PPC Homepage

Public Service Announcement – Yes, the Arizona Court had Jurisdiction to Hear the SB1070 case.

by | 9:36 pm, July 31, 2010 | 1 Comment

Over facebook today a series of posts have exploded implying that Judge Bolton, who recently enjoined portions of Arizona’s new immigration law, was without jurisdiction to do so:

“Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face

The article then cites Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which states:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Returning to the article it goes on:

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled.  As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

Unfortunately for the lawyer, her analysis is completely off.  While Article III Section 2 of the Constitution does vest “Original Jurisdiction” over the Arizona lawsuit in the Supreme Court, it is not the only source of federal jurisdiction here.  Under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”  (emphasis added).  Congress has the authority to vest such inferior courts, such as the Arizona Federal District Court, with jurisdiction concurrent to the areas of law where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction.  Ames v. Kansas ex rel. Johnson, 111 U.S. 449, 464 (1884).  Congress has in fact exercised this Constitutional authority to give the Arizona Federal District Courts jurisdiction concurrent with the Supreme Court to hear cases between the United States and a State (such as Arizona here).  28 U.S.C. §§ 1345 and 1346.  Additionally, because there is an alternative forum for the SB1070 suit (the AZ Federal District Court), the Supreme Court would likely be hesitant to exercise its original jurisdiction to hear the case when not on appeal. California v. Nevada, 447 U.S. 125, 133 (1980).

So if you are mourning the fall of portions of the Arizona Statute to a federal injunction and hoping for ways to undo the ruling, this jurisdictional half-baked theory is going to miss the mark.

This analysis is courtesy of my trusty law school Erwin Chemerinsky treatise on Federal Jurisdiction.

Proviso – This is NOT legal advice and I am NOT your attorney.

Share
Category: Rule of Law
Tags: > > >

Comments

  1.   Jackie
      August 3rd, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

    It’s good to see that I’m not the only person who noticed the error in that lawyer’s interpretation of the Article III, Section 2.

    See also: “The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of All controversies between the United States and a State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)(2) (2009).

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!