Constitution of the United States of America/Annotated/Introduction/Common Law Doctrines

In some cases, the Supreme Court’s rulings expound upon long-established, judge-made doctrines widely referred to as the common law.^[1] Some of these common law doctrines have their origins in constitutional norms, such as the rules regarding prudential standing^[2] and the various doctrines requiring the suspension of federal court proceedings in favor of state court proceedings.^[3] Others have little to do with the Constitution and are justified by more mundane concerns, such as the need for judicial efficiency^[4] or the lack of a statute or rule to resolve an existing legal issue.^[5] Cases addressing common law doctrines with constitutional underpinnings are included in the Constitution Annotated insofar as they help to elucidate the scope of the relevant constitutional provision.

References in the original work

1. The Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938),^[A] broadly announced that "[t]here is no federal general common law." Id. at 78. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has recognized that federal common law still exists in two instances: where a federal rule of decision is "necessary to protect uniquely federal interests" and where "Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law." See Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 640 (1981)^[B] (internal citations omitted).
2. See Gladstone, Realtors v. Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 100 & n.6 (1979)^[C] (discussing the "nonconstitutional limitations on standing" that derive in part from the Court’s view about the proper role of federal courts in a "democratic society" (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)^[D])).
3. See, e.g., Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971)^[E] (prohibiting federal courts from enjoining certain ongoing state court criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings); R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 498 (1941)^[F] (requiring federal courts to abstain from hearing cases that state courts can resolve by applying state law in a manner that relieves federal courts from making constitutional determinations).
4. See, e.g., New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001)^[G] (discussing the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion).
5. See generally Larry L. Teply & Ralph U. Whitten, Civil Procedure 363–71 (1991) (discussing the gap-filling role of federal common law).

Notes

• ^[A]↑  Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
• ^[B]↑  Tex. Indus., Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.
• ^[C]↑  Gladstone, Realtors v. Bellwood
• ^[D]↑  Warth v. Seldin
• ^[E]↑  Younger v. Harris
• ^[F]↑  R.R. Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.
• ^[G]↑  New Hampshire v. Maine