Top Law Schools

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.

.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

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).