Judicial Abstinence: Ninth Circuit Jurisdictional Celibacy for Claims Brought Under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act
Publication year | 2003 |
The time honored axiom of the common law tradition is that a court must exercise the jurisdiction that it possesses.(fn1) Chief Justice Marshall declared that judicial conduct contrary to this principle would be in direct defiance of the prerogatives set forth in the Constitution. Marshall opined, "[we] have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be
At the core of this belief is that where federal jurisdictional requirements have been legally met, an exercise of judicial discretion to abstain constitutes a judicial usurpation of legislative power. One leading commentator has articulated the view that abstention is anathema to the doctrine of separation of powers:
The interrelationship between legislative mandates establishing the jurisdictional boundaries of the courts and court invocation of that jurisdiction is significant. Democratic societies rely upon majoritarian self-determination. "American Constitutional democracy vests in a largely unrepresentative judiciary the power to invalidate laws adopted by a majoritarian legislature when those laws are deemed to violate constitutional protections."(fn5) For American Constitutional democracy to function properly, the courts must act within their congressionally-conferred jurisdictional province.(fn6) However, invocation of jurisdiction by the federal courts has proved to be an elastic practice that has expanded and contracted with little jurisprudential consistency. This elasticity has been permitted by another axiom of the common law tradition, "abstention." While one axiom stands for the proposition that jurisdiction should be always be exercised, the other declares that there are circumstances where the former proposition does not hold up.(fn7)
Procedurally, federal courts can indirectly abstain from exercising jurisdiction without reliance on the abstention doctrine. This can be accomplished under the concept of justiciability,(fn8) or through the doctrines of ripeness,(fn9)
Originally, the doctrine of abstention was relegated to only those cases which arose in equity.(fn13) The doctrine has since expanded beyond equity application so that abstention is now applied to "all cases in which a federal court is asked to provide some form of discretionary relief."(fn14) Certainly, most federal judges in the present day would not consider the exercise of any of the various forms of abstention as an act of "treason." Instead, for many, using the guise of preserving federalism, this is simply a means of reducing part of the burden of the federal docket. The debate has long been raging over the elimination of areas of the federal courts' jurisdiction, with specific emphasis on diversity jurisdiction in general; however, because Congress has failed to address these issues, the courts have felt compelled to exercise judicial power to accomplish what Congress would not.(fn15)
The practical question that is of primary importance is just how far the federal courts are going to stray from the axiom of exercising jurisdiction in order to accomplish the goal of lightening their load. Further, it must be determined whether the courts are acting consistent with their Constitutional authority in their use of the abstention doctrine or whether it has simply become a matter of the ends justifying the means.(fn16)
This article focuses upon abstention in the context of the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act ("FDJA").(fn17) Congress enacted the FDJA in 1934, thereby authorizing federal courts to grant federal declaratory judgment relief.(fn18) The FDJA provides in relevant part:
Federal jurisdiction under the FDJA is based solely upon the original jurisdiction of the court; namely, diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction.(fn20) While district courts have discretion to exercise jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions brought under the FDJA, that discretion is not unfettered.(fn21) A district court cannot decline to entertain a declaratory judgment action as a matter of whim or personal disinclination.(fn22) The discretion granted by the FDJA essentially builds the abstention doctrine into the grant of jurisdiction.(fn23)
In a recent Ninth Circuit decision,
Part I will discuss the various forms of abstention and the historical progression and development of the abstention doctrine in federal case law, setting the background for the expansive holding in
I. The Abstention Doctrine in Federal Jurisprudence- An Historical Overview
While the original power to abstain from exercising federal jurisdiction...
To continue reading
Request your trial