Federal common law

Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states. The United States is the only country to combine the creation of common law doctrines with a complete federalism, wherein the national supreme court has virtually no power to review state court decisions to determine whether the state courts have followed state laws. The High Court of Australia is sometimes referred to as creating federal common law in that country, but because all state and territorial courts are directly appealable to the High Court, this is indistinguishable from a general common law. By contrast, the United States Supreme Court has effectively barred the creation of federal common law in areas traditionally under the authority of state courts. Nevertheless, there are several areas where federal common law continues to govern.

The "Swift" doctrine

Up until 1938, the federal courts followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of "Swift v. Tyson". ["Swift v. Tyson", [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=41&page=1 41 U.S. 1] (1842).] In that case, the United States Supreme Court had held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by state courts. Instead, the Supreme Court permitted the federal courts to make their own common law based on general principles of law.

The reasoning behind the decision in "Swift v. Tyson" was that the federal courts would craft a superior common law, and the states would choose to adopt it. This hope was not fulfilled, however, as states continued to diverge in their own legal practices. Some litigants began to abuse the availability of the federal courts for the specific purpose of having cases decided under the federal common law principles.

The "Erie" doctrine

In 1938, the Supreme Court decided "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins". ["Erie v. Tompkins", [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=304&page=64 304 U.S. 64] (1938).] "Erie" over-ruled "Swift v. Tyson", holding instead that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction had to use all of the same substantive laws as the courts of the states in which they were located. As the "Erie" Court put it, there is no "general federal common law", the key word here being "general". "Erie" did not put an end to other types of federal common law.

There remain several areas of law where federal common law is allowed to continue. These areas fall into two basic categories: areas where Congress has given the courts power to develop substantive law, and areas where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests. ["Texas Industries v. Radcliff", [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=volpage&court=us&vol=451&page=644 451 U.S. 630] (1981).]

The U.S. Congress has given courts power to formulate common law rules in areas such as admiralty law, antitrust, bankruptcy law, interstate commerce, and civil rights. Congress often lays down broad mandates with vague standards, which are then left to the courts to interpret, and these interpretations eventually give rise to complex understandings of the original intent of Congress, informed by the courts' understanding of what is just and reasonable.

Furthermore, in the 1943 case of "Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States", ["Clearfield Trust v. United States", [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=318&page=363 318 U.S. 363] (1943).] the Court set forth three criteria for determining whether the court should create a federal common law rule due to the existence of a significantly important federal interest:

#Is there a federal competence to create law in this area—i.e. would Congress be able to adopt a law in such an area?
#If there is federal competence, should state or federal law govern?
#If federal law governs, should courts borrow state law or create a new federal rule?

Federal common law yields to Congress

Federal common law is only valid insofar as Congress wants it to be valid. In other words, Congress is free to modify the federal common law. The Supreme Court has explained that, "when Congress addresses a question previously governed by a decision rested on federal common law the need for such an unusual exercise of law-making by federal courts disappears." ["Milwaukee v. Illinois", [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=451&invol=304 451 U.S. 304] (1981).]

During the era when the Constitution was written, it was understood that common law was always alterable by legislatures. For example, Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist that the New York Constitution made the common law subject "to such alterations and provisions as the legislature shall from time to time make concerning the same." [ [http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm Federalist 84] .] Thus, even when a federal court has authority to make common law, that law is subject to alteration by Congress. This principle finds expression in the : "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

References


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Look at other dictionaries:

  • federal common law — n: case law developed in the federal courts see also erie railroad co. v. tompkins in the important cases section ◇ Federal common law is applied primarily in admiralty and maritime cases, disputes between states, matters of international… …   Law dictionary

  • federal common law — A body of decisional law developed by the federal courts. The application of this body of common law is limited by the Erie doctrine and by the Rules of Decision Act, which provides that except for cases governed by the Constitution, the treaties …   Black's law dictionary

  • federal common law — A concept intriguing to legal theorists. Strictly speaking, a nonentity. 15 Am J2d Com L § 4. In a less than strict usage, the common law enforced generally throughout the United States. Western Union Tel. Co. v Call Pub. Co. 181 US 92, 45 L Ed… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • common law — n: a body of law that is based on custom and general principles and embodied in case law and that serves as precedent or is applied to situations not covered by statute the common law of torts: as a: the body of law that was first developed in… …   Law dictionary

  • common law — As distinguished from statutory law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority …   Black's law dictionary

  • Common law — For other uses, see Common law (disambiguation). Common law (also known as case law or precedent) is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A… …   Wikipedia

  • common law — 1. the system of law originating in England, as distinct from the civil or Roman law and the canon or ecclesiastical law. 2. the unwritten law, esp. of England, based on custom or court decision, as distinct from statute law. 3. the law… …   Universalium

  • common law — Those principles, usages and rules of action applicable to the government and security of persons and property which do not rest for their authority upon any express or positive statute or other written declaration, but upon statements of… …   Ballentine's law dictionary

  • common-law copyright — Authors proprietary interest in his creation before it has been published. An intangible, incorporeal right in an author of literary or artistic productions to reproduce and sell them exclusively and arises at the moment of their creation as… …   Black's law dictionary

  • Common-law marriage in the United States — was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877)), which ruled that Michigan had not abolished common law marriage merely by producing a statute establishing rules for the solemnization of marriages. Common… …   Wikipedia


Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”

We are using cookies for the best presentation of our site. Continuing to use this site, you agree with this.