Under the Constitution, the federal courts are courts of “limited jurisdiction,” which essentially means that, in the absence of a specifically delineated judicial power provided under the Constitution or federal law, the federal courts have no authority to grant relief to a petitioning party, no matter how dire the circumstance or the need for the relief requested. But there is a statute – the All Writs Act (“AWA”) – that has been on the books for over two centuries and that has been a source of controversy and debate over precisely what is meant by the concept of limited jurisdiction, particularly when matters are brought before the court that arguably raise matters of national security. Under the AWA, “all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). This relatively simple and short statutory phrase, which the United States Supreme Court has described as “a residual source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute,” has proven to be a fertile ground for litigation, most recently in the San Bernardino massacre.
-
Search It!
-
Recent Entries
- DOL Withdraws Guidance Letters Leaving Employers to Pick up the Pieces
- In Matal V. Tam, Scotus Rules Prohibition On Disparaging Trademarks Unconstitutional
- Fate Of Enjoined White Collar Overtime Rule Still Undecided: Unlikely To Defend Obama Administration Rule, The Trump Administration Stalls
- An Overview of Ban the Box Laws in California
- What’s in a name? A battle for a transgender immigrant’s rights
- The LCLD Fellows Program: Building Relationships and Leadership Skills
- California & the Federal Government Expand Laws to Eliminate Wage Disparity
- Paid Sick Leave: Coming to a Town Near You
- Dole’s “All Natural” Description On Certain Fruit Products Could Mislead Reasonable Consumers
- CFPA’s Anticipated Effect on Litigation
-
Links