Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Trojan Horse: How The Declaratory Judgment Act Created A Cause Of Action And Expanded Federal Jurisdiction While The Supreme Court Wasn't Looking, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin
The Trojan Horse: How The Declaratory Judgment Act Created A Cause Of Action And Expanded Federal Jurisdiction While The Supreme Court Wasn't Looking, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
This Article examines the Court's treatment of declaratory judgment actions. It demonstrates that the Court's ‘procedural only’ view of the Act frustrates congressional intent and is neither analytically sound nor practical. Part I discusses the general rules governing federal question jurisdiction and the Court's method for dealing with declaratory judgment cases. Part II explores the history and purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act and its relationship to federal question jurisdiction. This study demonstrates that the Supreme Court's assumptions about the jurisdictional import of the Declaratory Judgment Act find no support in the legislative history. Further, it shows that the Court's …
History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin
History Comes Calling: Dean Griswold Offers New Evidence About The Jurisdictional Debate Surrounding The Enactment Of The Declaratory Judgment Act, Donald L. Doernberg, Michael B. Mushlin
Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications
In a recent article, we proposed that the Declaratory Judgment Act of 1934 was intended, contrary to the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation, to enlarge the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts. When Congress considered the Act, jurisdictional concerns centered around whether declaratory judgments would violate the case-or-controversy clause, not whether introduction of the device would expand the federal question jurisdiction Congress already had authorized. There is, indeed, substantial evidence that Congress intended to expand federal question jurisdiction to include at least two, and possibly three, case models; there is virtually no evidence supporting the contrary position taken by the …