Bell v. Hood

Supreme Court of United States
327 U.S. 678 (1946)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim if the complaint is drawn to seek recovery directly under the U.S. Constitution or federal laws, unless the federal claim is either wholly insubstantial and frivolous or made solely for the purpose of obtaining jurisdiction.

Facts:

Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), including R.B. Hood, allegedly conspired to violate the constitutional rights of several individuals (petitioners).
On December 18, 1942, the FBI agents entered the petitioners' homes without search warrants.
During the warrantless entries, the agents seized various papers, documents, and personal effects belonging to the petitioners.
The agents also arrested and imprisoned the individual petitioners without obtaining arrest warrants.
Petitioners claimed they suffered damages exceeding $3,000 as a result of these actions which they alleged violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

Procedural Posture:

Petitioners filed a lawsuit seeking damages against FBI agents in the U.S. District Court, asserting jurisdiction based on federal questions under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
The District Court judge, on his own motion, dismissed the suit for want of federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the district court's dismissal on the same jurisdictional grounds.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the jurisdictional issue.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a complaint that seeks money damages from federal agents for alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments state a cause of action "arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States" sufficient to grant a federal court jurisdiction?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Black

Yes. A complaint seeking recovery directly under the Constitution for alleged violations by federal officers presents a federal question that gives a federal court jurisdiction. A court's jurisdiction is determined from the face of the complaint, not by the ultimate probability of the plaintiff's success. The failure to state a proper cause of action upon which relief can be granted is a decision on the merits, which can only be reached after the court has assumed jurisdiction. So long as the constitutional claim is not wholly insubstantial, frivolous, or made solely to obtain jurisdiction, the federal court must entertain the suit to determine whether a remedy is available.

Dissenting - Chief Justice Stone

No. Federal jurisdiction cannot be established by a plaintiff's unfounded assertion that a remedy exists under the Constitution. When neither the Constitution nor an act of Congress provides a remedy for the alleged wrong, a plaintiff cannot create a federal cause of action simply by pleading one. The majority's holding improperly transfers what is essentially a state-law trespass claim into federal court, as there is no established federal remedy for the plaintiffs' allegations.

Analysis:

This case establishes the critical jurisdictional principle that federal "arising under" jurisdiction is determined by the claims asserted in a well-pleaded complaint, not by the ultimate merits of those claims. It draws a sharp line between the threshold question of jurisdiction and the subsequent question of whether a valid cause of action exists. This decision was foundational for the later landmark case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which recognized an implied private right of action for money damages against federal officers for constitutional violations, the very remedy at issue here.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Bell v. Hood (1946)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature