Cases by Issue - Federal Question

Grable & Sons Metal Products v. Darue Engineering

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:47:02 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

04-603

Petitioner

Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Darue Engineering & Manufacturing

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

545 U.S. ___ (2005)

Granted

Friday, January 7, 2005

Argued

Monday, April 18, 2005

Decided

Monday, June 13, 2005

Advocates

Eric H. Zagrans (argued the cause for Petitioner)

Irving L. Gornstein (argued the cause for Respondent)

Michael C. Walton (argued the cause for Respondent)

Facts of the Case

The IRS seized property owned by Grable and gave Grable notice by certified mail before selling the property to Darue. Grable sued in state court, claiming Darue's title was invalid because federal law required the IRS to give Grable notice of the sale by personal service, not certified mail. Darue removed the case to federal disctrict court, arguing that the case presented a federal question because Grable's claim depended on an interpretation of federal tax law. The district court agreed and ruled for Darue. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision.

Question

Did a case involving the interpretation of federal tax law belong in federal court and not the state court where it was filed?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Darue Engineering, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the Court held that the case involved a federal question and could thus be removed to federal court. Federal-questions jurisdiction, the Court reasoned, lay over some state-law claims that implicated significant federal issues. In this case, the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation warranted moving the case to federal court.

Shalala v. Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

98-1109

Petitioner

Shalala

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

529 U.S. 1 (2000)

Argued

Monday, November 8, 1999

Decided

Tuesday, February 29, 2000

Advocates

Jeffrey A. Lamken (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the petitioner)

Kimball R. Anderson (Argued the cause for the respondent)

Facts of the Case

The Illinois Council on Long Term Care, Inc. (Council), an association of nursing homes participating in Medicare, sued the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, challenging the validity of various Medicare regulations establishing sanctions and remedies for nursing homes found guilty of violating minimum health and safety standards. The Council alleged that certain terms in the new regulations were unconstitutionally vague, that the regulations created administrative procedures inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's Due Process Clause, and that the regulations' legislative rules that were not promulgated consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. The Council invoked the Federal District Court's federal-question jurisdiction, which states that "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States," to rule on its claims. The District Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The court concluded that set of special statutory provisions under the Medicare Act create a separate, virtually exclusive, system of administrative and judicial review for such claims. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Question

Does the Medicare Act bar judicial review, under federal-question jurisdiction, of challenges to the validity of Medicare regulations?

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Shalala, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Medicare--provisions of the Social Security Act

Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the Medicare Act barred federal-question jurisdiction of the Council's challenges to the validity of various Medicare regulations. The Court concluded that the Council must proceed instead through the special review channel that the Medicare statutes create. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent that, "[d]elayed review...may mean no review at all. For when the costs of presenting a claim via the delayed review route exceed the costs of simply complying with the regulation, the regulated entity will buckle under and comply, even when the regulation is plainly invalid."

Exxon Corp. v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc.

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:06 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-34

Petitioner

Exxon Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Central Gulf Lines, Inc.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

500 U.S. 603 (1991)

Argued

Monday, April 15, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 3, 1991

Advocates

Francis A. Montbach (on behalf of the Respondents)

Stephen L. Nightingale (as amicus curiae, in support of the Petitioner)

Armand Maurice Pare, Jr. (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Exxon Corp., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1333

None

Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:23 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1372

Petitioner

Argentine Republic

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Amerada Hess Shipping

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

488 U.S. 428 (1989)

Argued

Tuesday, December 6, 1988

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1989

Advocates

Douglas R. Burnett (on behalf of the Respondent)

Bruno A. Ristau (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Charles Fried (as Amicus Curiae supporting the Petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Argentine Republic, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1330

None

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:27:15 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

85-619

Petitioner

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Thompson

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

478 U.S. 804 (1986)

Argued

Monday, April 28, 1986

Decided

Monday, July 7, 1986

Advocates

Stanley M. Chesley (on behalf of the respondents)

Frank C. Woodside, III (on behalf of the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Thompson, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1331

None

Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank Of Nigeria

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:33:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

81-920

Petitioner

Verlinden B. V.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Central Bank Of Nigeria

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

461 U.S. 480 (1983)

Argued

Tuesday, January 11, 1983

Decided

Monday, May 23, 1983

Advocates

Abram Chayes (on behalf of the Petitioner)

Paul M. Bator (as amicus curiae)

Stephen N. Shulman (as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Verlinden B. V., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Army & Air Force Exchange Service v. Sheehan

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:30:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

80-1437

Petitioner

Army & Air Force Exchange Service

Respondent

Sheehan

Heard By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Decided By

Burger Court (1981-1986)

Opinion

456 U.S. 728 (1982)

Argued

Tuesday, February 23, 1982

Decided

Tuesday, June 1, 1982

Advocates

Samuel A. Alito, Jr. (on behalf of Petitioner)

Ira E. Tobolowsky (on behalf of Respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Army & Air Force Exchange Service, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Tucker

None