Jurisdiction, Merits, and Substantiality

Abstract:     
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, Procedure

Accepted Paper Series