Schiavo v. Schiavo

1

• Schiavo v. Schiavo
• April 5, 2005

2
Pub. L. 109-3

• RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO
  Act -
• Section 1 - The United States District Court for
  the Middle District of Florida shall have
  jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render
  judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of
  Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation
  of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the
  Constitution or laws of the United States
  relating to the withholding or withdrawal of
  food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to
  sustain her life.

3
Pub. L. 109-3

• Section 2 - Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo
  shall have standing to bring a suit under this
  Act. the District Court shall determine de novo
  any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa
  Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act,
  not-withstanding any prior State court
  determination and regardless of whether such a
  claim has previously been raised, considered, or
  decided in State court proceedings. The District
  Court shall entertain and determine the suit
  without any delay or abstention in favor of State
  court proceedings, and regardless of whether
  remedies available in the State courts have been
  exhausted.

4
General Propositions

• Abstention Doctrines
• Ex parte Younger Cases pending in state court
  may not be reviewed (collateral challenge) in
  federal court
• Based on Our Federalism
• Statutory and decisional exceptions
• Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
• Precludes federal court review of final
  state-court proceedings, except in USSC
• Based on statutory interpretation of 1331
• Can be overriden by statute (e.g., this Act)

5
General Propositions

• Habeas Corpus
• Constitutional (Art. I, 9, 2) and statutory
  exception to Rooker-Feldman doctrine
• Only to test the constitutionality of state court
  proceedings not necessarily the outcome
• Exhaustion Requirements
• Ordinarily, neither direct appeal nor habeas will
  lie if further proceedings may be had in state ct
• Final judgment rule
• Removal
• Removed cases come as is (incl. state orders)

6
Constitutionality of Pub. L. 109-3

• Jurisdiction Principles
• Congress may vest jdx up to limits of Art. III
• To this extent, Section 1 is constitutional
• Unless Ex Parte Young is constitutionally
  required
• Separation of Powers principles
• Congress cannot interfere w/ judicial function
• Cannot reopen decided cases (Plaut)
• Is state court proceeding over?
• Cannot prescribe outcome of pending cases (Klein)
• Can change underlying substantive law (Robertson)
• Act does not do this

7
Constitutionality of Pub. L. 109-3

• How Congress prescribed the outcome of a pending
  cases (Klein)
• If the District Court is bound by state court
  findings and conclusions
• except where constitutionally infirm
• then this Act is the functional equivalent of
  Habeas
• But Act requires District Court to disregard
  state proceedings and provide de novo review
• abstention exhaustion requirements also set
  aside
• Interferes with state judicial function in Big
  Way
• In this sense, the Act prescribes rules of
  decision
• contra Klein

8
Severability

• Object
• sever unconstitutional provisions, leaving
  remainder of Act in place
• Generally a question of legislative intent
• Would congress have wanted the Act to operate
  without the severed portion?
• Birch
• Leaving just Section 1 (jdx), without new
  standards suggesting a stay, would frustrate
  congress intent
• If not severable, entire statute fails

9
Congressional Power

• Could congress have changed underlying
  substantive law, per Robertson?
• Would have had to create cause of action relating
  to right to live/die
• What power would it have used?