联邦问题和家庭关系例外

IF 5.2 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW Yale Law Journal Pub Date : 2015-07-13 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2629956
B. Silverman
{"title":"联邦问题和家庭关系例外","authors":"B. Silverman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2629956","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction prohibits federal courts from hearing cases involving family-law questions within the traditional authority of the states. Since the Supreme Court first articulated the exception in 1858, the scope of the doctrine has remained unclear; in particular, confusion persists over whether it applies only to diversity cases, or to federal questions as well. This Note argues that the domestic-relations exception does not, as a matter of positive law, apply to federal-question cases. Applying the exception to bar federal courts from jurisdiction over bona fide federal questions would violate Article III, which endows federal courts with jurisdiction over all federal-question cases in law or equity. Additionally, the federal-question jurisdiction statute is best read as reflecting a congressional intent that federal jurisdiction extend to domestic-relations matters that raise questions of federal law. Federal courts have the authority to resolve important and timely questions of federal law. The domestic-relations exception should not be misconstrued to stand in their way.","PeriodicalId":48293,"journal":{"name":"Yale Law Journal","volume":"51 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Federal Questions and the Domestic-Relations Exception\",\"authors\":\"B. Silverman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2629956\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction prohibits federal courts from hearing cases involving family-law questions within the traditional authority of the states. Since the Supreme Court first articulated the exception in 1858, the scope of the doctrine has remained unclear; in particular, confusion persists over whether it applies only to diversity cases, or to federal questions as well. This Note argues that the domestic-relations exception does not, as a matter of positive law, apply to federal-question cases. Applying the exception to bar federal courts from jurisdiction over bona fide federal questions would violate Article III, which endows federal courts with jurisdiction over all federal-question cases in law or equity. Additionally, the federal-question jurisdiction statute is best read as reflecting a congressional intent that federal jurisdiction extend to domestic-relations matters that raise questions of federal law. Federal courts have the authority to resolve important and timely questions of federal law. The domestic-relations exception should not be misconstrued to stand in their way.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48293,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"4\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Yale Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2629956\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yale Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2629956","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

联邦管辖权的家庭关系例外禁止联邦法院在各州的传统权力范围内审理涉及家庭法问题的案件。自最高法院于1858年首次阐明例外以来,该原则的范围一直不明确;尤其令人困惑的是,它是否只适用于多样性案件,还是也适用于联邦问题。本说明认为,作为成文法,家庭关系例外不适用于涉及联邦问题的案件。应用这一例外来禁止联邦法院对善意联邦问题的管辖权将违反第三条,该条赋予联邦法院对法律或衡平法中所有联邦问题案件的管辖权。此外,联邦问题管辖权法规最好被解读为反映了国会的意图,即联邦管辖权扩展到引起联邦法律问题的家庭关系事务。联邦法院有权及时解决联邦法律中的重要问题。国内关系的例外不应被误解为阻碍他们的道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Federal Questions and the Domestic-Relations Exception
The domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction prohibits federal courts from hearing cases involving family-law questions within the traditional authority of the states. Since the Supreme Court first articulated the exception in 1858, the scope of the doctrine has remained unclear; in particular, confusion persists over whether it applies only to diversity cases, or to federal questions as well. This Note argues that the domestic-relations exception does not, as a matter of positive law, apply to federal-question cases. Applying the exception to bar federal courts from jurisdiction over bona fide federal questions would violate Article III, which endows federal courts with jurisdiction over all federal-question cases in law or equity. Additionally, the federal-question jurisdiction statute is best read as reflecting a congressional intent that federal jurisdiction extend to domestic-relations matters that raise questions of federal law. Federal courts have the authority to resolve important and timely questions of federal law. The domestic-relations exception should not be misconstrued to stand in their way.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Yale Law Journal Online is the online companion to The Yale Law Journal. It replaces The Pocket Part, which was the first such companion to be published by a leading law review. YLJ Online will continue The Pocket Part"s mission of augmenting the scholarship printed in The Yale Law Journal by providing original Essays, legal commentaries, responses to articles printed in the Journal, podcast and iTunes University recordings of various pieces, and other works by both established and emerging academics and practitioners.
期刊最新文献
Abolitionist Prison Litigation How to Save the Supreme Court Prosecuting Corporate Crime When Firms Are Too Big to Jail: Investigation, Deterrence, and Judicial Review The Statutory Separation of Powers A Cooperative Federalism Approach to Shareholder Arbitration
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1