Introduction
Erie Railroad v Tompkins was a fairly simple case in which the Supreme Court was called upon to give an interpretation as to the application of state common law over federal common law in cases of diversity jurisdiction. In addition, the case is celebrated for its empowerment of the state common law as it clearly denied Congress the power to set federal common law, an action it perceived as unconstitutional.
Federal Court’s obligation to state court decisions prior to Erie Railroad v Tompkins
Before the decision in Erie, federal courts enjoyed the discretion as to whether to follow decisions from the state courts or not. Despite issues falling under diversity jurisdiction necessitating the need to consider different state laws, federal courts had little to no obligation to consider the state laws. This jurisprudence had been laid down in Swift v Tyson in which the court had decided that Federal Courts could employ any law including the federal statutes in settling cases of common law. Incidentally, this put the state common law cases on a hanging balance as they had no authoritative weight. Instead, state common law cases had been left to the ghetto of oblivion and merely applied as persuasive authority. The decision in Erie Railroad v Tompkins should, therefore, be appreciated for its progressive interpretation of the United States Constitution and the subsequent development of good law and jurisprudence.
Significance of State Law in Federal Courts
The case should be celebrated for its enhancement of state laws in federal courts. The spirit of the majority led by Justice Brandeis was to give effect and uphold to state common law. The court ruled that the federal courts would consider and actually apply the state common law for the relevant state. In that context, Erie’s case which occurred substantially in Pennsylvania was subjected to the state laws of Pennsylvania. This was read as an empowerment of the state laws in federal courts. It equally extended the then appreciated discourse of dual federalism which was to the effect of empowering both tiers of government. The holding equally eliminated cases of forum shopping. By instructing that federal courts would consider and apply the state law of the state in which the events leading to a case occurred, the court decidedly eliminated cases where claimants would shop for convenient states to institute proceedings. A good example is seen in the Erie case. The court ordered for the remand of the case back to the State of Pennsylvania from the State of New York where the claimant had seen it convenient to institute proceeding. The case equally interpreted the Constitution progressively thereby empowering the state assemblies as their statutes would take precedence. In that context, it should be appreciated for its brave interpretation that limited the powers of Congress in the enactment of common laws that fell under the class of diversity jurisdiction.
Justices Butler and Reynolds’ dissent
The two Justices who dissented argued against the apparent judicial activism of the majority. In addition, it was their observation that the case had been misinterpreted by the majority and wrongly brought to the purview of constitutional questions necessitating judicial review hence the grant of certiorari. Equally, the Justices observed in their dissent that the Swift regime was correct and that the case had not directly questioned Swift v Tyson holding. In their opinion, the state common law ought to bind only those who elect to subscribe to it. In that vein, forum shopping whereby the claimants elected which state to determine their case was within the confines of the law and was, therefore, anticipated and allowed.
Had they been the majority, the effect of their ruling would have been an extension of Swift v Tyson jurisprudence. The federal law would have been given precedence over state common law. This would have effectively meant that Congress had the powers to elect the substantive law that applied to the states. In addition, it would have put a strain on the concurrent jurisdictional relationship between state and federal governments and legislatures. This approach would have necessarily made useless the legislation by state assemblies as the federal courts would have let their doors open to the use of federal common law. With the benefit of hindsight, the approach would have equally failed to resolve the diversity jurisdiction problem in which claimants sought court interpretation concurrently in state courts as well as federal courts. Such an approach would have occasioned immense confusion and a state of uncertainty.
Authority to State trial courts
The case led to the Erie doctrine. Under the doctrine, the federal courts must apply substantive state common law in matters falling under diversity jurisdiction. Erie doctrine, therefore, connotes the superiority the state common law receives over the federal common law. Closely connected to the Erie doctrine is the Erie guess. Under the Erie guess, a federal court ought to first apply a test that would anticipate the likely conclusion that a state court would have applied in arriving at the decision. It is this conclusion that informs the judgment of the federal court. Therefore, it can be argued that the Erie gave prominence to the state trial courts in that it is their determination that would carry the day. In addition, Erie essentially compelled the federal courts to apply the state common laws thereby empowering state laws and state courts in general.
Federal courts dealing with common law of state
After Erie Railroad v Tompkins, the federal courts have approached the adjudication of state common law cases with judicial restrained. In fact, for the state common law cases not yet determined at the highest appealable organ, the trajectory has been towards remanding the cases for final determination at the state level. This jurisprudence was laid in Erie case itself in which it was finally remanded for final determination to the state courts. Ideally, this approach is consistent with the constitutional anticipation of federalism. The constitution expects the federal government to intervene in cases where it has express powers and authority. In that respect, residual power is left at the discretion of states.
Ideally this approach by federal courts is informed by the legal doctrine of independence and non-usurpation of powers. Federal courts must be cautious not to usurp the powers and functions of the state courts. In equal measure, the state courts must be able to reach their decision independently without speculating on the federal courts’ approach. It is this that would ultimately allow the rule of law and the observation of the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution.
Conclusion
It is the position of this submission that the precedent set in Erie Railroad v Tompkins was progressive and need to be protected in the spirit of constitutionalism.
Bibliography
Clark, C., 2009. State Law in Federal Court: The Brooding Omnipresence of Erie v Tompkins. Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository , pp. 1-32.
Dye, S., 2008. Development of the Doctrine of Erie Railroad v Tomkins. Missouri Law Review, pp. 1-38.
