13. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?

The woman filed suit against the man in federal district court in their home state to enforce the judgment. The man filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

A man and a woman who were U.S. citizens and residents of the same state were traveling separately in the foreign country when their cars collided. The foreign court awarded the woman a judgment for $500,000 in damages for her injuries from the accident.

With the advice and consent of the Senate, the President entered into a self-executing treaty with a foreign country. The treaty provided that citizens of both nations were required to pay whatever tort damages were awarded against them by a court of either nation.

Yes, because the citizenship of the parties is not diverse
Yes, because the traffic accident was a noncommercial transaction outside interstate commerce
No, because the case falls within the federal question jurisdiction of the court
No, because the treaty power is plenary and not subject to judicial review

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

The federal government is a government of limited powers, which means that for federal action to be legitimate, it must be authorized. The Constitution is the instrument that authorizes the federal government to act. Therefore, whenever a question involves action by an entity of the federal government, the action will be valid only if authorized by the U.S. Constitution. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, federal courts shall have judicial power over all «cases and controversies» arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the U.S. The President can make treaties with foreign nations (but only if two-thirds of the Senate approves).

C is correct. Federal question jurisdiction gives federal district courts original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority. The court, therefore, has federal question jurisdiction over this case because it «arises under» a treaty of the United States, as provided for by Article III of the Constitution. The self-executing treaty is valid because it was entered into by the President and a foreign country with the advice and consent of the Senate. Therefore, the court should deny the motion to dismiss.

A is incorrect. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; the only two ways to get into federal court are by diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. While the federal district court does lack diversity jurisdiction in this case because the man and the woman are citizens of the same state, the court still has original jurisdiction because it «arises under» a treaty of the United States, as provided for by Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

B is incorrect. The relationship of a matter to interstate commerce is relevant to the legislative power of Congress pursuant to Article I, but not to the jurisdiction of federal courts pursuant to Article III. As stated above, the court has federal question jurisdiction over the case because it «arises under» a treaty of the United States, as provided for by Article III of the Constitution.

D is incorrect. The scope of the President's power to enter into treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate is quite broad, but this is irrelevant to the question, which concerns the power of a federal court to hear a case. As explained above, the court has federal question jurisdiction here because it «arises under» a treaty of the United States, as provided for by Article III of the Constitution.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

13. Should the court grant the motion to dismiss?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired