28 U.S.C. § 1251

Historical and Revision Notes

Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 23136 Stat. 1156Oct. 6, 1917, ch. 97, § 240 Stat. 395June 10, 1922, ch. 216, § 242 Stat. 635Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 341, 371(7), (8) (, §§ 233, 256, , 1160; , ; , ).

This section reconciles provisions of sections 341 and 371(7), (8) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with Article 3, section 2 and Amendment 11 of the Constitution.

Sections 341 and 371 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were not wholly consistent with such constitutional provisions. Said section 341 provided that the Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction of controversies between a State and citizens of other States or aliens, whereas the 11th Amendment prohibits an action in any Federal Court against a State by citizens of another State or aliens.

Ames v. KansasU.S. v. 4,450.72 Acres of Land, Clearwater County, State of MinnesotaThe original jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 3, section 2, of the Constitution is not exclusive by virtue of that provision alone. Congress may provide for or deny exclusiveness. , 1884, 4 S.Ct. 437, 111 U.S. 449, 28 L.Ed. 442; , D.C. Minn., 1939, 27 F.Supp. 167, affirmed 125 F.2d 636.

Louisiana v. TexasU.S. v. LouisianaSections 341 and 371 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., did not confer expressly exclusive jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in civil cases between States, , 1899, 20 S.Ct. 251, 176 U.S. 1, 44 L.Ed. 347, as has been provided in subsection (a)(1) of the revised section. The language at the beginning of said section 341, for which said subsection has been substituted, was ambiguous and made it appear that an action by a State against the United States would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, in , 1887, 8 S.Ct. 17, 123 U.S. 32, 31 L.Ed. 69, the Supreme Court, in a case appealed from the Court of Claims, held to the contrary.

United States v. State of UtahUnited States v. 4,450.72 Acres of Land, Clearwater County, State of MinnesotaUnited States v. State of CaliforniaSo, also, in actions by the United States to condemn lands of a State or to enforce penalties for violation of a Federal statute against a State-owned utility, the United States district courts have jurisdiction. See , 1931, 51 S.Ct. 438, 283 U.S. 64, 75 L.Ed. 844; , D.C.Minn. 1939, 27 F.Supp. 167, affirmed 125 F.2d 636; , 1936, 56 S.Ct. 421, 297 U.S. 175, 80 L.Ed. 567.

section 1351 of this titleThe intent of section 371(7), (8) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., that the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States should be exclusive of the courts of the States in controversies to which a State is a party, and suits against ambassadors, public ministers, consuls and vice consuls, is preserved and clarified by this section and .

The revised section preserves existing law with reference to foreign ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls. Under subsection (a)(2) the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction of actions or proceedings against the ambassadors or public ministers of other nations.

Under subsection (b)(1) the Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction of actions or proceedings brought by such ambassadors or other public ministers or to which consuls or vice consuls of other nations are parties.

Section 1351 of this title gives to United States district courts, exclusive of the courts of the States, jurisdiction of civil actions against such consuls and vice consuls.

section 1351 of this titleMilward v. McSaulState of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. AlgerThis section and said have no application to ambassadors, public ministers, consuls or vice consuls representing the United States. See , D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1846, 17 Fed.Cas.No. 9,623 and , 1930, 50 S.Ct. 154, 280 U.S. 379, 74 L.Ed. 489.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial Notes

Amendments

Pub. L. 95–393, § 8(b)(1)1978—Subsec. (a). , designated introductory provision of subsec. (a) and (a)(1) as (a), and struck out “(2) All actions or proceedings against ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign states or their domestics or domestic servants, not inconsistent with the law of nations”.

Pub. L. 95–393, § 8(b)(2)Subsec. (b)(1). , substituted “to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or” for “brought by ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign states or to which consuls or”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Pub. L. 95–393Sept. 30, 1978section 9 of Pub. L. 95–393section 254a of Title 22Amendment by effective at the end of the ninety-day period beginning on , see , set out as an Effective Date note under , Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Statutes Governing Writs of Error To Apply to Appeals

Act Jan. 31, 1928, ch. 14, § 245 Stat. 54Apr. 26, 1928, ch. 44045 Stat. 466June 25, 1948, ch. 646, § 2362 Stat. 990section 1 of this title, , amended , ; , , provided that “All Acts of Congress referring to writs of error shall be construed as amended to the extent necessary to substitute appeal for writ of error.” See also, notes preceding .