Vickie LYNN Marshall v. E. Pierce Marshall (547 U.S. 293)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 1, 2006 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 547 U.S. 293 · 126 S. Ct. 1735
- Decided
- May 1, 2006
- Term
- October Term 2005
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. In Cohens v. Virginia, Chief Justice Marshall famously cautioned: “It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. . . . We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given.” 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821). Among longstanding limitations on federal jurisdiction otherwise properly exercised are the so-called “domestic relations” and “probate” exceptions. Neither is compelled by the text of the Constitution or federal statute. Both are judicially created doctrines stemming in large measure from misty understandings of English legal history. See, e. g., Atwood, Domestic Relations Cases in Federal Court: Toward a Principled Exercise of Jurisdiction, 35 Hastings L. J. 571, 584-588 (1984); Spindel v. Spindel, 283 F. Supp. 797, 802 (EDNY 1968) (collecting cases and commentary revealing vulnerability of historical explanation for domestic relations exception); Winkler, The Probate Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 14 Probate L. J. 77, 125-126, and n. 256 (1997) (describing historical explanation for probate exception as “an exercise in mythography”). In the years following Marshall’s 1821 pronouncement, courts have sometimes lost sight of his admonition and have rendered…
Excerpt of a 33,931-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.