Fed Courts HOLDINGS

Sheldon v. Sill

Having the right to prescribe, Congress may withhold from any court of its creation jurisdiction of any of the enumerated controversies.

Ex Parte McCardle

Although the SCOTUS’s appellate jurisdiction is derived from Article III, it is conferred subject to whatever exceptions Congress chooses to make, so Congress can take away jurisdiction.

You cannot inquire into the motives of the legislature in passing jurisdiction-stripping statutes.

**distinguish bc original jurisdiction avenue still open.

Ex Parte Yerger

Repeals of jurisdiction by implication are not favored.

Felker v. Turpin

Implied repeals of SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction are disfavored, in the context of stripping circuit courts of review of habeas claims by immigrants detained abroad.

United States v. Klein

Congress may not use its authority over jurisdiction to prescribe a rule of decision in a particular case. Alternately, when Congress uses jurisdiction stripping to exercise a power it does not ordinarily have, this is unconstitutional.

Robertson

Despite a statute naming a pending case by docket number in the text of the statute, Congress is permitted to amend the statute without violating the Constitution.

Bank Markazi

Congressional law directing which bank accounts to pursue judgments from for a particular class of cases is merely amending the law instead of deciding the case.

Patchak v. Zinke (PLURALITY) (Thomas)

Congress violates Article III when it compels findings or results under old law. But Congress does not violate Article III when it changes the law.

Patchak (Ginsburg, Sotomayor)

This case is really about sovereign immunity — legislature can determine the scope of sovereign immunity, and that’s what they did here.

Patchak (Roberts Dissent)

The framers were concerned with the ability of the legislature to be able to impact the federal courts. Congress exercises the judicial power when it manipulates jurisdictional rules to decide the outcome of a particular pending case. Here, when the only thing left to do is dismiss, the constitution is violated.

Battaglia

Congress has the authority to enact legislation that withdraws the jurisdiction of federal and state courts so long as it does not cause a deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

St. Cyr

If a statute did actually strip all federal and state courts of jurisdiction over habeas claims of aliens ordered removed, this would raise a serious suspension clause issue.

Scalia dissent - magic words

Boumediene (Jurisdiction Stripping Holding)

Legislation which prohibited federal and state courts from entertaining habeas corpus and all other actions by alien enemy combatant detainees unconstitutionally restricted the guarantee of the privilege of habeas corpus in the Suspension Clause.

Crowell

Administrative findings of some facts may be made conclusive upon the courts, if not infected with any error of law, as a basis for judicial enforcement of money liability of one private person to another.

Benefit of inexpensive resolution of highly specified, fact-intensive disputes.

Determination of jurisdictional facts, questions of law, and constitutional facts, there must be Article III court available.

Freytag

Tax courts perform a judicial function, despite being a non-Article III court.

Kuretski v. Commissioner

Despite Freytag, the tax court exercises a quasi-judicial function and part of the executive power, which explains why the President can remove tax judges.

Cantor

Territorial courts are permissible because they are not a state yet and are being managed by virtue of Congress’ Article III power to make all needful rules and regulations respecting territories.

Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken (1856)

Matters involving public rights may be presented in non-Article III courts.

Thomas v. Union Carbide

Legislative courts are permissible for disputes that are closely related to government regulatory activities.

Binding arbitration for pesticide manufacturers

CFTC v. Schor

A public right exists where resolution of a claim by an expert Government agency is deemed essential to a limited regulatory objective within the agency’s authority.

Reparations for people who are harmed by brokers.

Northern Pipeline (PLURALITY)

Private rights disputes, including contract disputes, cannot be reviewed by a non-Article III tribunal.

Not adjuncts because rulings were not confined to particular area of law, broad scope of jurisdiction, issuing self-executing orders, and clearly erroneous standard of review.

Stern v. Marshall

Private rights disputes cannot be heard by bankruptcy court. No jurisdiction to hear common law claim for fraudulent interference with a gift.

Hudson & Goodwin

No federal criminal common law. Separation of powers and federalism justify it.

Swift v. Tyson

Under the RDA, while federal courts must follow the statutes of the state and the courts’ interpretation of those statutes, federal courts are not bound by judge-made common law of the states.

Taxicab Case

Corporation wanted favorable federal law permitting monopolies instead of state law, so they reincorporated to sue in federal court. Demonstrates issues with Swift regime.

Erie

Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state, including common law.

Boyle

Federal common law making is permissible in areas where there is a uniquely federal interest, including federal government contractors.

HYPOCRITE CASE B/C SCALIA IS MR. FIX IT AND BRENNAN IS MORE FORMALIST

Hinderlider

Apportionment of water to an interstate stream is a matter of federal common law; decided the same day as Erie, this is understood to signify that Erie’s scope is limited to general federal common law.

Borak (1964)

High watermark of implied causes of action which implied duty of the courts to assume remedies consistent with the statute’s purpose. SEC Act

Cannon

A court may infer statutory right to pursue claim where (1) member of class, (2) legislative intent, (3) private remedy does not frustrate legislative intent, and (4) not encroaching into area left to states.

Title IX case.

Sandoval

Look to the text and structure of a statute to determine if a private right of action exists. Title VI disparte impact case.

Bivens

Violations of the Fourth Amendment by a federal agent give rise to a cause of action for damages resulting from the violation.

Davis v. Passman

Plaintiff can bring Bivens action for violation of Fifth Amendment DPC for being fired on the basis of gender.

Carlson v. Green

High water mark of Bivens. Upheld Bivens action for Eighth Amendment violation for failure to provide medical attention in prison.

United States v. Stanley

Bivens does not apply to injuries that arise out of military service.

Ziglar v. Abbasi

Expanding Bivens is a disfavored judicial activity and should only be allowed when the judiciary is well suited, absent Congressional action/instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.

Bivens came about when the court more readily implied causes of action.

Bivens did not apply to individuals who faced immigration charges being detained without bail in maximum-security prison.

Hernandez v. Mesa

Without express statutory authorization, United States officials cannot be liable for violating constitutional rights of foreign nationals in foreign country.

Bivens applying to new class of plaintiffs. Factors counsel against hesitation with border.

Oil States

Public rights extends to grants of public franchises, such as patents.

Egbert v. Boule

Bivens does not apply to search and retaliation claims occurring at U.S.-Canada border.

Bush v. Lucas

Bivens does not apply when someone fired person but he had access to Civil Service Commission Appeals Review board because this was Congress providing for anotehr remedy.