E.g. - Weinstein: P suing over parole laws (not a class). Paroled. It is moot b/c you can’t presuppose that your client will break the law again. See Lyon.
Pap’s Am, 529 US 277: No nude dancing law. Ordinance was struck down. During appeal, Pap’s Am closes business and moves. Moot since P is gone? No b/c city is damaged by the law being struck down. If ordinance was upheld and P closed, it would’ve been moot.
. . . Back to standing
C)Jus Tertii Standing - 3d party standing - When the Plaintiff argues someone else’s rights.
i)The plaintiff has suffered an “injury in fact.”
ii)There is some close relationship between your client and those whose rights you are arguing.
(1)Atty./Client R’ship isn’t “close”
(2)Dr/patient is.
iii)There must be some impediment or hindrance on the absent person’s right to sue.
(1)This requirement has some teeth.
E.g.-Griswold: Dr sued saying that law preventing birth control to couple was uncon. He argued their rights. His injury - loss of $ from not prescribing drugs.
D)Generalized Injury: When practically everyone is injured in a similar way, no one has standing.
i)The mere fact that the govt. has violated the law doesn’t confer standing
ii)E.g. - Wright (aid to discriminatory schools, hurts all public the same), Ex Parte Levitt (sued b/c Hugo Black’s appointment), Schlesinger (P sued b/c reservists in the Congress were being promoted), Richardson (CIA wouldn’t release budget, violated law) In all of these, all citizens were equally injured . . . no suit.
E)Taxpayer Standing as an exception to generalized injury:
i)Requirements to have Federal and State Taxepayer standing. Flast
(1)Must be challenging a Congressional Act; not agency’s actions or Executive Act
(a)Valley Forge - Army gave away hospital to church school; Executive’s Act.
(2)Must be challenging the act under the “spending clause”; not some other constitutional provision
(a)Also, it must be a significant expenditure
(b)E.g.-Richardson & Valley Forge - didn’t use Art I, § 8.
(3)Nexus: The must be a logical link b/t taxpayer status and the legislative enactment attacked.
(4)Plaintiff must show that the spending violated a specific constitutional provision
(a)E.g. - Establishment Clause
ii)Municipal Taxpayer suit challenging municipality’s use of funds
(1)This is different b/c it is easier to track funds in a town.
(2)Req’t: Taxpayer must show how tax dollars were “misspent” according to the law. (e.g.-Duremas - couldn’t show that tax $ paid for Bible study at school).
F)Standing by a political entity (i.e.-a state): parens patriae - 2 times -
i)Govt. is suing based on its interest in the health and well-being, both physical and economical, of its residents in general; OR
(1)E.g.-to stop pollution or anti-trust laws.
ii)To ensure that the state and its residents are not excluded from the benefits that flow from participation in the federal system. Snapp & Son v. Puerto Rico
(1)No standing example: Mellon v. Mass.: Like Frothingham, but Mass. Was suing to have maternity act uncon (Mass $ went to other states) . . . No standing.
G)Legislator: Just b/c you lose a vote, you don’t have standing.
i)You may have standing if there is an issue as to whether a tie was properly broken
. . . Cochran Summing up Standing . . .
H)Lujan: Ps suing b/c of U.S. policy of not stopping international funds for projects that may harm endangered species. Organizational case under Hunt.
i)Injury in fact: Not met b/c Ps couldn’t show that they would go there and be injured by the destruction of the animals.
(1)Fact that they would go “in the future” was speculative . . . plane ticket=standing
(2)Whale Watching & Laidlaw - Could show that they would use it for recreation.
ii)Causation & redressability: Funding was so small, that it wasn’t likely that if P won and the govt. no longer funded the projects that the projects would be stopped.
iii)Generalized injury: Not following law injured all the same. Not particularized injury.
I)3 Requirements:
i)Injury in fact: Must be (a) particularized to the P, distinct and palpable or (b) imminent. The injury can’t be mere speculation.
(1)Note, Congress can’t do away with this requirement, but it can define injury very broadly. E.g.-Fair Housing cases.
(2)Imminent: If a person is “likely” to be exposed (and thereby injured) to toxic fumes because she works near a sewage plant, she has standing. LeFleur (2d Cir).
(a)But, merely owning land adjacent to a sewage plant isn’t enough for injury. (Another Lujan case).
(3)Environmental cases: Showing that you use the land for recreation is enough for standing, but it must not be mere speculation. Laidlaw. (Lujan - buy ticket).
(a)E.g.-Georgetown students suit. RR rates higher for recyclable material. Students didn’t have standing b/c it “may” cause increased logging.
(4)Injury by Govt. agency or statute: Anytime you allege that you are injured by the actions of a govt. agency or statute, Plaintiff must not only show injury in fact, but P must also show that he is meant to be protected or regulated by the agency/law.
(a)Data Processing Ass’n. It isn’t often used, but it is out there (Cochran).
(5)Food & Drug Safety suits: Chance of exposure to mad cow disease confers injury (and therefore standing). Might have been speculative - ct wanted to hear it.
(6)Equal Protection: Where public parks were exclusively allowed to be used by segregated private schools, non-segregated schools were injured. City of Montgomery (Direct deprivation of right to equal use).
ii)Causation: P’s injury must be fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct.
(1)Not the result of an individual 3d party’s conduct (Allen - IRS didn’t cause the school to be segregated; therefore, didn’t matter if a law change would redress injury).
iii)Redressability: P must prove that his injury is likely to be redressed by the requested relief. Can’t be speculative.
(1)Simon: Hospitals could receive tax-exempt status w/out having to treat indigent pursuant to IRS reg. Ps were denied treatment and sued to have the revenue ruling changes. Ct said, “Not likely that Ps would get trmt by changing ruling.”
(2)Equal Protection: Usually you can show injury (lost $ b/c affirmative action, kept out of school, etc).
(a)For redressability, P doesn’t have to show that “but for” the affirmative action, P would’ve gotten the contract, in school, etc. Ass’n Gen K’ors.
(3)Linda: Texas law - don’t pay child support, dad goes to jail for 6 months, but it only applies to father’s of legitimate kids. Mom of bastard sued.
(a)Marshall - Speculative b/c winning won’t make it likely mom gets $; just jail.
(4)Civil fee paid to the US: D being forced to pay a civil penalty may still redress P’s injury. Amount likely to insure that D won’t violate the law again. Laidlaw.
Fifth Circuit Taxpayer suits: S Ct has really limited taxpayer suits to Est. Clause cases arising from a specific Congressional use of the Spending Clause.
*“Choose Life” plates - Ps sued b/c she couldn’t express her “pro-choice” VP - Ct said that it was not redressable b/c even if Ps won (tag uncon), it wouldn’t guarantee them a tag. Also, no taxpayer standing b/c Ps couldn’t show that tax dollars were spent on the tags.
But see South Carolina - VP discrimination confers standing automatically.
*Foster, Louisiana law - Drs. are liable for all damages caused by giving an abortion. P said it was an undue burden on religion. But, there was no state actor to sue b/c there was no govt. actor who enforced the law . . . 5th Cir kicked it out.
General stuff on standing:
*If you have standing under state law, but you appeal to S Ct, you must also satisfy federal standing.
*Ct will sometimes just grant standing so they can get to the merits. E.g.-Duke power (Ct just wanted to uphold nuclear power law limiting liability). Baur (P sued b/c USDA allowed downed cattle to be slaughtered. Found standing even though general and speculative).
*Better plead injury with particularity and then build a record.
Chapter 2: Federal Common Law
(1) Court first decides what law to apply: Federal Law or State Law.
(2) Then the Court decides whether to apply Federal Common Law or “Borrow” state law
Lincoln Mills: Labor Mgt Relations Act provides for federal jurisdiction over disputes b/t unions and companies. Act never said whether state law or federal law applied. Ct allowed federal C/L:
(1) There is a high federal interest in labor relations.
(2) There is a need for uniformity
I)United States as a Party (When does fed law apply?)
A)LakeMisere: US bought land pursuant to the migratory bird act. K said that if mineral rights weren’t used, they went to the govt. Then, LA passed a law stating that the mineral rights can’t go to US.
i)What law applies?
(1)Typically, state law applies to land deals.
(2)But here the govt. had a “high federal interest” because the litigation was determining the rights & obligations of the United States under a K.
(a)ONLY govt. Ks with high federal interests are construed by federal law.
(i)E.g.-The K issue relates to a federal program.
ii)Since federal law applied, should the court “Borrow” State Law?
(1)NO if:
(a)The state law is used in an “unplain” way (e.g.-weird def’n for child),
(b)State law does not discriminate against the govt, or
(c)Patently run counter to the terms of the govt. act.
iii)Desylva v. Ballentine: Copyright suit. Q-Is illegitimate a “child” for Copyright?
(1)Although Fed had exclusive jurisdiction, Ct borrowed state law.
B)Yazell: Small Business Admin makes a loan. Yazell dies and US goes after the widow’s $. Texas coverture law precluded widows from liability to creditors.
i)Ct - State law applied because there was “no need in uniformity.” Loans are usually governed by state law . . . won’t be a big burden to learn state law.
C)Clearfield Trust v. US: US govt. check was improperly cashed. US sued. Ct - Fed C/L
i)Govt. has a high Federal interest in its CP & there is a need for uniformity.
II)Suits Between Private Parties (When does Fed law apply?)
A)Parnell: Suit concerning who held ownership of Govt.’s bearer bonds. 2 private parties.
i)Rights and duties of US weren’t at stake; therefore, “no high federal interest.”
B)Boyle: Pilot went down in military helicopter. His dad brought suit against the contractor alleging defective design. Fed Ct judicially created a “military contractor” defense (if 3d party builds something to govt. specifications, can’t hold builder liable). Jurisdictional base - § 1331 . . . typically would apply state law.
i)Although b/t private parties, “uniquely federal interests.”
ii)State law was in conflict with “specific federal objectives.”
iii)Scalia used Fed C/L - Note, lobbyist hadn’t been able to push the defense through Congress . . . so they did it judicially (Activism by Conservatives).
III)Protective Jurisdiction: The federal court system has the latent power to take jurisdiction when there is a high federal interest at stake. This is used when no statute confers federal jurisdiction.
A)Osborne: OH treasurer commandeered Bank federal bank funds. US could sue although it was before a statutory grant for the govt. to sue.
B)In re Neagle: Secret service agent for Justice shot a man who attacked the Justice. Cal. Tried to prosecute him for murder.
i)State can’t bring a federal employee to trial for performing his job duties in a “reasonable manner.”
C)Tanella: DEA agent shot a druggie in the back during a struggle. NY brings manslaughter count against him. (1) Carrying out DEA duties, & (2) it was reasonable . . . therefore, he couldn’t be charged in federal court. See also Mesa.
IV)Civil Suits Against Federal Officials
A)Howard v. Lyons; Barr v. Matteo: Civil actions by states against federal officials.
i)Federal Officials carrying out his duties in good faith . . . total immunity against state civil actions that arise out of injuries incurred while carrying out duties.