Author ORCID Identifier

0000-0003-3068-0070

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2004

Keywords

Supplemental jurisdiction statute, Class actions, Legislative history, Diversity jurisdiction, Statutory interpretation

Abstract

Ultimately, it does not matter how or even whether the Supreme Court resolves the issue. The fact that we still do not know whether Zahn lives ­after thirteen years-demonstrates that legislation concerning the jurisdiction of the federal courts should not be the hurried product of a few drafters whose work is not circulated for broader discussion. Ours is a world in which any change to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure-no matter how minor-must be circulated and subjected to public comment and review. Yet the jurisdiction of the federal courts can be changed in relative secrecy and haste. Congress committed two errors with regard to § 1367. First, it rushed onto the books a flawed statute. Second, when the flaws became obvious, it did not act to fix the problem. There is no reason to believe that it learned from either mistake.

In my opinion, the insertion of legislative history that contradicts the apparent effect of the statute and the contorted statutory interpretation that seeks to avoid the plain effect of the statute may result from lingering hostility to diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. After discussing that point, I will address the three approaches taken by the courts of appeals to the Zahn issue, after which I will comment generally on the drafting and interpretation of jurisdictional statutes.

First Page

55

Publication Title

Emory Law Journal

Share

COinS