3 ms·

This is exactly what I am arguing. There is no reading where Laws of the United States refers exclusively to U.S. Code. As I said, to show that I'm wrong, one

This is exactly what I am arguing. There is no reading where Laws of the United States refers exclusively to U.S. Code. As I said, to show that I'm wrong, one only needs to provide a valid parsing of the sentence where United States refers exclusively to a monolithic entity known as the federal government (note that "federal" does not appear anywhere in the document). If you look at the other usages of United States in the document, it becomes even more clear that it refers to the States as a collective and not to a separate entity. The other thing someone could show that would prove me wrong, is a Particular Case that the US Supreme Court will never be able to hear. I haven't seen anyone even attempt to show such a case. Some hypotheticals and lots of pushing words around, but no actual Case.

pdabbadabba 11y ago
Federal courts, including the U.S. supreme court refuse to hear cases for lack of jurisdiction all the time. As in, many times every day. At the Supreme Court, one place to see this is in the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds, that applies when reviewing decisions of a state's highest court. Here is the Wikipedia page on that concept with several citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state_ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state... For other federal courts, one relevant concept is "federal question jurisdiction." (So called, because raising a "federal question," is synonymous with presenting a case that arises under the "laws of the United States.") Here is a classic case on that issue (though it is much more complex than necessary to prove the present point.) Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.htm... Here is a relevant quote (though if you really want to learn how this all works, I recommend reading the entire case carefully): > "We find it unnecessary to consider other objections to the maintenance of these three bills, or of any of them, because we are clearly of opinion that each suit is not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of which the circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction, either original, or by removal from a state court, under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866. 25 Stat. 434." And here is a more quotidian example: Lake v. Malone, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162711, at 2 (D.S.C. May 6, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162159 (D.S.C. June 1, 2011) > “This case is subject to summary dismissal because the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of this court's limited jurisdiction, and there is no other possible basis for federal jurisdiction evident from the face of the pleading. There is no viable federal question alleged and there is no apparent diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants. > Generally, a case can be originally filed in a federal district court if there is “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or “diversity of citizenship” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir.1998). Since federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction. Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 337 (1895). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears ... that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”). “[T]he facts providing the court jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir.1988) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (1)requires that the complaint provide “a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends[.]” If, however, the complaint does not contain “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis, the federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” Pinkley, Inc., 191 F.3d at 399 (citing 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 8.03[3] (3d ed.1997)). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir.1999). If the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id.” By the way, you're right in one small, interesting respect: "laws of the United States" does not just refer to the U.S. Code. It also refers to federal regulations, federal common law, state-law claims bound up in the same dispute as a federal-law claim where the state-law issues do not predominate, and the very rare state law issue that raises significant federal interests. As you can see, lawyers and judges have given this phrase a lot of thought over the years. And don't forget that Art III does also allow cases under state law to be brought in federal courts when the litigants are from different states. But you remain quite wrong that Art III, and the term "laws of the United States," refers to all laws in the United States, whether state of federal, as the two cases above clearly demonstrate. If I were wrong about this, I would have done very poorly in my Federal Courts class in law school.
- jsprogrammer 11y ago
  Do you know where I can find the three bills that Gray references in his opinion? As far as I can tell from reading his opinion, his argument is a purely syntactical one: the language of the original bills does not contain a reference that the court understands and is therefore not a Case. It appears the Supreme Court only heard the case because a circuit court took the case out of the Tennessee courts before they issued a final ruling, not because the Plaintiffs actually brought the case to them [SC]. The case does not appear to have been dismissed with prejudice. It was dismissed on a technicality of the language in the original suits (which, I believe, were never originally intended to be pursued outside of some Tennessee court). Without access to the language in those original suits though, I can't say much more.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    I'm afraid not. Though it may be possible to find them through some more thorough Googling than I've attempted. Note, though, that the bills are probably not literal documents. "Bill," in the somewhat antique terminology used in the opinion. referred to what we would probably now call a "claim." But in any event, this case makes clear that the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) will not hear cases that arise under state law. >In each of the three cases now before this Court, the only right claimed by the plaintiffs is under the law of Tennessee, and they assert no right whatever under the Constitution and laws of the United States. In the first and second bills, the only reference to the Constitution or laws of the United States is the suggestion that the defendants will contend that the law of the state under which the plaintiffs claim is void, because in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, and by the settled law of this Court, as appears from the decisions above cited, a suggestion of one party that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws. In the third bill, no mention is made of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any right claimed under either, and no statement in the petition for removal or in the demurrer of the defendant corporation can supply that want under the existing act of Congress. > The result is that in the first and second cases, the decrees must be reversed at the cost of the plaintiffs, and the cases remanded to the circuit court of the United States with directions to dismiss the bills for want of jurisdiction, and that in the third case, the decree must be reversed at the cost of the defendants, and the case remanded to the circuit court of the United States with directions to remand it to the state court from which it was removed. What this is saying is that on all three claims, the asserted cause of action arises under Tennessee law, so they cannot hear it. The fact that the defendants may make constitutional arguments in response to the first two claims is not enough to trigger federal jurisdiction. The entire case revolves around whether the Supreme Court is able to hear the case in spite of the fact that the claims asserted y the plaintiff are state-law claims only. A notable case that came out the other way is Osborn v. Bank of the United States, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/738/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/738/case.html, where the court concluded that it could hear a case involving only state-law claims, but only because the defendant was a bank of the United States (note, by the way, that this means a federal bank, as opposed to, e.g., a Tennessee state bank) and thus, pursuant to one of the exceptions I mentioned several messages ago, the Supreme Court could hear it because it involved distinctly federal interests. But here too, the whole question was whether a federal court was empowered to hear this case since it involved only state-law claims. The premise being, of course, that ordinarily a federal court cannot hear such claims. Consider this sentence from Osborn: > We think, then that when a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the Constitution forms an ingredient of the original cause, it is in the power of Congress to give the circuit courts jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved in it. This would be a very silly thing to write if the Constitution extended "the judicial power of the Union" to all cases. I have directed you to many other sources that say the same thing. I can also tell you (though perhaps you won't believe me, or will not care) that this--the fact that federal courts have limited powers and typically can only hear cases involving federal law, or cases where the parties are from different states--is very basic knowledge for any lawyer who practices regularly in federal court.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

Federal courts, including the U.S. supreme court refuse to hear cases for lack of jurisdiction all the time. As in, many times every day. At the Supreme Court, one place to see this is in the doctrine of adequate and independent state grounds, that applies when reviewing decisions of a state's highest court. Here is the Wikipedia page on that concept with several citations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state_ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adequate_and_independent_state... For other federal courts, one relevant concept is "federal question jurisdiction." (So called, because raising a "federal question," is synonymous with presenting a case that arises under the "laws of the United States.") Here is a classic case on that issue (though it is much more complex than necessary to prove the present point.) Tennessee v. Union and Planters' Bank, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/152/454/case.htm... Here is a relevant quote (though if you really want to learn how this all works, I recommend reading the entire case carefully): > "We find it unnecessary to consider other objections to the maintenance of these three bills, or of any of them, because we are clearly of opinion that each suit is not one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of which the circuit court of the United States has jurisdiction, either original, or by removal from a state court, under the Act of March 3, 1887, c. 373, as corrected by the Act of August 13, 1888, c. 866. 25 Stat. 434." And here is a more quotidian example: Lake v. Malone, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162711, at 2 (D.S.C. May 6, 2011) report and recommendation adopted, No. CA 3:11-824-CMC-PJG, 2011 WL 2162159 (D.S.C. June 1, 2011) > “This case is subject to summary dismissal because the allegations contained in Plaintiff's Complaint do not fall within the scope of either form of this court's limited jurisdiction, and there is no other possible basis for federal jurisdiction evident from the face of the pleading. There is no viable federal question alleged and there is no apparent diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the defendants. > Generally, a case can be originally filed in a federal district court if there is “federal question” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or “diversity of citizenship” under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir.1998). Since federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, there is no presumption that the court has jurisdiction. Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir.1999) (citing Lehigh Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Kelly, 160 U.S. 337 (1895). Accordingly, a federal court is required, sua sponte, to determine if a valid basis for its jurisdiction exists, “and to dismiss the action if no such ground appears.” Bulldog Trucking, 147 F.3d at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“Whenever it appears ... that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.”). “[T]he facts providing the court jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.” Davis v. Pak, 856 F.2d 648, 650 (4th Cir.1988) (citing McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). To this end, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) (1)requires that the complaint provide “a short plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends[.]” If, however, the complaint does not contain “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis, the federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” Pinkley, Inc., 191 F.3d at 399 (citing 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 8.03[3] (3d ed.1997)). Although the absence of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time during the case, determining jurisdiction at the outset of the litigation is the most efficient procedure. Lovern v. Edwards, 190 F.3d 648, 654 (4th Cir.1999). If the court, viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, finds insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id.” By the way, you're right in one small, interesting respect: "laws of the United States" does not just refer to the U.S. Code. It also refers to federal regulations, federal common law, state-law claims bound up in the same dispute as a federal-law claim where the state-law issues do not predominate, and the very rare state law issue that raises significant federal interests. As you can see, lawyers and judges have given this phrase a lot of thought over the years. And don't forget that Art III does also allow cases under state law to be brought in federal courts when the litigants are from different states. But you remain quite wrong that Art III, and the term "laws of the United States," refers to all laws in the United States, whether state of federal, as the two cases above clearly demonstrate. If I were wrong about this, I would have done very poorly in my Federal Courts class in law school.

jsprogrammer 11y ago
Do you know where I can find the three bills that Gray references in his opinion? As far as I can tell from reading his opinion, his argument is a purely syntactical one: the language of the original bills does not contain a reference that the court understands and is therefore not a Case. It appears the Supreme Court only heard the case because a circuit court took the case out of the Tennessee courts before they issued a final ruling, not because the Plaintiffs actually brought the case to them [SC]. The case does not appear to have been dismissed with prejudice. It was dismissed on a technicality of the language in the original suits (which, I believe, were never originally intended to be pursued outside of some Tennessee court). Without access to the language in those original suits though, I can't say much more.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  I'm afraid not. Though it may be possible to find them through some more thorough Googling than I've attempted. Note, though, that the bills are probably not literal documents. "Bill," in the somewhat antique terminology used in the opinion. referred to what we would probably now call a "claim." But in any event, this case makes clear that the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) will not hear cases that arise under state law. >In each of the three cases now before this Court, the only right claimed by the plaintiffs is under the law of Tennessee, and they assert no right whatever under the Constitution and laws of the United States. In the first and second bills, the only reference to the Constitution or laws of the United States is the suggestion that the defendants will contend that the law of the state under which the plaintiffs claim is void, because in contravention of the Constitution of the United States, and by the settled law of this Court, as appears from the decisions above cited, a suggestion of one party that the other will or may set up a claim under the Constitution or laws of the United States does not make the suit one arising under that Constitution or those laws. In the third bill, no mention is made of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any right claimed under either, and no statement in the petition for removal or in the demurrer of the defendant corporation can supply that want under the existing act of Congress. > The result is that in the first and second cases, the decrees must be reversed at the cost of the plaintiffs, and the cases remanded to the circuit court of the United States with directions to dismiss the bills for want of jurisdiction, and that in the third case, the decree must be reversed at the cost of the defendants, and the case remanded to the circuit court of the United States with directions to remand it to the state court from which it was removed. What this is saying is that on all three claims, the asserted cause of action arises under Tennessee law, so they cannot hear it. The fact that the defendants may make constitutional arguments in response to the first two claims is not enough to trigger federal jurisdiction. The entire case revolves around whether the Supreme Court is able to hear the case in spite of the fact that the claims asserted y the plaintiff are state-law claims only. A notable case that came out the other way is Osborn v. Bank of the United States, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/738/case.html https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/22/738/case.html, where the court concluded that it could hear a case involving only state-law claims, but only because the defendant was a bank of the United States (note, by the way, that this means a federal bank, as opposed to, e.g., a Tennessee state bank) and thus, pursuant to one of the exceptions I mentioned several messages ago, the Supreme Court could hear it because it involved distinctly federal interests. But here too, the whole question was whether a federal court was empowered to hear this case since it involved only state-law claims. The premise being, of course, that ordinarily a federal court cannot hear such claims. Consider this sentence from Osborn: > We think, then that when a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the Constitution forms an ingredient of the original cause, it is in the power of Congress to give the circuit courts jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved in it. This would be a very silly thing to write if the Constitution extended "the judicial power of the Union" to all cases. I have directed you to many other sources that say the same thing. I can also tell you (though perhaps you won't believe me, or will not care) that this--the fact that federal courts have limited powers and typically can only hear cases involving federal law, or cases where the parties are from different states--is very basic knowledge for any lawyer who practices regularly in federal court.