Outline of Subject Matter Jursidiction

What is Subject Matter Jursidiction?

· State courts are courts of general jurisdiction, empowered to hear just about every type of civil case. That is significantly different from federal courts, which are courts of limited Subject Matter Jurisdiction (result of the Madisonian Compromise).

· Very little of the business of federal courts is within their exclusive Subject Matter Jurisdiction , which has always been regarded as a prerogative of Congress. Major exceptions are federal antitrust, patent, and bankruptcy.

· Whether a federal court can as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction depends upon two sources of authority: (1) Article III of the Constitution conferring judicial power on courts in the U.S. in designated categories AND (2) statutory grant of jurisdiction.

· Only certain categories, as the founders wished the new nation to speak with one voice

· Subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable or subject to party agreement. Federal judges have an independent duty to ensure that they have subject matter jurisdiction.

· Both in domestic diversity and alienage jurisdiction, most of the law applied by federal courts is State law .

Relationship between U.S. law and international law:

§ Treaties : Most unproblematic source of international law for international civil litigation

§ Self-executing vs. non-self-executing:

§ Self-executing Treaties automatically have status as federal Law binding in domestic litigation

§ Non-self-executing treaties require legislative implementation to be binding in domestic litigation in U.S. litigation. Note that even though they require legislative implementation, violation of the treaty will still likely violate international law

§ Executive agreements: similar to treaties, but recent developments may mean they have little impact in domestic litigation.

§ A treaty has the effect of superseding any prior statute. However, a subsequent domestic federal statute may also supersede it. There is a rule that presumes that Congress does not legislative in contravention of international law (Charming Besty)

§ Customary International Law : Whether Customary International Law (defined as general consistent practice of substantially all concerned states followed out of a sense of legal obligation) is automatically legally binding in U.S. courts or only when accepted as with federal Common law .

More about this outline:

Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A. Sources of SMJ:
i. Alienage (i.e. Diversity)
ii. Fed Qt.- “arising under”
iii. FSIA
iv. ATS
B. Alienage (i.e. Diversity Jurisidiction)
i. allows Foreigners to use US courts to sue US Citizens
ii. still have to have both Const. & Statutory authority (every time dealing w/ jurisdiction must have these)
iii. 3 main sources of Alienage Jurisdiction:
1. Const. Art. 3- very broad just have to have a state v. foreign state
2. § 11 of Judiciary Act of 1789- empowered fed courts to hear any case in which ‘an alien’ is a party
3. Thompson v. Bowerbank 1809- Sup. Ct. narrowed the scope of alienage jurisdiction
a. can’t use Fed Courts in alien v. alien- must be alien v. us citizen
b. note: can still have alien v. alien in US courts under Alien Tort Statute (ATS)
iv. Alienage Jurisdiction Codified the 3 sources above into 28 USC § 1332 (Diversity Statute)
1. § 1332(a)(2)- requires complete diversity US citizen v. alien
a. US-P v. Foreign D= yes have jurisdiction
b. Alien v. Alien= no
c. 2 US Ps v. Alien= yes
d. TX P & Austria P v. France D & GA D (aliens on both side of ‘v’)= no under complete diversity
i. note: probably ok under subsection 3 below
2. § 1332(a)(3)- requires only minimal diversity
a. TX P & Austria P v. GA D= yes (all from diff states)
b. *** aliens on both sides of the ‘v’=
i. majority: most lower courts say that presence of foreigner on both sides doesn’t kill diversity if they are diverse domestic citizens who are legitimately interest parties
ii. minority: 2nd & 11th Cir require complete diversity
c. **Germany & NY v. Germany & NJ= same split as above
i. foreigners are always from same pot so majority says this is ok there is diversity???
d. permanent resident aliens- if foreigner has permanent residence in US then treated as a US citizen
3. Hercules, Inc v. Dynamic Export Corp- 2nd Cir.
a. 1st suit: Hercules (DL) & HITCO (foreign) v. Dynamic (NY)- have complete diversity
b. 2nd suit: counterclaim by Dynamic (NY) who joins HMC (foreigner) v. Hercules & HITCO- court held that joinder of HMC destroyed diversity b/c have 2 aliens on both sides
c. Dynamic claims that under 1332(c) that HITCO, who has principle place of bus. in DL, should be considered DL not Bahamas
d. court didn’t decide anwer this b/c Dynamic loses automatically b/c said 1332(c) creates dual citizenship (its PPB “and” where incorporated) not alternative citizenship (i.e. PPB “or” incorp.)
i. regardless of PPB HITCO is incorp. in foreign corp. so diversity destroyed
C. Federal Question (“arising under” ) Jurisdiction in International Cases
i. most significant aspect of Federal Court’s SMJ involves actions “arising under” federal law
ii. Const. authority- Art. 3- allows any claim by alien
1. so the hard part is satisfy statutory authority
iii. Statutory Authority
1. ATS (originally the Judiciary Act of 1789)- concurrent jurisdiction w/ Fed & State courts
2. 28 USC § 1331- “arising under Const., laws, or treaties of US”
a. what constitutes “arising under”
i. Rule 8- short plan statement
ii. Twombly- heightened the standard to plausibility- a simple assertion not enough, must back up claim w/ enough facts so that each element of the cause of action is backed up w/ facts
1. this was only applied to antitrust suits (debatable)
2. Iqbal said Twombly applied to all case; not just antitrust
3. FSIA- grants Fed & Dist. Courts concurrent jurisdiction over civil actions against foreign states & state-related entities
iv. Federal Common law another grant of SMJ??
D. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts Under Alien Tort Statute – 28 USC § 1350
i. dist. ct. have jurisdiction over any civil action by an alien for a tort only committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of US
1. 3 elements of ATS:
a. an alien sues (only applies to suits by aliens- not US citizens)
b. for a tort
c. that was committed in violation of the law of nations or US treaty
ii. for final: if Alien wanting to get into US courts- look to ATS
iii. see Hypo on TWEN- Lecture on ATS
iv. Key Cases:
1. Sosa- ATS doesn’t create causes of action; strictly grants jurisdiction over traditional law of nation claims
a. Facts: Sosa, a doctor who kept DEA agent alive while he was tortured, was kidnapped in Mexico by Mexican nationalists & brought to US. Sosa brought suit against kidnappers in US.
b. Issue: whether short-term arbitrary detention violated international norm?
c. a lot of scholars believe that in order to violate “law of nations” (i.e. customary international law) it must be a shocking crime- Vega thinks this is too limited
2. Filartiga “torture by official” violates law of nations thus falling w/ ATS
a. Facts: relatives of deceased (all foreign) brought suit against Paraguayan Police officers for torture & murder
i. issue was whether the torture violated the “law of nations” in order to fall w/in ATS
b. Holding: yes, an act of torture committed by a state official against 1 held in detention violates established norms of international law of human rights, & hence the law of nations.
i. torture is a well recognized norm of international law
ii. note: if it had been a private citizen then no ATS- had to be state actor- torture by govt. is what violates law of nations
E. Fed. Question Jurisdiction Under Art. III & FSIA
i. Art. III “arising under”
1. customary international law = law of nations = federal law??
a. so claims “arising under” customary international law are also said to “arise under” federal law & therefore fall w/in 1331 (Fed Qt.)
i. Filartiga, Sequiha, Rest. 3d § 111(2) provide that cases arising under international law are within the grant of federal SMJ under Art. III & 28 USC 1331
1. therefore if falls w/in international law then will have SMJ b/c satisfy const. & statutory authority
2. note: to satisfy 1331 have to satisfy “well pleaded complaint” rule
2. treaties under 1331 are federal law
3. other international agreements arise under 1331 & Art. III
4. CIL arises under 1331 & Art. III
ii. 3 Sources of International Law under Art. VI:
1. treaties- are federal law
a. self-executing- becomes law as soon as signed
b. non self-executing- statute must be passed before treaty becomes law
c. if treaty is in conflict w/ statute- last in time rule applies whichever passed last wins
2. Other international agreements- are federal law under Res. 3d § 111
a. i.e. Resolutions, Conventions
3. Customary International Law (CIL)
a. 2 theories regarding CIL:
i. modernist (majority view)- a determination of int’l law by US Supreme Court is binding on the state courts

Author: admin

Author: admin

Mentioned in these Entries

Alien Tort Statute, Common law, Customary International Law, Law binding, State law, Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Treaties.