Federal common law

Last updated

Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. Ever since Louis Brandeis, writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938), overturned Joseph Story's decision in Swift v. Tyson , federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction have applied state law as the substantive laws, with few exceptions. [1] Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.

Contents

The Swift doctrine

Until 1938, federal courts in the United States followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of Swift v. Tyson . [2] In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different U.S. states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law.

The reasoning behind the decision in Swift v. Tyson was that the federal courts would craft a superior common law, and the state courts would voluntarily choose to adopt it. This hope was not fulfilled, however, as the principles of the common law of the several states continued to dramatically diverge in subsequent decades. Many litigants began to engage in forum shopping: abusing the availability of the federal courts for the specific purpose of having cases decided under federal common law, in lieu of state common law.

The Erie doctrine

In 1938, the Supreme Court decided Erie Railroad v. Tompkins . [3] Erie overruled Swift v. Tyson, holding instead that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive laws as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the Erie Court put it, there is no "federal general common law", with the operative word being "general".

The Erie decision did not put an end to other types of federal common law. Several areas of federal common law remain, in two basic categories: areas where Congress has given the courts power to develop substantive law, and areas where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests. [4]

The U.S. Congress has given courts power to formulate common law rules in areas such as admiralty law, antitrust, bankruptcy law, interstate commerce, and civil rights. Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable.

Furthermore, in the 1943 case of Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States , [5] the Court recognized that federal courts could still create federal common law, albeit in limited circumstances where federal or Constitutional interests were at stake, Congress had inadequately addressed the situation sub judice, and the application of individual state laws in various jurisdictions would create unacceptable levels of diversity or uncertainty. When fashioning new federal common law, the Court may either adopt a reasonable state law, look to its own precedent, or create new law.

Congressional repeal of federal common law

Federal common law is valid only to the extent that Congress has not repealed the common law. The Supreme Court has explained that, "when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision resting on federal common law, the need for such an unusual exercise of law-making by federal courts disappears." [6]

During the era when the Constitution was written, it was understood that common law was alterable by legislatures. For example, Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist Papers that the New York Constitution made the common law subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." [7] Thus, even when a federal court has authority to make common law, that law is subject to alteration by Congress. This principle finds expression in the first sentence of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Federal criminal common law

Statutes enacted by the deliberative legislative process are the preferred source of American criminal law. Modern American criminal law reflects a variety of sources; some crimes existed at common law, while others that address modern problems like computer crimes are new. [8] The Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws for states in Article I §10, the same as it does for Congress in §9, but there is no constitutional provision that outright prohibits courts from defining common law offenses. [9] In Federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Hudson (1812), [10] held that federal courts had no jurisdiction to define new common law crimes. For federal crimes, there must always be a (constitutionally valid) statute defining the offense, jurisdiction of federal courts and the penalties. [11] Although there is no Supreme Court decision prohibiting state courts from defining common law offenses, they have been rare, and the Model Penal Code and most states have abolished common law offenses. In a minority of states a reception statute may recognize the common law offenses that existed at the time the statute was enacted as punishable. [9]

Federal practice litigation

All fifty states have both state and federal courts. Federal courts have jurisdiction over matters of federal concern, meaning federal law and in particular federal law that pre-empts state law when an issue is within the federal government’s exclusive domain. The other type of jurisdiction conferred upon federal courts is known as diversity jurisdiction and it exists where the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000.00 and no defendant is a citizen of the same state as any of the plaintiffs in the case (complete diversity).

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Common law</span> Law created by judicial precedent

In law, common law is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Article Three of the United States Constitution</span> Portion of the US Constitution regarding the judicial branch

Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.

In the United States, a state court has jurisdiction over disputes with some connection to a U.S. state. State courts handle the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in the United States; the United States federal courts are far smaller in terms of both personnel and caseload, and handle different types of cases. States often provide their trial courts with general jurisdiction and state trial courts regularly have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and their subject-matter jurisdiction arises only under federal law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal government of the United States</span> National government of the United States

The federal government of the United States is the national government of the United States, a federal republic located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diversity jurisdiction</span> U.S. court jurisdiction over persons of different states or nationalities

In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, federal courts will normally lack the jurisdiction to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead.

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of the modern law of diversity jurisdiction.

<i>Erie</i> doctrine Doctrine in US federal civil procedure

The Erie doctrine is a fundamental legal doctrine of civil procedure in the United States which mandates that a federal court called upon to resolve a dispute not directly implicating a federal question must apply state substantive law.

Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842), was a case brought in diversity in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York on a bill of exchange accepted in New York in which the Supreme Court of the United States determined that United States federal courts that heard cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction under the Judiciary Act of 1789 must apply statutory state laws when the state legislatures in question had spoken on the issue, but did not have to apply the state's common law if the state legislatures had not spoken on the issue.

<i>Sampson v. Channell</i>

Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754, was a United States Court of Appeals decision interpreting the application of the Erie doctrine where diversity jurisdiction is invoked in a choice of law situation, where a court in one state may be called upon to apply the laws of another state.

The Rules of Decision Act mandates the application of substantive state law in cases heard in U.S. federal courts sitting in diversity, except where state law is preempted by federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court in Swift v. Tyson (1842) originally read this Act of Congress as limited to state statutory law, but later overturned Swift in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938) and instead held that the Rules of Decision Act requires the application of state law including case law originating from state courts.

Black and White Taxicab and Transfer Company v. Brown and Yellow Taxicab and Transfer Company, 276 U.S. 518 (1928), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to hold that federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply state common law. Ten years later, in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, the Court reversed course, and overturned Swift v. Tyson.

The origins of the United States' defamation laws pre-date the American Revolution; one influential case in 1734 involved John Peter Zenger and established precedent that "The Truth" is an absolute defense against charges of libel. Though the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court failed to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional "Common Law" of defamation inherited from the English legal system, mixed across the states. The 1964 case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, however, radically changed the nature of libel law in the United States by establishing that public officials could win a suit for libel only when they could prove the media outlet in question knew either that the information was wholly and patently false or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not". Later Supreme Court cases barred strict liability for libel and forbade libel claims for statements that are so ridiculous as to be obviously facetious. Recent cases have added precedent on defamation law and the Internet.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Certified question</span>

In the law of the United States, a certified question is a formal request by one court from another court, usually but not always in another jurisdiction, for an opinion on a question of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of the United States</span> Overview of the law of United States of America

The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the nation's Constitution, which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Marshall Court</span>

The Marshall Court (1801–1835) heard forty-one criminal law cases, slightly more than one per year. Among such cases are United States v. Simms (1803), United States v. More (1805), Ex parte Bollman (1807), United States v. Hudson (1812), Cohens v. Virginia (1821), United States v. Perez (1824), Worcester v. Georgia (1832), and United States v. Wilson (1833).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law in the Taney Court</span> Aspect of U.S. judicial history (1836–1864)

The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Crimes Act of 1825</span> U.S. federal law

The Crimes Act of 1825, formally titled An Act more effectually to provide for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States, and for other purposes, was the first piece of omnibus federal criminal legislation since the Crimes Act of 1790. In general, the 1825 act provided more punishment than the 1790 act. The maximum authorized sentence of imprisonment was increased from 7 to 10 years; the maximum fine from $5,000 to $10,000. But, the punishments of stripes and pillory were not provided for.

References

  1. ↑ "ArtIII.S2.C1.16.6 State Law in Diversity Cases and the Erie Doctrine". Constitution Annotated. Library of Congress.
  2. ↑ Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1 (1842).
  3. ↑ Erie v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
  4. ↑ Texas Industries v. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630 (1981).
  5. ↑ Clearfield Trust v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943).
  6. ↑ Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981).
  7. ↑ Federalist 84.
  8. ↑ Carlan, Philip (2011). An Introduction to Criminal Law. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 4.
  9. 1 2 Fletcher, George P. (2007). The Grammar of Criminal Law: American, Comparative, and International Volume I. Oxford University Press. p. 83.
  10. ↑ United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32 (1812)
  11. ↑ Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. Sage Publications. p. 1843.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.