Foreign Relations and Federal Questions: Resolving the Judicial Split on Federal Court Jurisdiction

By Terrell, Erin Elizabeth | Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, November 2002 | Go to article overview

Foreign Relations and Federal Questions: Resolving the Judicial Split on Federal Court Jurisdiction


Terrell, Erin Elizabeth, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law


ABSTRACT

The federal circuit courts have disagreed concerning a fundamental issue of federal court jurisdiction: whether cases that may implicate or involve the "foreign relations" of the United States, but do not otherwise raise a more traditional "federal question" under federal law, may be removed from state courts to federal courts. This Note examines the cases that have created the split, and proposes two potential resolutions to it, one judicial and the other legislative.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
 II. THE PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THE CIRCUIT SPLIT 
     A. Federal Question Jurisdiction 
     B. Federal Common Law of Foreign Relations 
III. THE DETAILS OF THE CIRCUIT SPLIT 
     A. The Second Circuit: Republic of the Philippines v. Marcos 
     B. The Fifth Circuit: Torres v. Southern Peru Copper Corporation 
     C. The Eleventh Circuit: Pacheco de Perez v. AT&T Company 
     D. The Ninth Circuit: Patrickson v. Dole Food Company 
IV.  RESOLVING THE SPLIT 
     A. Judicial Resolution by the Supreme Court 
        1. Federal Jurisdiction Attaches 
           a. The Argument for "Quasi-Protective Jurisdiction" 
           b. The Arguments Against "Quasi-Protective Jurisdiction" 
               i. Forum Non Conveniens 
              ii. Political Question Doctrine 
        2. No Federal Jurisdiction 
           a. Analogy to "Statehood" 
           b. Strictly Reading Section 1331 
     B. Legislative Resolution: Implementing the Ninth Circuit Result 
        and Reasoning 
V.   CONCLUSION 

I. INTRODUCTION

This Note examines a split among the federal circuits regarding the intersection of two frequently debated issues--one an aspect of U.S. law, the other an aspect of international relations. The U.S. legal matter is the concept of a "federal question," which is fundamental to the jurisdiction of federal courts. (1) The international matter is the concept of "foreign relations," which typically encompasses activities only conducted by the political branches of the federal government. (2) The question here is the relationship between the two: does "foreign relations" necessarily entail a "federal question," as three circuit courts have held, (3) so that litigation involving foreign policy will automatically be granted access to federal courts? Or are the two distinct, as one circuit court most recently held, (4) so that the foreign relations element of a case cannot by itself be a basis to establish federal court jurisdiction?

To illustrate the implications of the issue, assume that ABC Corporation, a manufacturer of weapons systems of various kinds with its corporate headquarters in State A, has, with federal government approval, established a contract to sell an important military item to an important allied government--Country X--that is strategically critical to the foreign relations interests of the United States. Unfortunately, an accident occurs at an ABC plant in Country X, and workers are killed and injured. Plaintiffs sue ABC in the state courts of State A under the law of State A. If liability results, manufacturing of the item may cease, and relations with Country X may be jeopardized. The question this Note addresses is whether ABC should be able, for any number of strategic reasons, to remove this case to a federal district court in State A under the theory that, despite the fact that ABC may not remove the case to federal court under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1441(b), the foreign relations implications of the case are sufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. (5)

As discussed in Part II of this Note, each case decided by one of the circuit courts of appeal involved an action originally filed by plaintiffs in a state court, based on state causes of action, that the defendants sought to remove to federal court. (6) In each of these four cases, the district courts ruled that removal was barred because at least one of the defendants was considered a resident of the state of filing. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Foreign Relations and Federal Questions: Resolving the Judicial Split on Federal Court Jurisdiction
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.