Publication Date
2025
Document Type
Forthcoming Work
Abstract
In this essay, I respond to Professor Arthur D. Hellman. Hellman argues that "there is reason to be concerned that the [federal] judicial system falls short of the Framers' expectations--primarily by denying many litigants in cases presenting federal questions 'their real day in an Article III court,' but also by fostering 'balkanization' rather than uniformity in the interpretation of federal law." It is a privilege to comment upon Hellman's thoughtful piece. In doing so, I begin by questioning the value of originalist interpretations of Article III jurisdiction both descriptively and normatively. I then turn to an intra-originalist critique that paints a broader original-intent meaning for Article III arising-under jurisdiction than the one defended by Hellman. I end with a discussion of 28 U.S.C. s 1331 jurisdiction, providing a deeper look into early practice and a take on Justice Holmes' impact on statutory federal question jurisdiction and original congressional intent.
Publication Title
Boston University Law Review
Volume
104
Recommended Citation
Lumen N. Mulligan,
Is Federal Question Jurisdiction Arising Or Setting,
104
Boston University Law Review
(2025).
Available at:
https://irlaw.umkc.edu/faculty_works/998
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Legal History Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons