Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:13 pm

What’s the difference between “arising under” in Art. 3 §2 and 28 U.S.C. 1331? I remember my professor making a big deal out of it but I can’t find anything in my notes or an old outline.

Off the top of my head, it must be broader in the constitution (assuming they don’t mean the same thing). If 1331 was broader, it would be unconstitutional.

User avatar
TTT-LS
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby TTT-LS » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:21 pm

.
Last edited by TTT-LS on Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:25 pm

TTT-LS wrote:The off the top of your head part is correct. Congress has restricted Jx in cases that would otherwise be eligible under Art. III, such as diversity suits in which less than 75k is in controversy (compare the diversity statute with Art. III sec. 2's reference to "controversies . . . between citizens of different states").

Thanks, that makes sense.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby 270910 » Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:30 pm

Basically, constitutionally even a vague implication of a federal element is probably enough to satisfy the test. Under 28 USC 1331 case law, there are much more specific criteria that must be met. See your local Glannon's guide / class notes for more.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:13 am

mikeytwoshoes wrote:
TTT-LS wrote:The off the top of your head part is correct. Congress has restricted Jx in cases that would otherwise be eligible under Art. III, such as diversity suits in which less than 75k is in controversy (compare the diversity statute with Art. III sec. 2's reference to "controversies . . . between citizens of different states").

Thanks, that makes sense.

Agreed. Diversity JX is § 1332 though.

User avatar
PSLaplace
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 4:33 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby PSLaplace » Tue Apr 06, 2010 1:24 am

The phrase "arising under" in Article III is very broadly construed; it is probably satisfied in any case in which any party seeks to rely on or establish a proposition of federal law in order to prove a claim or a defense in a case.

In contrast, 1331 only grants jurisdiction where a federal issue is necessary to the proof of the plaintiff's claim.

User avatar
mikeytwoshoes
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:45 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby mikeytwoshoes » Tue Apr 06, 2010 12:49 pm

patrickd139 wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
TTT-LS wrote:The off the top of your head part is correct. Congress has restricted Jx in cases that would otherwise be eligible under Art. III, such as diversity suits in which less than 75k is in controversy (compare the diversity statute with Art. III sec. 2's reference to "controversies . . . between citizens of different states").

Thanks, that makes sense.

Agreed. Diversity JX is § 1332 though.

He's saying that you have to interpret the statutes in the same way. They were written during the same time frame and both refers derives its authority from Art III. Sec. 2. Therefore, both must be narrower than the constitutional provision.

User avatar
TTT-LS
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:36 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby TTT-LS » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:37 pm

.
Last edited by TTT-LS on Sun Jul 11, 2010 4:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
patrickd139
Posts: 2883
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 8:53 pm

Re: Article 3, §2—1331 Arising Under Question

Postby patrickd139 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 5:53 pm

TTT-LS wrote:
mikeytwoshoes wrote:
patrickd139 wrote:Agreed. Diversity JX is § 1332 though.

He's saying that you have to interpret the statutes in the same way. They were written during the same time frame and both refers derives its authority from Art III. Sec. 2. Therefore, both must be narrower than the constitutional provision.

Exactly--which is why I referred to "the diversity statute" rather than 1331. The point was general, rather than specific. Sure, my example wasn't the best one available (the other examples above re: 1331's need for fed law to be the basis of the claim, etc. would've been better), but it was the first one that came to mind.

I'm not sure if this was unclear, but I was agreeing with the underlying principle set forth by TTT-LS in his original answer. Just pointing out it was for diversity JX, instead of federal question JX (which was the topic of MTS's OP).




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ashahid, Google Adsense [Bot], weneedahealer and 5 guests