Outline of Alienage Jurisdiction

A. Alienage Jurisdiction

Definition:Allows suits between U.S. plaintiff and alien defendant in federal court.

Rationale: Lawsuits involving aliens and Americans were thought to carry the risk of offending foreign states-and thus had the potential of interfering with U.S. foreign relations, so Founders wanted U.S. courts to speak with one voice on such cases.

Statutory & Constitutional Grant:

Art III grant of “cases between a state, or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” SC has never decided whether there must be complete diversity for Alienage diversity jurisdiction. BURBANK confident that the SC would find, differently from domestic DJ, that complete diversity is not required.
Statutory grant of 28 USC § 1332(a)(2). (NB Hercules an attempt to avoid the traditional interpretation.)

Removal: §1441 Must be able to have been brought in federal court originally.

Given that there is and always has been Subject Matter Jurisdiction in alienage cases, if a foreign defendant is haled into state court, so long as the amount in controversy is met, the defendant can remove the case to federal court.

Diversity Requirements:

In Strawbridge, SC said that complete diversity is not constitutionally mandated therefore, Congress can change in a statute
Hodgson v. Bowerbank: Decision foreclosed jurisdiction in cases involving aliens on both sides of the dispute on constitutional grounds. This has made courts doubly reluctant to permit statutory jurisdiction in cases involving aliens on both sides. Thus, it has been a consistent view of the courts that under §1332(a)(2) a federal court cannot assert jurisdiction in a case where a citizen and alien sue an alien.
After 1948: Congress enacted §1332(a)(3): diversity between “citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties.” To grant jurisdiction where a citizen of one U.S. state and a foreign citizen were aligned against the citizen of a second U.S. State (NY and France v. PA; however, many lower courts have also allowed Germany & PA v. France and NY. But see Hercules)
1332(c)(1) provides that a corporation will be deemed citizen of the State in which it is incorporated and in which it has its principal place of business. A corporation cannot choose of which state it is a citizen, it is a citizen of both.
1332(a) had a provision added in 1988. For the purpose of this section, an alien admitted in the U.S. for permanent resident is deemed a resident of such state in which the alien is domiciled.

· Ex. Suit by Cuban citizen domiciled in Florida against Floridian citizen. There would have been alienage jurisdiction prior to this provision, but no longer, which makes sense because there is no concern over bias (there is a huge Cuban community in Florida). The purpose was to cut down on diversity in similar types of cases.

Hercules v. Dynamic Export Corp. (SDNY, 1976)

Aliens on both sides: no diversity jurisdiction

Facts:

§Del. & Bahamas v. NY. NY party wanted to join Iran in counterclaim-does Subject Matter Jurisdiction exist?

§The argument was made by the parties that the Bahamian corporation should be treated as a De. corporation based on 1332(c).

Holding/Rule:

The presence of aliens on both sides of the controversy will defeat diversity jurisdiction

Burbank and Born

§Court does not discuss 1332(a)(3) providing jurisdiction in suits involving citizens of different States and in which citizens of foreign states are additional parties. If we were following a Scalia view of statutory interpretation we would find jurisdiction. The basis for saying there is no jurisdiction is the supposed statutory requirement of complete jurisdiction.

§Therefore, its purpose and its language is that there should be jurisdiction in this case.

Author: admin

Author: admin

Mentioned in these Entries

Subject Matter Jurisdiction.