To save class time, here is what I usually lecture on in a portion in class; you can read and take notes here. Review this prior to class on Thursday (Section A) and Friday (Section B), as it will be helpful in understanding Supplemental Jurisdiction. , as well as looking at the assigned (and linked) statutes.
Read this in conjunction with the assigned (and linked) statutes; you can supplement this with Glannon pp. 25-30, which gives a nice basic overview.
We cover Federal Question Jurisdiction in great depth in Federal Courts, an upper-level class that I encourage you to take during the next two years.
Yes, you are responsible for knowing this and it is fair game for the exam.
Sources:
Article III gives federal courts jurisdiction over "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." Recalling that Article III does not grant district courts (which may not exist) jurisdiction but merely empowers Congress, Congress can draft three types of statutes to put that language into effect for district courts.
First, Congress could enact a statute and include a jurisdictional grant in that statute, giving district courts jurisdiction over actions under that law. For example, the federal securities statute includes a jurisdictional provision giving district courts exclusive original jurisdiction "of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by this chapter or the rules and regulations thereunder." The Lanham Act, the federal trademark law (the basis for VOA's trademark claim), includes § 1121 giving district courts original jurisdiction "of all actions arising under this chapter." (VOA cites this in ¶ 12). For one more example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--prohibiting discrimination because of race, sex, national original, religion, and ethnicity in employment--includes a provision stating "Each United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter."
Second, Congress could give district courts original jurisdiction over actions involving all laws involving a particular subject. We saw one example in VOA (¶ 12) in § 1338, giving district courts original jurisdiction over all claims arising under any federal law "relating to" intellectual property (patents, copyrights, trademarks). This statute gives district courts jurisdiction over claims from any law Congress enacts "relating to" any of those areas.
Third, Congress enacted § 1331 granting "general federal question jurisdiction," using the same (or similar) language to that of Article III--"all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." The Judiciary Act of 1789, the original statute granting jurisdiction to federal courts, did not include such general Fed Q jurisdiction. It was introduced in the Midnight Judges Act of 1801 (the same law that created the judgeship that Marbury was after), but that law was repealed in 1802. Congress finally granted this jurisdiction in 1875 in what became § 1331.
Prior to 1980, § 1331 contained an amount-in-controversy requirement, just as § 1332; it reached $ 10,000 by 1980. Subject- and statute-specific grants thus remained necessary, even after 1875. While § 1331 provided jurisdiction for all big-money federal claims, the specific statutes were necessary for smaller-value trademark or securities claims. Congress repealed the amount requirement from § 1331 in 1980. The result is that § 1331 is the only jurisdictional grant necessary to establish jurisdiction, since it covers all claims arising under all federal laws, regardless of amount in controversy; the more-specific grants are not needed for the court to hear the case. Nevertheless, as we see in VOA, plead all possible statutes that give the court jurisdiction--general, subject, and statute-specific. The specific grants also are necessary to show when jurisdiction may be exclusive, as in a copyright or securities case.
Purposes
It is generally accepted that federal-question jurisdiction serves three purposes. First, it ensures uniformity of federal law, mainly through final SCOTUS review. Second, federal judges have greater expertise than state judges on federal law, which the parties want for their federal claims. Third, federal judges are more respectful and solicitous of federal law, federal rights, and federal interests and less likely to allow local concerns to override federal rights or interests. Once again, federal judges can achieve these due to the structural protections of life tenure and guaranteed salary.
Well Pleaded Complaint Rule
District court jurisdiction operates under the "Well-Pleaded Complaint" Rule. This provides that a claim arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 (and all other Fed Q statutes) only when the federal issue appears on the face of the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint. A federal defense is not sufficient. Nor is a federal counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim. Only if at least one claim by the plaintiff against the defendant in the complaint arises under federal law can the case be in federal court. Glannon explains this well.
Defining "Arising Under"
So when does a claim in the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint arise under for § 1331 and other purposes? The core of the concept states that "a claim arises under the law that creates the cause of action," according to Justice Holmes. More recently, in Mims v. Arrow Financial, the Court elaborated on that to say that a claim arises under when federal law creates 1) the right of action (the authorization to bring a lawsuit) and 2) the legal right (also referred to as the "rule of decision," the legal rule being enforced and used to decide the case). This is the core definition of arising under, covering the vast majority of cases in federal court. (I mentioned this in class).
You can use this test to see why VOA's trademark claim satisfies § 1331, as well as §§ 1338 and 1121. A federal statute, the Lanham Act, creates rights to have and use trademarks and authorizes individuals to sue for infringement of those marks. Same with the copyright claims in VOA and Naruto under §§ 1331 and 1338--a federal statute, the Copyright Act, establishes rights to create and use copyrighted material and to exclude others from using it and authorizes suit for infringement of copyrighted material.
This will give you enough to understand the basics of our cases and to work with supplemental jurisdiction. Again, Federal Courts awaits you in the next two years.
Remember Oliver Wendell Holmes and thanks for listening.
