Common Law And Federal Jurisdiction: A Complex Relationship

Federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives federal courts in the United States the authority to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the US is a party. This jurisdiction is derived from Article III of the US Constitution and statutes such as 28 USC 1331. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article III broadly, allowing federal courts to hear cases with any federal element. While federal common law can be applied by federal courts in certain circumstances, it does not automatically grant them authority to formulate it. For federal question jurisdiction to exist, the plaintiff's complaint must reference a federal question or issue, and the case must arise under federal law.

Federal common law claims

The concept of federal common law claims is closely tied to federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that empowers federal courts to preside over civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the US Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the US is a party. This jurisdiction is outlined in Article III of the US Constitution and further codified in 28 USC 1331.

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's initial complaint must explicitly reference the federal question and issue. This is known as a well-pleaded complaint. The federal question must be evident in the complaint and cannot arise solely in an anticipated defense based on the Constitution or federal statute.

While federal question jurisdiction often serves as the basis for constitutional claims in federal court, it is just one of several categories of cases that federal courts are authorised to hear. Federal common law claims can play a role in invoking federal question jurisdiction when the plaintiff's claim involves an alleged violation of federal common law or a federal rule of decision.

Federal question statute

Federal question jurisdiction is one of the two ways a federal court can gain subject matter jurisdiction over a case. The other way is through diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the US Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the US is a party.

Article III of the US Constitution permits federal courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. This is further supported by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which created the lower federal court system. However, it initially did not grant lower federal district courts federal question jurisdiction. Instead, litigants could file lawsuits involving federal laws or the Constitution in state courts, with the Supreme Court having appellate jurisdiction.

The federal question jurisdiction statute is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which outlines the requirements for federal question jurisdiction. The statute gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases that "arise under" federal law. This requirement has been interpreted narrowly by the Supreme Court, which has found that a "suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action." This means that only suits based on federal law are likely to create federal question jurisdiction, excluding state lawsuits.

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain references to the federal question and the federal issue at hand. This is known as the "well-pleaded complaint" rule, which states that the federal question cannot arise in an anticipated defense but must be presented from the outset. The Grable Test, a two-part test established in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing, is often used to determine federal question jurisdiction. The test evaluates whether the claim has a "'federal ingredient'" and meets the requirements for 28 USC 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Federal question cases

The scope of federal question jurisdiction was clarified by significant Supreme Court cases, such as Osborn v. Bank of the United States (1824), where the Court interpreted Article III, Section 2 broadly, allowing federal courts to hear any case with a "federal ingredient". Another case, American Well Works v. Layne (1916), established that a "suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action", indicating that suits based on federal law are more likely to create federal question jurisdiction.

To establish federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain references to the federal question and the federal issue at hand. This is known as a "well-pleaded complaint". The federal question cannot arise in an anticipated defense but must be presented from the outset. Federal question cases may involve claims of actual or threatened invasion of the plaintiff's constitutional rights by an act of public authority.

Federal courts can also hear federal common law claims in certain circumstances, as established by the Supreme Court. These circumstances include situations where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests or where Congress has granted the courts the power to develop substantive law. An example of this is Cannon v. Univ. of Chicago (1979), where the Court's inquiry focused on whether a judge-made rule would effectuate the intent of Congress.

Federal court jurisdiction

Federal question jurisdiction is one of the two ways a federal court can gain subject matter jurisdiction over a case, the other being diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases that arise under federal laws, the Constitution, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. This is based on Article III of the US Constitution, which states that the judiciary's powers extend to "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority".

For a federal court to gain federal question jurisdiction, the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain references to the federal question and the federal issue evoked. The federal question must be presented from the initial complaint and cannot arise in an anticipated defense. The federal question statute requires a well-pleaded complaint, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that a "suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action". This means that only suits based on federal law are likely to create federal question jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article III broadly, finding that it allows federal courts to hear any case in which there is a federal ingredient. This includes cases involving claims of an actual or threatened invasion of the plaintiff's constitutional rights by an act of public authority. The "arising under" clause provides the main textual basis for the implied power of federal courts to review the constitutionality of legislation and government actions.

While federal common law can be applied by federal courts in certain circumstances, it does not in itself give rise to the authority to formulate federal common law. Federal courts primarily create and apply federal common law in two circumstances: where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, or where Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law.

Constitutional claims

Federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives federal courts the power to hear civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the US Constitution, federal law, or a treaty to which the US is a party. This is outlined in Article III of the US Constitution, which permits federal courts to hear such cases, provided that the US Congress passes a statute to that effect.

Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution outlines the judiciary's powers and limits, stating that:

> "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

This means that federal question jurisdiction can be used as the basis for constitutional claims brought in federal court. These cases may involve claims of an actual or threatened invasion of the plaintiff's constitutional rights by some act of public authority. The "arising under" clause provides the main textual basis for the implied power of federal courts to review the constitutionality of legislation and other government actions.

To meet the requirement of a case "arising under" federal law, the federal question must be evident in the plaintiff's initial complaint. This means that the plaintiff's initial complaint must contain references to the federal question and the federal issue evoked. The federal question and issue cannot arise in an anticipated defense; it must be presented from the outset. This is known as a "well-pleaded complaint".

While federal common law can be applied by federal courts in certain circumstances, it does not, in and of itself, give rise to the authority to formulate federal common law. Federal courts primarily create and apply federal common law in two circumstances: where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, or where Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law.

Frequently asked questions