Congressional power over the jurisdiction of federal courts: The meaning of the word "all" in Article III

Duke Law Journal

Volumn 59, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 929-954

  Fletcher, William A ^a  

^a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77954854600     PISSN: 00127086     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Letter from Samuel Adams to Richard Henry Lee (Dec. 3, 1787), in 4 THE WRITINGS OF SAMUEL ADAMS 324 (Henry Alonzo Cushing ed., 1908).
2. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8 (giving Congress only power "herein granted").
3. See, e.g., Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 431-32 (1793) (Iredell, J., dissenting) (stating that "controversies" was never intended to include criminal proceedings).
4. 1 ST. GEORGE TUCKER, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES app. note E, at 420-21 (Phila., William Young Birch & Abraham Small 1803) (Noting that the word "controversies" was understood to mean civil cases).
5. JOSEPH STORY, 3 COMMENTARIES ON THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 536 n.2 (Boston, Hilliart Gray & Co. 1833).
6. Peter S. Du Ponceau, Provost, Law Acad. of Phila., A Dissertation on the Nature and Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, Valedictory Address to the Students of the Law Academy of Philadelphia (Apr. 22, 1824), in A DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES (Phila., Abraham Small 1824).
7. For discussion, see William A. Fletcher, The "Case or Controversy" Requirement in State Court Adjudication of Federal Questions, 78 CAL. L. REV. 263, 266-67 (1990).
8. James E. Pfander, Rethinking the Supreme Court's Original Jurisdiction in State-Party Cases, 82 CAL. L. REV. 555, 605-10 (1994), both arguing that "controversies" meant only civil cases.
9. But see Robert J. Pushaw, Article III's Case/Controversy Distinction and the Dual Functions of Federal Courts, 69 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 447, 460-64 (1994) (Disputing this interpretation of "ases" and "controversies")
10. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 2.
11. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816).
12. 1 WILLIAM WINSLOW CROSSKEY, POLITICS AND THE CONSTITUTION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES 614-15 (1953).
13. Akhil Reed Amar, A Neo-Federalist View of Article III: Separating the Two Tiers of Federal Jurisdiction, 65 B.U.L. REV. 205 (1985) [hereinafter Amar, Neo-Federalist].
14. See also Akhil Reed Amar, Marbury, Section 13, and the Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 443 (1989) [hereinafter Amar, Original Jurisdiction].
15. Akhil Reed Amar, The Two-Tiered Structure of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 138 U. PA. L. REV. 1499 (1990).
16. Akhil Reed Amar, Reports of My Death Are Greatly Exaggerated: A Reply, 138 U. PA. L. REV. 1651 (1990).
17. For thoughtful criticisms of Professor Amar's argument, see Daniel J. Meltzer, The History and Structure of Article III, 138 U. PA. L. REV. 1569 (1990).
18. Martin H. Redish, Text, Structure, and Common Sense in the Interpretation of Article III, 138 U. PA. L. REV. 1633 (1990).
19. 1 MAX FARRAND, THE RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, at 125 (1911).
20. Angle brackets indicate emendations in Rutledge's handwriting. Parentheses indicate material crossed out.
21. (Footnote omitted) (noting that the words "in disputes between a State & a Citizen or Citizens of another State" were a "[m]arginal note").
22. (Noting that the words in parentheses were crossed out in the original draft, that the words in italics are additions by Wilson, and that emendations by Rutledge are in single brackets 〈 〉 ).
23. 1 JULIUS GOEBEL, HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, ANTECEDENTS AND BEGINNINGS TO 1801, at 205-06 (1971).
24. Professor Farrand writes similarly, "To one who is especially interested in the judiciary, there is surprisingly little on the subject to be found in the records of the convention.".
25. MAX FARRAND, THE FRAMING OF THE CONSTITUTION 154 (1913).
26. THE FEDERALIST NO. 82, at 450 (Alexander Hamilton) (E.H. Scott ed., 1898).
27. 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 831 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
28. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73.
29. 4 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1789-1800, at 22 (Maeva Marcus ed., 1992) (Containing a section-by-section comparison)
30. 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 783-84, 796-820, 820-34 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
31. 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 796-804 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
32. GEORGE C. ROGERS, EVOLUTION OF A FEDERALIST: WILLIAM LOUGHTON SMITH OF CHARLESTON 1758-1812, at 98 (1962).
33. 1 ANNALS OF CONG. 801 (Joseph Gales ed., 1834).
34. Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 9, 1 Stat. 73, 76-77.
35. See 4 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1789-1800, at 53-57
36. § 9, 1 Stat. at 76.
37. See United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 33-34 (1812).
38. (Arguing that federal courts do not have any common law jurisdiction that increases their jurisdiction beyond that given by the Constitution or Congress).
39. § 9, 1 Stat. at 77.
40. 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (2006).
41. Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).
42. § 11, 1 Stat. at 78-79.
43. See 4 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1789-1800, at 58-63
44. § 4, 1 Stat. at 74-75.
45. § 11, 1 Stat. at 78-79.
46. § 13, 1 Stat. at 80-81.
47. See 4 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, 1789-1800, at 69-71
48. § 13, 1 Stat. at 80. For a particularly useful historical analysis of Section 13.
49. § 13, 1 Stat. at 80.
50. See Judiciary Act of 1801, ch. 4, §§ 7, 11, 2 Stat. 89, 90, 92 (repealed 1802).
51. Judiciary Act of 1801, ch. 4, 2 Stat. 89 (repealed 1802).
52. § 10, 2 Stat. at 92.
53. § 11, 2 Stat. at 92.
54. 10 ANNALS OF CONG. 894 (1851).
55. Osborn v. Bank of the U.S., 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824).
56. Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916).
57. 10 ANNALS OF CONG. 895 (1851).
58. See, e.g., Gelston v. Hoyt, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 246, 325-26 (1818). This sentence was eliminated after the Civil War, but the Court refused to expand its jurisdiction to questions of general law present in the case.
59. See Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590, 617, 635-36 (1875).
60. De Lovio v. Boit, 7 F. Cas. 418, 418 (C.C.D. Mass. 1815) (No. 3776).
61. See, e.g., Note, Extension of Federal Jurisdiction over State Canals, 37 AM. L. REV. 911, 916 (1903).
62. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 331 (1816).
63. Robert N. Clinton, A Mandatory View of Federal Court Jurisdiction: A Guided Quest for the Original Understanding of Article III, 132 U. PA. L. REV. 741 (1984).
64. Martin, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) at 333-34.
65. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (2006) (securities).
66. (Natural gas); 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (2006) (crimes against the United States); 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) (2006) (bankruptcy).
67. (Copyright, patent, and plant variety); 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e) (2006) (ERISA).
68. 28 U.S.C. § 1351.
69. There is an enormous academic literature on jurisdiction stripping. Excellent recent articles include Steven G. Calabresi & Gary Lawson, The Unitary Executive, Jurisdiction Stripping, and the Hamdan Opinions: A Textualist Response to Justice Scalia, 107 COLUM. L. REV. 1002 (2007).
70. Laurence Claus, The One Court that Congress Cannot Take Away: Singularity, Supremacy, and Article III, 96 GEO. L.J. 59 (2007).
71. John Harrison, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts and the Text of Article III, 64 U. CHI. L. REV. 203 (1997).
72. James E. Pfander, Federal Supremacy, State Court Inferiority, and the Constitutionality of Jurisdiction-Stripping Legislation, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 191 (2007).
73. James E. Pfander, Jurisdiction-Stripping and the Supreme Court's Power to Supervise Inferior Tribunals, 78 TEX. L. REV. 1433 (2000).
74. Excellent earlier articles include Paul M. Bator, Withdrawing Jurisdiction from Federal Courts, 7 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 31 (1984).
75. Gerald Gunther, Congressional Power to Curtail Federal Court Jurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide to the Ongoing Debate, 36 STAN. L. REV. 895 (1984).
76. Leonard G. Ratner, Congressional Power over the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, 109 U. PA. L. REV. 157 (1960).
77. Martin H. Redish & Curtis E. Woods, Congressional Power to Control the Jurisdiction of Lower Federal Courts: A Critical Review and a New Synthesis, 124 U. PA. L. REV. 45 (1975).
78. Lawrence Gene Sager, The Supreme Court, 1980 Term-Foreword: Constitutional Limitations on Congress' Authority to Regulate the Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 95 HARV. L. REV. 17 (1981).
79. The classic article is Henry M. Hart, Jr., The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, 66 HARV. L. REV. 1362 (1953).
80. CHARLES L. BLACK, JR., THE PEOPLE AND THE COURT: JUDICIAL REVIEW IN A DEMOCRACY 34 (1960).