FQJ is derived from Constitutional authority (Article III, Section 2) and Congressional delegation (28 USC 1331)
Constitutional authority is interpreted broadly, any case in which there is a "federal ingredient" (Osborn v. Bank of the US)
Congressional delegation is interpreted more narrowly, case must pass Mottley test or the "essential federal ingredient test" for FQJ (Smith and Grable)
Mottley test:
FQJ only if P relies on federal law as the source of their right to relief. ("creation test" from American Well Works, must be substantial)
Complaint must be "well plead" (what has to be in the complaint, not anticipated defenses) in determining FQJ
The federal law used must include a private right of action, explicit or implicit
To find implicit private right of action (very rare), court must determine that (from Cort v. Ash)…
P is part of class for whose special benefit the federal law was created.
Whether there was Congressional intent for a private right of action. (most important, Love v. Delta)
Whether a private right of action would further the legislative scheme (Federal courts good at this type of case? Guidelines specific? Case load implications?).
Whether this area traditionally part of state law.
"Essential Federal Ingredient" Test (Smith, Grable):
Is there an essential federal ingredient embedded in an otherwise nonfederal claim?
Is the federal ingredient actually disputed in the context of the case?
Is the federal ingredient important in the sense that it is particularly appropriate for resolution in a federal court? (federal interest?)
Would treating the claim as "arising under" upset the congressionally mandated allocation of jurisdiction between state and federal courts?
**Full FQ Jurisdiction**
Federal-Question Jurisdiction: Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, federal courts are limited in what kinds of cases they can hear. Most federal cases involve diversity cases and cases "arising under" the Constitution of the US. (28 USC 1331)
Louisville & Nashville RR v. Mottley
P sued RR for breach of contract because a federal statute prohibited the RR from renewing their passes for free travel.
In their answer, D did rely on the federal statute for their defense.
SCOTUS dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A case only "arises under" federal law if the P relies on federal law as the source of their right to relief.
The Mottley rule says that courts assess the federal court's subject matter jurisdiction based solely on the P's complaint. (not possible defenses, not counterclaims, etc)
However, FQJ might not exist, despite a federally created cause of action, when resolution of the underlying claim depends largely if not wholly on questions of nonfederal law. (Shoshone)
"Well Pleaded Complaints"
From Mottley, the court is required to consider not what the P has pleaded but what P needed to plead to state their cause of action.
This is to prevent manipulation by Ps; if Ps could make a federal case out of a state law claim by including unnecessary references to federal law in their complaints, arising-under jurisdiction could be created by simply including peripheral or even irrelevant references to federal issues in the complaint.
By asking not what is in the complaint, but what has to be, the court can limit the opportunity to manipulate the federal courts' jurisdiction.
In Mottley, their claim was a breach of contract claim and did not "arise under" federal law, as interpreted by 28 USC 1331.
A federal law must include a private right of action (either implicit or explicit) in order for a party to bring suit in federal court.
Implicit test parameters (from Cort v. Ash)…
Is P part of class for whose special benefit the Act was created?
Look at whatever Congressional intent that might exist
Ask "would a private cause of action further the legislative scheme?"
Is this something that courts would be good at?
How specific are the guidelines?
Was it traditionally part of state law?
Take a look at possible case load
It is very rare to find an implicit private right of action. Most courts focus on the Congressional intent factor (Love v. Delta Air Lines).
SCOTUS found an implied private right of action against federal officials who violated a person's 4th Amendment rights (Bivens). Was later extended to 5th and 8th Amendments.
The "Essential Federal Ingredient Test" (from Smith v. Kansas City Title, refined by Grable)
Is there an essential federal ingredient embedded in an otherwise nonfederal claim?
Is the federal ingredient actually disputed in the context of the case?
Is the federal ingredient important in the sense that it is particularly appropriate for resolution in a federal court? (federal interest?)
Would treating the claim as "arising under" upset the congressionally mandated allocation of jurisdiction between state and federal courts?
Broadens the scope of 28 USC 1331 jurisdiction and upsets the totality of the "creation test." (from American Well Works)
Few cases are able to satisfy these requirements.
Holding from Grable: a claim that doesn't follow the "creation test" can be tried in federal court if the court decides that the state law claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.
Relationship Between Constitutional and Statutory Limits on "Arising Under" Jurisdiction
Two Rules…
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that federal courts may hear cases "arising under" federal law.
28 USC 1331 uses the same language conveying arising under jurisdiction to the federal district courts.
In spite of this, SCOTUS has interpreted the phrase "arising under federal law" in 28 USC 1331 to focus solely on the P's complaint while the language of Article III is interpreted more broadly.
In Osborn v. Bank of the US, SCOTUS held that Article III granted jurisdiction over all cases where a question of federal statutory or constitutional law "forms an ingredient" of a case (applies to defenses and counterclaims that arise under federal law).
However, this is unimportant since 28 USC 1331 is interpreted using Mottley.
Congress could do away with the Mottley rule by amending 28 USC 1331 if they wanted to.
With arising under cases, it is always necessary to analyze the constitutional scope of jurisdiction and Congress' grant of that jurisdiction separately. Congress can add as many limits (or broaden up to the limits of the Constitution) onto 28 USC 1331 as they want.
Federal Law in State Courts
Just because a claim can be filed in federal court (Mottley test passed, etc) does not mean that it has to be. State courts can adjudicate these claims.
The jurisdiction of the federal and state courts over most types of federal law cases is said to be "concurrent" (the courts of both systems can entertain these cases).
There is an exception for claims that Congress provides by statute that are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. (patent)
State courts can hear the following types of federal law cases…
Cases arising under federal law in state court if the D doesn't remove them to federal court.
Cases where P sues in state court for state claims and D relies on federal law as defense.
Cases where P sues in state court and D asserts a counterclaim arising under federal law.
