AI Case Brief
Generate an AI-powered case brief with:
Estimated cost: $0.001 - $0.003 per brief
Full Opinion
FINLEY
v.
UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of United States.
*546 Joseph T. Cook argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs was Juanita M. Madole.
Deputy Solicitor General Shapiro argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Bolton, Richard G. Taranto, John F. Cordes, and Thomas M. Bondy.
JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the night of November 11, 1983, a twin-engine plane carrying petitioner's husband and two of her children struck electric transmission lines during its approach to a San Diego, California, airfield. No one survived the resulting crash. Petitioner brought a tort action in state court, claiming that San Diego Gas and Electric Company had negligently positioned and inadequately illuminated the transmission lines, and that the city of San Diego's negligent maintenance of the airport's runway lights had rendered them inoperative the night of the crash. When she later discovered that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was in fact the party responsible for the runway lights, petitioner filed the present action against the United States in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint based jurisdiction upon the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b), alleging negligence in the FAA's operation and maintenance of the runway lights and performance of air traffic control functions. Almost a year later, she moved to amend the federal complaint to include claims against the original state-court defendants, as to which no independent basis for federal jurisdiction existed. The District Court *547 granted petitioner's motion and asserted "pendent" jurisdiction under Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), finding it "clear" that "judicial economy and efficiency" favored trying the actions together, and concluding that they arose "from a common nucleus of operative facts." App. to Pet. for Cert. A-8 to A-9. The District Court certified an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b). That court summarily reversed on the basis of its earlier opinion in Ayala v. United States, 550 F. 2d 1196 (1977), cert. dism'd, 435 U. S. 982 (1978), which had categorically rejected pendent-party jurisdiction under the FTCA. We granted certiorari, 488 U. S. 815 (1988), to resolve a split among the Circuits on whether the FTCA permits an assertion of pendent jurisdiction over additional parties. Compare, e. g., Ayala v. United States, supra, with Lykins v. Pointer, Inc., 725 F. 2d 645 (CA11 1984), and Stewart v. United States, 716 F. 2d 755 (CA10 1982), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1018 (1984).
The FTCA provides that "the district courts . . . shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States" for certain torts of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b). Petitioner seeks to append her claims against the city and the utility to her FTCA action against the United States, even though this would require the District Court to extend its authority to additional parties for whom an independent jurisdictional base such as diversity of citizenship, 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(1) is lacking.
In 1807 Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Court that "courts which are created by written law, and whose jurisdiction is defined by written law, cannot transcend that jurisdiction. It is unnecessary to state the reasoning on which this opinion is founded, because it has been repeatedly given by this court; and with the decisions heretofore rendered on this point, no member of the bench has, even for an instant, been dissatisfied." Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75, 93 (1807). It *548 remains rudimentary law that "[a]s regards all courts of the United States inferior to this tribunal, two things are necessary to create jurisdiction, whether original or appellate. The Constitution must have given to the court the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must have supplied it. . . . To the extent that such action is not taken, the power lies dormant." The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252 (1868) (emphasis added); accord, Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Co., 486 U. S. 800, 818 (1988); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 379-380 (1981); Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 233-234 (1922); Case of the Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wall. 553, 577-578, 586-587 (1874); Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449 (1850); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245 (1845); McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504, 506 (1813).
Despite this principle, in a line of cases by now no less well established we have held, without specific examination of jurisdictional statutes, that federal courts have "pendent" claim jurisdiction that is, jurisdiction over nonfederal claims between parties litigating other matters properly before the court to the full extent permitted by the Constitution. Mine Workers v. Gibbs, supra; Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238 (1933); Siler v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175 (1909).[1]Gibbs, which has come to stand for the principle in question, held that "[p]endent jurisdiction, in the sense of judicial power, exists whenever there is a claim `arising under [the] Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority. . . ,' U. S. Const., Art. III, § 2, and the relationship *549 between that claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional `case.' " 383 U. S., at 725 (emphasis in original). The requisite relationship exists, Gibbs said, when the federal and nonfederal claims "derive from a common nucleus of operative fact" and are such that a plaintiff "would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding." Ibid. Petitioner contends that the same criterion applies here, leading to the result that her state-law claims against San Diego Gas and Electric Company and the city of San Diego may be heard in conjunction with her FTCA action against the United States.
Analytically, petitioner's case is fundamentally different from Gibbs in that it brings into question what has become known as pendent-party jurisdiction, that is, jurisdiction over parties not named in any claim that is independently cognizable by the federal court.[2] We may assume, without deciding, that the constitutional criterion for pendent-party jurisdiction is analogous to the constitutional criterion for pendent-claim jurisdiction, and that petitioner's state-law claims pass that test. Our cases show, however, that with respect to the addition of parties, as opposed to the addition of only claims, we will not assume that the full constitutional power has been congressionally authorized, and will not read jurisdictional statutes broadly. In Zahn v. International Paper Co., 414 U. S. 291, 301 (1973), we refused to allow a plaintiff pursuing a diversity action worth less than the jurisdictional minimum of $10,000 to append his claim to the jurisdictionally adequate diversity claims of other members of a plaintiff class even though all of the claims would together *550 have amounted to a single "case" under Gibbs, see Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U. S. 365, 372 (1978). We based this holding upon "the statutes defining the jurisdiction of the District Court," 414 U. S., at 292, and did not so much as mention Gibbs.
Two years later, the nontransferability of Gibbs to pendent-party claims was made explicit. In Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U. S. 1 (1976), the plaintiff brought federal claims under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against individual defendants, and sought to append to them a related state claim against Spokane County, Washington. (A federal § 1983 claim was unavailable against the county because of this Court's decision in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961).)[3] We specifically disapproved application of the Gibbs mode of analysis, finding a "significant legal difference." 427 U. S., at 15. "[T]he addition of a completely new party," we said, "would run counter to the well-established principle that federal courts . . . are courts of limited jurisdiction marked out by Congress." Ibid. "Resolution of a claim of pendent-party jurisdiction . . . calls for careful attention to the relevant statutory language." Id., at 17. We held in Aldinger that the jurisdictional statute under which suit was brought, 28 U. S. C. § 1343, which conferred district court jurisdiction over civil actions of certain types "authorized by law to be commenced," did not mean to include as "authorized by law" a state-law claim against a party that had been statutorily insulated from similar federal suit. The county had been "excluded from liability in § 1983, and therefore by reference in the grant of jurisdiction under § 1343(3)." Ibid. (emphasis in original).
We reaffirmed and further refined our approach to pendent-party jurisdiction in Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, supra, at 372-375 a case, like Zahn, involving the diversity statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(1), but focusing on the requirement that the suit be "between . . . citizens of different *551 states," rather than the requirement that it "excee[d] the sum or value of $10,000." We held that the jurisdiction which § 1332(a)(1) confers over a "matter in controversy" between a plaintiff and defendant of diverse citizenship cannot be read to confer pendent jurisdiction over a different, non-diverse defendant, even if the claim involving that other defendant meets the Gibbs test. "Gibbs," we said, "does not end the inquiry into whether a federal court has power to hear the nonfederal claims along with the federal ones. Beyond this constitutional minimum, there must be an examination of the posture in which the nonfederal claim is asserted and of the specific statute that confers jurisdiction over the federal claim," 437 U. S., at 373.
The most significant element of "posture" or of "context," id., at 376, in the present case (as in Zahn, Aldinger, and Kroger) is precisely that the added claims involve added parties over whom no independent basis of jurisdiction exists. While in a narrow class of cases a federal court may assert authority over such a claim "ancillary" to jurisdiction otherwise properly vested for example, when an additional party has a claim upon contested assets within the court's exclusive control, see, e. g., Krippendorf v. Hyde, 110 U. S. 276 (1884); Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460 (1861), or when necessary to give effect to the court's judgment, see, e. g., Local Loan Co. v. Hunt, 292 U. S. 234, 239 (1934); Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93, 112-114 (1904) we have never reached such a result solely on the basis that the Gibbs test has been met.[4] And little more basis than that can be relied *552 upon by petitioner here. As in Kroger, the relationship between petitioner's added claims and the original complaint is one of "mere factual similarity," which is of no consequence since "neither the convenience of the litigants nor considerations of judicial economy can suffice to justify extension of the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction," 437 U. S., at 376-377. It is true that here, unlike in Kroger, see id., at 376, the party seeking to bring the added claims had little choice but to be in federal rather than state court, since the FTCA permits the Federal Government to be sued only there. But that alone is not enough, since we have held that suits against the United States under the Tucker Act, 24 Stat. 505 (which can of course be brought only in federal court, see 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346(a)(2), 1491(a)(1)), cannot include private defendants. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584 (1941).
The second factor invoked by Kroger, the text of the jurisdictional statute at issue, likewise fails to establish petitioner's case. The FTCA, § 1346(b), confers jurisdiction over "civil actions on claims against the United States." It does not say "civil actions on claims that include requested relief against the United States," nor "civil actions in which there is a claim against the United States" formulations one might expect if the presence of a claim against the United States constituted merely a minimum jurisdictional requirement, rather than a definition of the permissible scope of FTCA actions. Just as the statutory provision "between . . . citizens of different States" has been held to mean citizens of different States and no one else, see Kroger, supra, so also here we conclude that "against the United States" means against the United States and no one else.[5] "Due regard for the rightful *553 independence of state governments . . . requires that [federal courts] scrupulously confine their own jurisdiction to the precise limits which the statute has defined." Healy v. Ratta, 292 U. S. 263, 270 (1934); accord, Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. Cleveland, 409 U. S. 249, 272-273 (1972); Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U. S. 100, 108-109 (1941). The statute here defines jurisdiction in a manner that does not reach defendants other than the United States.[6]
Petitioner contends, however, that an affirmative grant of pendent-party jurisdiction is suggested by changes made to the jurisdictional grant of the FTCA as part of the comprehensive 1948 revision of the Judicial Code. See Pub. L. 773, *554 62 Stat. 869. In its earlier form, the FTCA had conferred upon district courts "exclusive jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on any claim against the United States" for specified torts. 28 U. S. C. § 931 (1946 ed.) (emphasis added). In the 1948 revision, this provision was changed to "exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims against the United States." 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b) (1952 ed.) (emphasis added). Petitioner argues that this broadened the scope of the statute, permitting the assertion of jurisdiction over any "civil action," so long as that action includes a claim against the United States. We disagree.
Under established canons of statutory construction, "it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed." Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 U. S. 187, 199 (1912); see United States v. Ryder, 110 U. S. 729, 740 (1884). Concerning the 1948 recodification of the Judicial Code in particular, we have stated that "no changes in law or policy are to be presumed from changes of language in the revision unless an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed." Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227 (1957); see Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U. S. 151, 162 (1972). We have found no suggestion, much less a clear expression, that the minor rewording at issue here imported a substantive change.
The change from "claim against the United States" to "civil actions on claims against the United States" would be a strange way to express the substantive revision asserted by petitioner but a perfectly understandable way to achieve another objective. The 1948 recodification came relatively soon after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provide that "[t]here shall be one form of action to be known as `civil action.' " Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 2. Consistent with this new terminology, the 1948 revision inserted the expression "civil action" throughout the provisions governing *555 district-court jurisdiction. See H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., App. A114-A125 (1947) (Reviser's Notes).
Reliance upon the 1948 recodification also ignores the fact that the concept of pendent-party jurisdiction was not considered remotely viable until Gibbs liberalized the concept of pendent-claim jurisdiction nearly 20 years later. See 13B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3567.2, pp. 146-148 (2d ed. 1984); Miller, Ancillary and Pendent Jurisdiction, 26 S. Tex. L. J. 1, 11 (1985). Indeed, in 1948 even a relatively limited substantive expansion of pendent-claim jurisdiction with respect to unfair competition actions provoked considerable discussion, see Wechsler, Federal Jurisdiction and the Revision of the Judicial Code, 13 Law & Contemp. Prob. 216, 232 (1948); Note, The Proposed Revision of the Federal Judicial Code, 60 Harv. L. Rev. 424, 430-431 (1947), and was described by the chief reviser as one of a dozen "major changes of law" effected by his handiwork, W. Barron, The Judicial Code 1948 Revision, 8 F. R. D. 439, 441-445 (1949). That change, in the already accepted realm of pendent-claim jurisdiction, was accomplished by wording that could not be mistaken, referring to "any civil action asserting a claim of unfair competition when joined with a substantial and related claim under the copyright, patent, or trademark laws." § 1338(b), 62 Stat. 931. It is inconceivable that the much more radical change of adopting pendent-party jurisdiction would have been effected by the minor and obscure change of wording at issue here especially when that revision is more naturally understood as stylistic.
Because the FTCA permits the Government to be sued only in federal court, our holding that parties to related claims cannot necessarily be sued there means that the efficiency and convenience of a consolidated action will sometimes have to be forgone in favor of separate actions in state and federal courts. We acknowledged this potential consideration *556 in Aldinger, 427 U. S., at 18, but now conclude that the present statute permits no other result.
* * *
As we noted at the outset, our cases do not display an entirely consistent approach with respect to the necessity that jurisdiction be explicitly conferred. The Gibbs line of cases was a departure from prior practice, and a departure that we have no intent to limit or impair. But Aldinger indicated that the Gibbs approach would not be extended to the pendent-party field, and we decide today to retain that line. Whatever we say regarding the scope of jurisdiction conferred by a particular statute can of course be changed by Congress. What is of paramount importance is that Congress be able to legislate against a background of clear interpretive rules, so that it may know the effect of the language it adopts. All our cases Zahn, Aldinger, and Kroger have held that a grant of jurisdiction over claims involving particular parties does not itself confer jurisdiction over additional claims by or against different parties. Our decision today reaffirms that interpretive rule; the opposite would sow confusion.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, dissenting.
If Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U. S. 1 (1976), required us to ask whether the Federal Tort Claims Act embraced "an affirmative grant of pendent-party jurisdiction," ante, at 553, I would agree with the majority that no such specific grant of jurisdiction is present. But, in my view, that is not the appropriate question under Aldinger. I read the Court's opinion in that case, rather, as requiring us to consider whether Congress has demonstrated an intent to exempt "the party as to whom jurisdiction pendent to the principal claim" is asserted from being haled into federal court. 427 U. S., at 16 (emphasis omitted). And, as those of us in dissent in Aldinger observed, the Aldinger test would be rendered meaningless *557 if the required intent could be found in the failure of the relevant jurisdictional statute to mention the type of party in question, "because all instances of asserted pendent-party jurisdiction will by definition involve a party as to whom Congress has impliedly `addressed itself' by not expressly conferring subject-matter jurisdiction on the federal courts." Id., at 23 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting).
In Aldinger, the Court found the requisite intent to exclude municipalities from the relevant jurisdictional statute, because (the Court then thought) municipalities had been affirmatively excluded by Congress from the scope of 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In such a case, the Court barred the use of the pendent-party doctrine, for otherwise the doctrine would permit an end run around an express congressional limitation of federal power. See id., at 16-17.
In the present case, I find no such substantive limitation. Nor, in my view, is there any other expression of congressional intent to exclude private defendants from federal tort claims litigation. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584 (1941), is not to the contrary. There, this Court held that Congress did not intend under the Tucker Act to permit the district courts to adjudicate any cause of action that could not have been brought in the Court of Claims, an Article I court in which no private party could be a defendant. Sherwood did not turn solely on a canon of "conservatism which is appropriate in the case of a waiver of sovereign immunity." Id., at 590. It turned also upon "the history of the Court of Claims' jurisdiction." Id., at 590-591. There is no equivalent history of adjudication of tort claims against the United States in a tribunal without power to litigate the liability of private tortfeasors; thus, Sherwood does not require the result the Court reaches today.
In a case not controlled by any express intent to limit the scope of a constitutional "case," Aldinger suggests that the appropriateness of pendent-party jurisdiction might turn on the "alignmen[t] of parties and claims," and that one significant factor is whether "the grant of jurisdiction to [the] federal *558 court is exclusive," 427 U. S., at 18, as is the situation here. Where, as here, Congress' preference for a federal forum for a certain category of claims makes the federal forum the only possible one in which the constitutional case may be heard as a whole, the sensible result is to permit the exercise of pendent-party jurisdiction. Aldinger imposes no obstacle to that result, and I would not reach out to create one. I therefore dissent.
JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN and JUSTICE MARSHALL join, dissenting.
The Court's holding is not faithful to our precedents and casually dismisses the accumulated wisdom of our best judges. As we observed more than 16 years ago, "numerous decisions throughout the courts of appeals since [Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966),] have recognized the existence of judicial power to hear pendent claims involving pendent parties where `the entire action before the court comprises but one constitutional "case" as defined in Gibbs." Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 713 (1973). I shall first explain why the position taken by the overwhelming consensus of federal judges is correct and then comment on major flaws in the opinion the Court announces today.
I
Article III of the Constitution identifies the categories of "Cases" and "Controversies" that federal courts may have jurisdiction to decide.[1] If a case is not within one of the *559 specified categories, neither Congress nor the parties may authorize a federal court to decide it.[2] Objections to a federal court's jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case cannot be waived.[3] Although Article III strictly confines the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts, it does not limit the extent of the courts' personal jurisdiction over individual parties[4] or their power to decide individual claims in cases within any of the specified categories.[5] A party beyond the reach of a federal court's process may voluntarily submit to its jurisdiction over his person, but he cannot create subject-matter jurisdiction by waiver, estoppel, or the filing of a lawsuit over a non-Article III case.[6]
*560 The case before us today is one in which the United States is a party. Given the plain language of Article III, there is not even an arguable basis for questioning the federal court's constitutional power to decide it.[7] Moreover, by enacting the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in 1946, 28 U. S. C. § 1346(b), Congress unquestionably authorized the District Court to accept jurisdiction of "civil actions on claims against the United States." Thus, it is perfectly clear that the District Court has both constitutional and statutory power to decide this case.
It is also undisputed that this power will not be defeated by the joinder of two private defendants. Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure expressly authorizes the defendant to implead joint tortfeasors,[8] and this Rule is applicable *561 to FTCA cases.[9] Moreover, if the claim against non-federal defendants had been properly brought in a federal court, those defendants could require the United States to defend their claim for contribution in that action.[10] The dispute between all the parties derives from a common nucleus of operative fact. There is accordingly ample basis for regarding this entire three-cornered controversy as a single "case" and for allowing petitioner to assert additional claims against the nonfederal defendants as she is authorized to do by Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules.[11]
Prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938, the federal courts routinely decided state-law claims in cases in which they had subject-matter jurisdiction, see, e. g., Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238, 246 (1933); Siler *562 v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 213 U. S. 175 (1909), and granted relief against nondiverse parties on state claims as to which there was no independent basis for federal jurisdiction, see, e. g., Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U. S. 593 (1926); Julian v. Central Trust Co., 193 U. S. 93, 112-114 (1904); Freeman v. Howe, 24 How. 450, 460 (1861).[12] Although the contours of the federal cause of action or "case" were then more narrowly defined than they are today, see, e. g., Hurn v. Oursler, supra, the doctrine of "pendent" or "ancillary" jurisdiction had long been firmly established. The relevant change that was effectuated by the adoption of the Rules in 1938 was, in essence, a statutory broadening of the dimensions of the cases that federal courts may entertain.
The Court's unanimous opinion[13] in Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U. S. 715 (1966), highlights the modern conception of a "civil action" and a "constitutional case." At issue was the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a state-law claim in an action brought under the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.[14] We wrote:
*563 "Hurn was decided in 1933, before the unification of law and equity by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. At the time, the meaning of `cause of action' was a subject of serious dispute; the phrase might `mean one thing for one purpose and something different for another.' United States v. Memphis Cotton Oil Co., 288 U. S. 62, 67-68. The Court in Hurn identified what it meant by the term by citation of Baltimore S. S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U. S. 316, a case in which `cause of action' had been used to identify the operative scope of the doctrine of res judicata. In that case the Court had noted that ` "the whole tendency of our decisions is to require a plaintiff to try his whole cause of action and his whole case at one time." ' 274 U. S., at 320.
.....
"With the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the unified form of action, Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 2, much of the controversy over `cause of action' abated. The phrase remained as the keystone of the Hurn test, however, and, as commentators have noted, has been the source of considerable confusion. Under the Rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged. Yet because the Hurn question involves issues of jurisdiction as well as convenience, there has been some tendency to limit its application to cases in which the state and federal claims are, as in Hurn, `little more than the equivalent of different epithets to characterize the same group of circumstances.' 289 U. S., at 246.
"This limited approach is unnecessarily grudging. Pendent jurisdiction, in the sense of judicial power, exists whenever there is a claim `arising under [the] Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority . . . ,' *564 U. S. Const., Art III, § 2, and the relationship between that claim and the state claim permits the conclus