Federal Courts

Article III Section 1

Vests the judicial power of the United States in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish (Establishes the federal judiciary and provides life tenure and salary protection for judges)

Article III Section 2

Enumerates the nine specific types of cases and controversies to which the federal judicial power extends (Limits federal jurisdiction to specific subject matters and parties)

Judiciary Act of 1789

Created the three-tiered federal court system and established the initial jurisdiction of federal courts (Laid the foundation for the modern federal judicial structure and created circuit riding)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Established the power of judicial review (Held that the judicial branch has the final authority to interpret the Constitution and declare congressional acts unconstitutional)

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816)

Confirmed the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law (Ensures uniformity of federal law across state and federal systems)

Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

Reaffirmed Supreme Court review of state court criminal judgments involving federal questions (Established that state sovereign immunity does not bar SCOTUS review of state criminal convictions)

Justiciability

The quality that makes a dispute a "case" or "controversy" suitable for adjudication (Limits federal courts to deciding actual disputes rather than hypothetical or political ones)

Advisory Opinions

Opinions on abstract legal questions without a genuine dispute between adverse parties (Prohibited by Article III's case-or-controversy requirement)

Declaratory Judgment

A binding judgment defining legal rights without ordering immediate enforcement (Permitted only if there is a definite and concrete dispute between parties with adverse legal interests)

Hayburn's Case (1792)

Established that federal courts cannot perform non-judicial duties or have their judgments subject to executive or legislative revision (Foundational case for the finality of judgments and separation of powers)

Standing

The doctrine determining if a specific litigant is the proper party to bring a lawsuit (Requires injury in fact

Injury in Fact

A concrete and particularized

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)

Clarified the requirements for Article III standing (Held that plaintiffs must show a concrete injury

Causation (Standing)

The injury must be "fairly traceable" to the defendant's challenged conduct (Ensures the defendant is actually responsible for the harm)

Redressability (Standing)

A favorable court decision must be likely to remedy the injury (Ensures the court's order will not be futile)

Massachusetts v. EPA (2007)

Recognized state standing to challenge federal inaction on greenhouse gases (Held that states are entitled to "special solicitude" in standing analysis due to their quasi-sovereign interests)

City of Los Angeles v. Lyons (1983)

Limited standing for injunctive relief against police practices (Held that past injury does not confer standing for prospective injunctions absent a real and immediate threat of future injury)

Allen v. Wright (1984)

Denied standing to parents challenging tax exemptions for segregated schools (Held that the injury was not fairly traceable to the government's conduct but to independent third parties)

Clapper v. Amnesty International (2013)

Tightened the "imminence" requirement for future injury in surveillance cases (Held that threatened injury must be "certainly impending" to constitute injury in fact)

Spokeo v. Robins (2016)

Clarified that a bare procedural violation of a statute does not automatically satisfy Article III standing (Held that a plaintiff must allege a "concrete" harm even if a statute grants a right to sue)

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez (2021)

Further limited standing in statutory violation cases (Held that only plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation have Article III standing to recover damages)

Third-Party Standing

Generally prohibited practice of raising the rights of others (Permitted only if there is a close relationship and a hindrance to the third party asserting their own rights)

Singleton v. Wulff (1976)

Allowed physicians to assert the rights of patients in abortion funding cases (Established the exception for close relationships and obstacles to third-party assertion)

Taxpayer Standing

Generally prohibits standing based solely on status as a taxpayer (Prevents citizens from challenging government spending based on generalized grievances)

Flast v. Cohen (1968)

Created a narrow exception for taxpayer standing in Establishment Clause challenges (Allowed challenges to congressional spending under Article I Section 8 that violates specific constitutional limitations)

Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (2007)

Limited Flast to legislative enactments (Held that taxpayer standing does not extend to discretionary executive branch expenditures)

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United (1982)

Denied taxpayer standing to challenge property transfers (Held that Flast does not apply to exercises of the Property Clause)

Mootness

The doctrine requiring a controversy to exist at all stages of review (Requires dismissal if the dispute is resolved or the plaintiff loses their personal stake)

Voluntary Cessation (Mootness Exception)

A defendant's voluntary stop of challenged conduct does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear the behavior cannot recur (Prevents defendants from manipulating jurisdiction by temporarily stopping illegal acts)

Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw (2000)

Applied voluntary cessation doctrine to civil penalties (Held that a case is not moot if the defendant cannot prove the misconduct will not recur)

Capable of Repetition

Yet Evading Review

Ripeness

Doctrine preventing premature adjudication (Requires a case to be sufficiently developed factually and the threat of enforcement to be real)

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner (1967)

Established the two-part test for ripeness (Evaluates the fitness of issues for judicial decision and the hardship to parties of withholding court consideration)

Political Question Doctrine

Prevents courts from deciding issues textually committed to other branches or lacking manageable judicial standards (Preserves separation of powers by avoiding policy choices)

Baker v. Carr (1962)

Established the six factors for identifying political questions (Held that legislative apportionment is a justiciable equal protection issue

Luther v. Borden (1849)

Held that the Guarantee Clause presents a nonjusticiable political question (Established that whether a state government is "republican" is for Congress

Goldwater v. Carter (1979)

Treated treaty termination as a political question (Plurality held that the President's authority to unilaterally terminate treaties is nonjusticiable)

Nixon v. United States (1993)

Held that Senate impeachment procedures are nonjusticiable (Found that the Constitution gives the Senate the "sole power" to try impeachments)

Zivotofsky v. Clinton (2012)

Held that the status of Jerusalem in passports is not a political question (Distinguished between deciding the political status of Jerusalem and interpreting a federal statute regarding passports)

Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

Held that partisan gerrymandering is a nonjusticiable political question (Found no manageable standards for courts to determine fairness in political map drawing)

Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and those in which a State is a party (Derived directly from Article III and cannot be expanded or contracted by Congress)

28 U.S.C. § 1251

Statute defining the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (Makes jurisdiction exclusive for controversies between states and concurrent for others)

Federal Question Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331)

Grants district courts jurisdiction over actions "arising under" the Constitution

Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824)

Defined the constitutional scope of "arising under" jurisdiction (Held that Article III allows jurisdiction whenever a federal question forms an "ingredient" of the original cause)

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley (1908)

Established the "Well-Pleaded Complaint" rule (Held that the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's proper complaint

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Requires the federal issue to be part of the plaintiff's cause of action (Prevents removal or jurisdiction based solely on federal defenses)

Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum (1950)

Applied the well-pleaded complaint rule to declaratory judgments (Held that jurisdiction exists only if the hypothetical coercive suit would have arisen under federal law)

Declaratory Judgment Act (28 U.S.C. § 2201)

Authorizes federal courts to declare rights but does not expand jurisdiction (Requires an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction)

Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust (1921)

Recognized jurisdiction for state-law claims embedding significant federal issues (Held that a state claim turning on the constitutionality of federal bonds arises under federal law)

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v. Thompson (1986)

Limited "embedded" federal question jurisdiction (Held that a federal violation as an element of a state tort does not confer jurisdiction if Congress created no private federal remedy)

Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue (2005)

Clarified the test for embedded federal questions (Held that jurisdiction exists if the federal issue is necessarily raised

Gunn v. Minton (2013)

Applied Grable to legal malpractice involving patents (Held that a state malpractice claim did not arise under federal law because the patent issue was not "substantial" to the federal system)

Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh (2006)

Distinguished Grable in a federal contract dispute (Held that a federal government contract dispute did not inherently present a substantial federal question under § 1331)

Diversity Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332)

Grants jurisdiction over civil actions between citizens of different states involving over $75

Strawbridge v. Curtiss (1806)

Established the "Complete Diversity" rule (Held that no plaintiff can be a citizen of the same state as any defendant)

Citizenship of Individuals (Diversity)

Determined by domicile (Defined as physical presence with the intent to remain indefinitely)

Citizenship of Corporations (28 U.S.C. § 1332(c))

Determined by place of incorporation and principal place of business (Allows corporations to be citizens of multiple states)

Hertz Corp. v. Friend (2010)

Defined "principal place of business" as the "nerve center" (Held that the PPB is where the corporation's high-level officers direct

Amount in Controversy

Must exceed $75

Aggregation of Claims

Rules for combining claims to meet the amount in controversy (A single plaintiff can aggregate all claims against a single defendant

multiple plaintiffs generally cannot aggregate unless enforcing a joint interest)

Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1367)

Allows federal courts to hear related state claims (Codified the doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction)

United Mine Workers v. Gibbs (1966)

Established the constitutional test for supplemental jurisdiction (Held that state and federal claims must derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact")

28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)

Limits supplemental jurisdiction in diversity cases (Prohibits claims by plaintiffs against parties joined under Rules 14

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services (2005)

Interpreted § 1367 regarding amount in controversy (Held that if one plaintiff meets the amount

Owen Equipment v. Kroger (1978)

Restricted ancillary jurisdiction in diversity cases (Held that a plaintiff cannot assert a claim against a non-diverse third-party defendant)

Removal Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1441)

Allows defendants to move a case from state to federal court (Available only if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction)

Forum Defendant Rule (28 U.S.C. § 1441(b))

Limits removal in diversity cases (Prevents removal if any defendant is a citizen of the state where the action is brought)

Exceptions Clause (Art. III

§ 2)

Ex Parte McCardle (1869)

Upheld congressional withdrawal of habeas appellate jurisdiction (Held that Congress can strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over a specific class of cases

United States v. Klein (1871)

Limited congressional power to dictate outcomes (Held that Congress cannot use jurisdiction stripping to prescribe a rule of decision in a pending case or interfere with the pardon power)

Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society (1992)

Distinguished Klein (Held that Congress can amend substantive law affecting pending cases

Bank Markazi v. Peterson (2016)

Upheld a statute targeting specific assets in a pending case (Held that Congress may direct the application of new law to pending cases even if it affects the outcome)

Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm (1995)

Prohibited Congress from reopening final judgments (Held that separation of powers prevents Congress from requiring courts to reopen decided cases)

Article I Courts (Legislative Courts)

Courts created by Congress under legislative powers (Judges lack life tenure and salary protection)

Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land (1856)

Established the "Public Rights" doctrine (Held that Congress can assign matters involving public rights

Crowell v. Benson (1932)

Upheld administrative adjudication of private rights (Allowed agencies to decide factual issues in maritime claims with Article III appellate review)

Northern Pipeline v. Marathon (1982)

Struck down the broad jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts (Held that non-Article III judges cannot adjudicate traditional state-law contract claims)

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor (1986)

Upheld agency jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims (Used a balancing test weighing the intrusion on Article III against the congressional interest in efficiency)

Stern v. Marshall (2011)

Limited bankruptcy court authority (Held that bankruptcy judges cannot enter final judgment on state common law counterclaims not central to the bankruptcy process)

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group (2018)

Upheld administrative patent review (Held that patents are public franchises

Rules of Decision Act (28 U.S.C. § 1652)

Requires federal courts to apply state law in cases where they apply (The statutory basis for the Erie doctrine)

Swift v. Tyson (1842)

Established the regime of "General Federal Common Law" (Held that federal courts were not bound by state court decisions on general commercial law)

Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938)

Overruled Swift v. Tyson (Held that federal courts sitting in diversity must apply state substantive law

Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1945)

Established the "Outcome-Determinative" test (Held that federal courts should apply state rules if disregarding them would significantly affect the litigation's outcome)

Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electric (1958)

Introduced the "Balancing of Interests" test (Weighed the federal interest in jury trials against the state interest in its specific procedures)

Hanna v. Plumer (1965)

Established the test for conflicts between Federal Rules and state law (Held that valid Federal Rules of Civil Procedure control over conflicting state law

Rules Enabling Act (28 U.S.C. § 2072)

Authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate procedural rules (Valid rules must not "abridge

Shady Grove v. Allstate (2010)

Addressed conflict between Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and state class action bans (Plurality held Rule 23 controls if it answers the same question as the state law)

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric (1941)

Applied Erie to conflict of laws (Held that federal courts in diversity must apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state)

Federal Common Law

Judge-made federal law used when necessary to protect uniquely federal interests (Permitted in limited areas like interstate disputes and federal proprietary interests)

Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States (1943)

Applied federal common law to federal commercial paper (Held that the rights and duties of the US on its commercial paper are governed by federal law)

Boyle v. United Technologies (1988)

Created the "Government Contractor Defense" (Held that federal common law displaces state tort law when it conflicts with significant federal interests in procurement)

Kimbell Foods (1979)

Test for adopting state law as the federal rule of decision (Considers need for uniformity

Implied Rights of Action

Private remedies inferred by courts from federal statutes (Requires a determination of congressional intent to create both a right and a remedy)

Cort v. Ash (1975)

Established factors for implying rights of action (Looked to whether the plaintiff is the beneficiary

Alexander v. Sandoval (2001)

Restricted implied rights of action (Held that without clear congressional intent to create a private remedy

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971)

Recognized an implied cause of action for constitutional violations by federal officers (Allowed damages for 4th Amendment violations)

Carlson v. Green (1980)

Extended Bivens to 8th Amendment violations (Allowed Bivens remedy even where FTCA remedy existed)

Ziglar v. Abbasi (2017)

Restricted the expansion of Bivens (Held that courts should not extend Bivens to "new contexts" if "special factors" counsel hesitation)