Federal Judicial Authority
THE CONSTITUTION DESCRIBES THE ENTIRE MASS of the judicial authority of the United States as follows:
“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.” Art. III, § 2, cl 1.
The Six Principal Objects of Federal Judicial Authority
These Federal powers are roughly divisible into six principal objects, for which Federal judicial superintendence is necessary:
1. All cases concerning express provisions of the Constitution;
2. All cases arising from the laws of Congress passed pursuant to its just and constitutional powers of legislation;
3. All cases in which the United States is a party;
4. All cases involving the peace of the United States, whether related to dealings between the United States and foreign nations, or dealings between the States themselves;
5. All cases originating on the high seas which are of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction; and
6. All those cases where State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiased.
Cases concerning Express Constitutional Provisions
As to the first class – all cases concerning the execution of express provisions of the Constitution – there must always be a constitutional method of enforcing valid Federal provisions.
Under the Constitution, the States are prohibited from doing a variety of things which are incompatible with the interests of the union or the principles of good government, such as the imposition of duties on imported articles and the emission of paper money.
No one with good sense believes such prohibitions would be rigorously enforced without Federal power.
This power must be either a direct negative on the State laws or an authority in the Federal courts to overrule such laws as might clearly contravene the Constitution.
There is no third course.
The Constitution authorizes federal courts to overrule unconstitutional State laws, a remedy more preferable to the States than a direct negative of their laws.
The Constitution authorizes federal courts to overrule unconstitutional State laws, a remedy more preferable to the States than a direct negative of their laws.
Cases Arising Out of the Laws of the United States
As to the second class – all cases arising out of the laws of the United States – clearly the judicial power of a government must be coextensive with its legislative power.
The necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws decides the question.
If any number of State courts of final jurisdiction could differently decide the same causes arising upon the same laws, the resulting procession of contradiction and confusion would be a hydra, not a government.
As for the difference between “cases arising under the Constitution,” and those “arising under the laws of the United States,” the clearest examples are those restrictions on the authority of State legislatures.
For instance, if States were to emit paper money in violation of the constitutional interdiction, the responsive Federal action would arise under the Constitution, not the laws of the United States.
This may serve as a sample of the whole.
Federal Judicial Power Extends to Cases Arising in Equity
The judicial power properly includes cases arising in equity as well as those arising under law.
Some may question whether equitable causes can grow out of the Constitution and laws of the United States, but rarely does any subject of litigation between individuals fail to involve the equitable ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship.
For instance, it is the peculiar province of a court of equity to give relief against what are called hard bargains: contracts with no direct fraud or deceit sufficient to invalidate them in a court of law, yet involving some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of the necessities or misfortunes of one of the parties, which a court of equity would not tolerate.
In such cases – especially where foreigners are concerned on either side – it would be impossible for the Federal courts to do justice without an equitable as well as a legal jurisdiction.
The need for an equitable jurisdiction in the Federal courts would also arise in disputes over agreements to convey lands claimed under the grants of different States.
The judicial power properly includes cases arising in equity as well as those arising under law. Some may question whether equitable causes can grow out of the Constitution and laws of the United States, but rarely does any subject of litigation between individuals fail to involve the equitable ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship.
Cases between the United States and Foreign Nations, and between the States Themselves
The fourth aspect – Federal jurisdiction of all cases related to dealings between the United States and foreign nations and dealings between the States themselves – rests on the proposition that the peace of the whole union ought not to be left at the disposal of one or more of its parts.
The United States will undoubtedly be answerable to foreign powers for the conduct of its members; therefore it should to have the faculty of preventing those injuries in the first place.
Since the denial or corruption of justice by courts is with reason classed as a just cause of war, the Federal judiciary also ought to have cognizance of all causes where citizens of other countries are concerned.
This is essential to preserving the public faith and securing the public tranquility.
There also should be no distinction between those cases arising from treaties or the laws of nations and those cases which stand only on the footing of State or local law.
An unjust judgment against a foreigner – if unredressed – would be an aggression upon the foreigner’s sovereign.
To this one might add the immense difficulty of making a practical distinction between the cases of one complexion and those of the other.
As the majority of the cases in which foreigners are parties involve national questions, it is by far safest and most expedient to refer all such cases to the national tribunals.
The fourth aspect – Federal jurisdiction of all cases related to dealings between the United States and foreign nations and dealings between the States themselves – rests on the proposition that the peace of the whole union ought not to be left at the disposal of one or more of its parts.
Cases in which the United States Is a Party
Still less need be said about the third class of class of cases, in which the United States is a party.
Controversies between a nation and its members or citizens can be properly referred only to national tribunals.
Any other plan would be contrary to reason, precedent and decorum.
Cases between States, between a State and Citizens of Another State, and Diversity Jurisdiction
Equally essential to the peace of the union is a Federal power to determine causes between two States, between one State and the citizens of another, and between the citizens of different States.
The efficacy of courts invested with final authority to decide disputes between interests from different geographical areas was proven by the institution in Germany of the Imperial Chamber of Justice towards the close of the fifteenth century.
Dissensions and private wars distracted and desolated the country before this action, but these were appeased and tranquility was reestablished afterwards.
Territorial disputes and interfering claims of boundary are fertile sources of bickering and animosity between the States, and have led to enactment of fraudulent laws to substantiate claims.
The Constitution establishes particular guards against these, and anticipates the spirit which produced them will assume new shapes.
Practices having a tendency to disturb the harmony between the States are proper objects of Federal superintendence and control.
The Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
Since every government ought to possess the means of executing its own provisions by its own authority, the Constitution declares, in the Privileges and Immunities Clause: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1.
To maintain inviolate this equality of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the national judiciary must preside in all cases where one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens.
Having no local attachments, the national tribunals will likely be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and disinclined to engage in any evasion or subterfuge regarding the fundamental importance of that constitutional provision.
I also note that the national judiciary – owing its official existence to the United States – will never be likely to feel any bias against the principles on which it was founded.
Cases Originating on the High Seas of Admiralty or Maritime Jurisdiction
The fifth point – cases arising on the high seas which are of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction – is conceded even by most bigoted idolizers of State authority.
These cases so generally depend on the laws of nations – and so commonly affect the rights of foreigners – that jurisdiction is proper if only to keep the public peace.
The most important of these cases were already subject to Federal jurisdiction under the Articles of Confederation.
To maintain inviolate this equality of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the national judiciary must preside in all cases where one State or its citizens are opposed to another State or its citizens. Having no local attachments, the national tribunals will likely be impartial between the different States and their citizens, and disinclined to engage in any evasion or subterfuge regarding the fundamental importance of that constitutional provision.
All Cases where State Tribunals Cannot Be Supposed to Be Impartial or Unbiased
The sixth point – the agency of the national courts in cases in which the State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial – speaks for itself.
No one can be a judge in his own cause, or in any in which he has the least interest or bias.
This principle supports designating the Federal courts as the proper tribunals for the determination of controversies between different States and their citizens.
In some cases, it should apply between citizens of the same State. For example, in cases involving conflicting land grants or boundaries of different States, the courts of neither granting State could be expected to be unbiased.
State laws may have even prejudged the question, and tied State courts down to decisions in favor of their grants.
And even where this had not been done, it would be natural that the judges – as humans – should feel a strong predilection to the claims of their own government.
All the particular powers of the Federal judiciary marked out in the Constitution conform to the principles necessary to govern the structure of that department and to perfect the system.
If minor difficulties appear, the Congress – as the national legislature – will have ample authority to make such exceptions and prescribe such regulations as will obviate or remove them.
To a well informed mind, the possibility of particular mischiefs can never be viewed as a solid objection to a general principle calculated to avoid general mischiefs and to obtain general advantages.
Hamilton