Board index Law School Forum for Law School Students
Diversity Jurisdiction
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
splittermcsplit88
Postby splittermcsplit88 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 3:53 pm
To qualify for DJ, why does at least one person have to be a US citizen? If the action is between two people (located in different states) with permanent residence, wouldn't that suffice? 28 U.S.C. 1332 says "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state," not "at least one U.S. citizen."
KidStuddi
Re: Diversity Jurisdiction
Postby KidStuddi » Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:41 pm
splittermcsplit88 wrote: To qualify for DJ, why does at least one person have to be a US citizen?
Because that's all that Congress has given the federal courts jurisdiction to hear, at least with respect to diversity jurisdiction. Go back and look at the historical reasons given for diversity jurisdiction, this makes pretty good sense.
splittermcsplit88 wrote: If the action is between two people (located in different states) with permanent residence, wouldn't that suffice? 28 U.S.C. 1332 says "citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state," not "at least one U.S. citizen."
No, it would not suffice. It quite clearly says that there must be at least one citizen. I don't know how you could read what you quoted and think otherwise.
This question used to come up all the time because the provision for determining the citizenship of legal permanent residents by their state of domicile was written in a confusing way that lead some to believe that LPRs were equivalent to citizens for diversity jurisdiction purposes, but they recently changed the ways the rules were written to specifically address your issue and make it clear that the 1332 was never intended to provide diversity jurisdiction between two aliens. If the LPR is domiciled in the same state as the plaintiff, that destroys diversity, but this was always meant to be a further limitation on federal jurisdiction, not an expansion of it to cover all aliens bringing claims on state laws who meet the amount in controversy. Perhaps you're using an old casebook or old supplements if you're still getting confused.
"Although the Constitution permits the assertion of Federal jurisdiction over disputes involving aliens, established law bars the assertion of jurisdiction over a dispute that involves only aliens. Alienage jurisdiction exceeds the limits of Article III unless a citizen of the United States also appears as a party. See Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 303 (1809). Cognizant of this long-standing constitutional limitation, section 1332 allows for jurisdiction over aliens in two situations, both of which involve U.S. citizens."
That's from page six of the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011.
Last edited by KidStuddi on Tue Apr 30, 2013 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Citizenship for diversity purposes means residence and subjective intent. It's not entirely clear whether "citizens of a State" refers to a US citizen or a permanent resident with subjective intent. But, thanks for clearing it up.
splittermcsplit88 wrote: Citizenship for diversity purposes means residence and subjective intent. It's not entirely clear whether "citizens of a State" refers to a US citizen or a permanent resident with subjective intent. But, thanks for clearing it up.
My understanding is that this controversy is entirely dead in light of the changes to 1332. If this is not what your professor is teaching, then by all means write that. Just watch out if you're only basing this on a supplement published before mid 2011.
Return to "Forum for Law School Students�?
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 15 guests