federal jurisdiction

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Issues

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), may a court of appeals review any issue in an order to remand a case as long as one of the grounds for remand is federal-officer or civil-rights jurisdiction?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) allows courts of appeals to review an entire order remanding a removed case back to state court. Normally, Section 1447(d) forbids courts of appeals from reviewing remand orders, except when a federal officer seeks removal or the case involves civil rights. Based on a plain reading of the text and the purpose of the exceptions, BP argues that if a defendant asserts either jurisdictional ground, Section 1447(d) permits a court to review the entire order. Baltimore contends that this reading contravenes the purpose and historical understanding of the proper scope of review. This case has implications for state and federal jurisdiction, climate change, and congressional delegation of power.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.

In July 2018, the Mayor and City of Baltimore (collectively, “Baltimore”) filed suit in Maryland state court against twenty-six oil and gas companies, alleging that these companies knowingly contributed to climate change by “producing, promoting, and (misleadingly) marketing fossil fuel products long after learning the dangers associated with them.” Mayor & City Council of Balt. v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Knick v. Township of Scott

Issues

Should the Court reconsider the part of the Supreme Court’s Williamson County decision that requires property owners to exhaust state‑court remedies before litigating takings claims in federal courts?

This case asks the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, which established a requirement that property owners must first exhaust state‑court remedies before their federal takings claims are ripe for litigation in federal court. The Township of Scott’s zoning ordinance requires that property owners whose property contains a cemetery must leave that property open to the public during daylight hours and allow state agents access to determine the existence and location of any property or to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Rose Mary Knick, a resident of the Township, sued the Township after receiving violation notices, arguing that the ordinance is a taking without just compensation. Knick further argues that Williamson County’s ripeness requirement is an unworkable standard that prevents plaintiffs from reasonably accessing such courts. The Township of Scott counters that Knick does not have a valid federal statutory claim because none of Knick’s federal rights were violated. That is, the Township argues, a state‑court remedy for just compensation existed, which Knick did not avail herself of. Further, it contends that Williamson County does not prevent litigants from accessing federal court because courts have flexibility in deciding if it is fair to hear a plaintiff’s claim. Homeowners, takings litigation, and access to federal forums are some of the considerations implicated in this case. This is because overruling Williamson County may allow future plaintiffs to bring their claims in the court of their choosing without insurmountable procedural obstacles barring their path.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194–96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court?

On December 20, 2012, Respondent Township of Scott, Pennsylvania (“Township”) enacted an ordinance relating to the “Operation and Maintenance of Cemeteries and Burial Places.” Knick v. Township of Scott at 3. The ordinance requires property owners whose property contains cemeteries to allow the public free, reasonable access to the cemeteries during the day. Id.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Lincoln Prop. Co. v. Roche

Issues

Whether a court can demand proof of the citizenship of an unnamed corporate entity affiliated with a named party when it deems that corporate entity to be the “real party in interest;” and whether, for diversity purposes, a court must consider a limited partnership as a citizen of any state with which the limited partnership has a “very close nexus,” as well as any state of which a partner is a citizen.

 

Although plaintiffs initially decide whether to sue in state or federal courts, per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) allows defendants to remove cases to federal court if opposing parties are citizens of different states. Christophe and Juanita Roche discovered toxic mold in the apartment they were leasing. The Roches filed a complaint in Virginia state court, naming property owners State of Wisconsin Investment Board (“SWIB”) and managers Lincoln Property Company (“Lincoln”) as defendants. SWIB and Lincoln later removed the case to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction, claiming Wisconsin and Texas citizenship, respectively. After the district court granted Lincoln summary judgment, Roche challenged the court's jurisdiction on the grounds that Lincoln was a partnership with one of its partners residing in Virginia, claiming that Lincoln manipulated federal diversity jurisdiction by litigating the case in the name of another one of the companies in the Lincoln group. The district court ruled in favor of Lincoln, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that Lincoln had failed to prove its diversity from Roche. In deciding whether the Fourth Circuit erred in its holding, the Supreme Court will determine when Federal Courts can require proof of the diversity of parties not named in the complaint. The Court will also decide whether the Fourth Circuit announced a new and valid rule for determining the citizenship of a limited partnership for diversity jurisdiction purposes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether an entity not named or joined as a defendant in the lawsuit can nonetheless be deemed a "real party in interest" to destroy complete diversity of citizenship in a case removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. ? 1441(b).

2. Whether a limited partnership's citizenship for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction purposes is determined not by the citizenship of its partners, but by whether its business activities establish a "very close nexus" with the state. 

In March 2001, Christophe and Juanita Roche (“Roche”) entered into a lease for Unit 104 in the Westfield Village Apartments. Pet'r Lincoln's Br. at 2.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Marshall v. Marshall

Issues

Does the probate exception-which ostensibly gives state courts jurisdiction over all probate cases-apply where the probate issue is part of a bankruptcy proceeding and involves a trust instead of a  will.

 

When billionaire oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II died, he was survived by his wife of one year, Vickie Lynn Marshall-better known as Anna Nicole Smith. Mr. Marshall's son from a previous marriage, E. Pierce Marshall, became the executor of the elder Marshall's estate and the principal beneficiary of an inter vivos trust, neither of which included Mrs. Marshall. Nevertheless, a legal battle between Mrs. Marshall and E. Pierce over exactly what Mr. Marshall intended for his wife has taken place since Mr. Marshall's death. The case has bounced from a probate court in Texas, to a federal bankruptcy court in California, and now to the Supreme Court of the United States. The issue now before the Court concerns the relationship between federal and state powers, as related to the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction-namely, when can federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, decide cases involving traditionally state-directed claims in inheritance. The Supreme Court's decision in this case will affect the rights not only of state and federal judicial systems, but also the multitude of individuals throughout the nation planning, managing, and litigating their rights in estates, finances, and the future livelihoods of themselves and their loved ones.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction?

2. Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply where a federal court is not asked to probate a will, administer an estate, or otherwise assume control of property in the custody of a state probate court?

3. Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States (28 U.S.C. ? 1331), including the Bankruptcy Code (28 U.S.C. ? 1334), or is it limited to cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship?

4. Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising out of trusts, or is it limited to cases involving wills?

Vickie Lynn Marshall (known to most of the world as Anna Nicole Smith) married eighty-nine-year-old billionaire oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall II in 1994, shortly before his death. During their fourteen-month marriage, Mr. Marshall provided his wife with numerous cash and personal property gifts worth several million dollars, but for lack of time, desire, or otherwise, never formally provided for her in the disbursement of his estate. Mr.

Submit for publication
0

Osborn v. Haley

Issues

1. Under the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, can the United States Attorney General certify that a federal employee was acting in the scope of his office or employment at the time of an allegedly harmful incident simply by denying that the incident ever occurred?

2. If a district court concludes that the Attorney General’s purported certification was not authorized under the Westfall Act, can the district court remand the case to state court or is it barred from doing so under the Act?

3. Did the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in this case have jurisdiction to review the district court ’s order to remand, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) which states that “an order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise”?

 

Pat Osborn sued Barry Haley, a United States Forest Service manager, in state court, alleging that Haley had influenced her employer, Land Between the Lakes Association, to fire her and that, in so doing, Haley had acted outside the scope of his employment. Pursuant to the Westfall Act, the United States Attorney General certified that Haley was acting within the scope of his employment and successfully removed the case to federal district court. Once there, the United States denied that Haley had interfered with Osborn’s employment and proposed to substitute itself for Haley. The district court, however, assumed the veracity of Osborn’s allegations and refused substitution, remanding the action to state court. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently reversed, ruling that the lower court must resolve the factual disputes underlying the scope question and that the Westfall Act forecloses remand to the state court. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have significant implications for plaintiffs seeking to bring suit against federal employees and will likewise affect the way that the federal government and its employees respond to such suits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2679, authorizes the Attorney General to certify that the employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident solely by denying that such incident occurred at all.

2. Whether the Westfall Act forbids a district court to remand an action to state court upon concluding that the Attorney General's purported certification was not authorized by the Act.

3. Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order, notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d).

In the spring of 2002, the United States Forest Service advertised a job opening in the business department of Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area in Western Kentucky. Brief for Respondent at 3.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren

Issues

Does the Atomic Energy Act preempt Virginia’s ban on uranium mining where that ban on its face regulates an activity falling under state jurisdiction but could potentially regulate radiological safety hazards falling under federal jurisdiction?

This case asks the Supreme Court to discern the scope of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (“AEA”) and determine whether the federal law preempts a state ban on uranium mining. The AEA regulates nuclear materials and facilities in order to promote the safe development and use of atomic energy. Virginia Uranium contends that the AEA preempts a Virginia state ban on uranium mining. The Commonwealth of Virginia counters that the AEA is silent on uranium deposits situated on nonfederal land. The outcome of this case has broad implications for the United States’ nuclear industry, national security, and national economy, as well as the future of the preemption doctrine.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the AEA preempt a state statute that on its face regulates an activity within the regulatory jurisdiction of the States (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities within the jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium ore after it is mined and the management of the resulting uranium tailings)?

Shortly after the second World War, Congress enacted the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the “AEA”), which regulates both civilian and military uses of nuclear materials in the United States and promotes the safe use of atomic energy. Virginia Uranium, Inc. v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to federal jurisdiction