211 U.S. 149
(1908)
Yeazell,
pp. 217-219
Facts: The facts are actually
irrelevant, but the Mottleys got a lifetime free rail
pass to settle a claim against the railroad.
Later, Congress outlawed all lifetime rail passes and the railroad
refused to honors the Mottleys’ pass anymore. The Mottleys sued in
federal court for specific performance to keep their pass. They basically anticipated that the defense
of the railroad would be to say that Congress forbade them from honoring the
pass but that such an interpretation of the statute violated the Fifth
Amendment, and that’s why the Mottleys brought suit
in federal court. The federal court
granted specific performance to the Mottleys and the
railroad appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issue: Did the federal district
court have subject matter jurisdiction over the case? (This is the real issue, though it
wasn’t one of the issues argued before the court.)
Rule: A suit arises under the
Constitution and laws of the
Analysis: The court cites two cases, Tennessee
v. Union & Planters’ Bank and Boston & Montana Consolidated
Copper & Silver Mining Company v. Montana Ore Purchasing Company. These cases set up the rule stated
above. The basic reason for this rule is
that it is unnecessary for a plaintiff to answer their own complaint.
Conclusion: The case is reversed and
remanded to the federal district court which is directed to dismiss the case
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Notes
and Problems
1. The federal
trial court lacked jurisdiction because the original complaint of the Mottleys failed to state a cause of action in terms of any
federal question.
a. The federal issue
arose in Mottley as a matter of the anticipated defense that the railroad was
just following federal law in refusing to honor the Mottleys’
pass.
b. Knowing what I
know now, only the first case will “arise under” federal law because the cause
of action is stated in terms of federal law.
In the second case, only the defense is one of federal law, and
thus a federal court would not have subject matter jurisdiction.
2. The Mottleys sued in federal court, so we can say that they
were the ones who first raised the federal jurisdiction question. But I think this question is getting at the
fact that neither party brought up the jurisdiction question in argument, but
rather the Supreme Court brought it up unilaterally in their decision.
a. Under FRCP Rule
12(h)(3), we find out that subject matter jurisdiction is the most favored
defense and it can be raised by anyone at any time, including the court itself.
b. This question
is begging us to say that this is a terribly inefficient way to settle the
dispute between the Mottleys and the railroad.
3. So how do we
sort claims related to something federal from those that are not? Mottley sorts on the pleadings. One advantage is that this sorting can take
place at the very beginning of the lawsuit.
It would be very inefficient to not sort these things out until the end
of the lawsuit.
But there are also disadvantages. First,
you might actually want federal courts to have subject matter jurisdiction over
cases like this or the hypothetical with the newspaper. Second, this is outdated because you don’t
need as much detail in pleading now.
4. How could the
same words mean something different in the Constitution than in a statute? What would Scalia say?
a. So the Supreme
Court could hear the Mottleys’ second case even
though the lower federal court couldn’t hear the first one.
b. It’s up to
Congress if they want to change the way things are. Maybe they don’t want the federal courts to
be overloaded. However, other courts are
overloaded. Why not let the federal
courts pick up some slack?
5.
a. Is there such
a thing as federal common law? I guess
so.
b. In Mottley,
the federal law did not give rise to the plaintiffs’ claim, although it was the
“but-for” cause of the plaintiffs’ troubles.
c. I think this
is where a lot of First Amendment cases get shepherded in.
6. Oh, the answer
to 5c is NO! But then we get this other
branch that uses a seemingly different standard.
a. In Smith,
the claim is stated under state law, but you can’t explain just what the defendant
did wrong without resorting to the contention that a certain federal law is unconstitutional. It almost seems to me like if the defendant
could get you for “failure to state a claim” if you don’t refer to any federal
law, then you have a “federal question”.
Mottley is distinguishable in that you can state a claim (“They
broke a contract!”) without saying anything about federal law. In Smith, let’s say you just said: “They
bought some bonds!” Then the defendant
would say, “So what? No claim.” Or, what if you said: “They bought some illegal
bonds!” They would say, “Whaddya mean illegal?”
And you could either say: “Oh….nothing…” or you could say “Illegal
because FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL!” And then you’re in, baby!
b. This is a looooong excerpt. It
was written by Judge Friendly, the friendliest judge in town. I guess the idea is copyrights are just stuff
that you can trade around, so if the copyright itself is not in dispute,
you don’t have a federal question.
c. Fink and Tushnet propose a three-prong test for determining federal question
jurisdiction.
1. What is the
national interest in adjudicating the matter in federal rather than state court?
2. How likely is
it that such an interest will actually come up in the case?
3. How likely is
it that the Supreme Court will get involved if the case goes through state
courts?
7. What about the
Declaratory Judgment
Act?
a. The patent
holder sues to just have the court say: “Yep, your patent is being infringed
alright.”
b. The competitor
can preemptively go for the opposite declaration. This is OK.
c. The Supreme
Court has decided that somebody can’t sue for a declaration that they are
immune from a non-federal claim on federal grounds. This is a close issue, but that’s how the
cookie crumbled.
8.
a. A case can lose
its federalosity midstream. If the plaintiffs had gotten the court to
include the settlement agreement in its dismissal order, then the federal court
could have enforced the agreement.
Otherwise, it’s just a garden-variety common law contract type thing.
b. You can’t
remove to federal court based on the defense of claim preclusion. Therefore, the claim doesn’t arise
under federal law.