Jurisdiction, Merits, and Substantiality
Howard M. Wasserman
Florida International University (FIU) - College of Law
Tulsa Law Review, Vol. 42, p. 579, 2007
Florida International University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-14
This paper, prepared for Tulsa Law Review's 2005 Supreme Court Review, comments on Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. (2006), which held that the employee-numerosity requirement of Title VII was an element of the merits of a claim, not the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. But the Court cited, thus supporting the continued validity of, Bell v. Hood (1946), its long-standing, but oft-questioned, decision holding that a court may lack federal-question jurisdiction if a plainly federal claim is insubstantial or frivolous. This comment analyzes the many problems that Bell creates in drawing lines between jurisdiction and merits and explains why the Arbaugh Court should not have relied on the rule and why it should eliminate the jurisdictional doctrine of substantiality.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 26
Keywords: Jurisdiction, Merits, ProcedureAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 20, 2008
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 1.265 seconds