In Re Burrus
1890 U.S. LEXIS 2233, 10 S. Ct. 850, 136 U.S. 586 (1890)
Rule of Law:
Federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over domestic relations matters, specifically child custody disputes between private parties, as these issues are governed by state law and do not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States.
Facts:
- Louis B. Miller, a citizen of Ohio, was the father of a child named Evelyn Estelle Miller, born in 1881.
- The child's mother died shortly after giving birth while the family was residing in Nebraska.
- Following the mother's death, the child was placed in the care of her maternal grandparents, Thomas and Catherine Burrus, residents of Nebraska.
- Miller subsequently remarried, established a home in Ohio, and became financially capable of caring for his daughter.
- Miller demanded that the grandparents return the child to his custody.
- The grandparents refused to surrender the child, claiming they were attached to her and better suited to care for her.
Procedural Posture:
- Miller filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska against the grandparents.
- The District Court issued the writ and ordered the grandparents to deliver the child to the father.
- The grandparents appealed to the Circuit Court, which remanded the case back to the District Court.
- The District Court reaffirmed its order for the child's delivery.
- After the grandparents recovered the child and defied the order, the District Court issued a writ of attachment for contempt.
- Thomas Burrus was imprisoned by the U.S. Marshal for contempt of court.
- Burrus filed an original application for a writ of habeas corpus directly with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do United States District Courts have the jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus to determine the custody of a child in a dispute between private parties based solely on diversity of citizenship?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Miller
No, the federal courts do not have authority to oversee domestic relations controversies involving the custody of a child. The Court reasoned that the entire subject of domestic relations—specifically the relationship between husband and wife, and parent and child—belongs strictly to the laws of the individual States, not the United States. The Court noted that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction is generally limited to cases involving imprisonment under color of federal authority or in violation of the Constitution, neither of which applied here. Furthermore, while federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states, this generally applies to civil suits with a specific monetary value; a child custody dispute cannot be reduced to a pecuniary standard. Because the District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue the original order awarding custody to the father, the subsequent order imprisoning the grandfather for contempt was void.
Dissenting - Justice Brewer
Justice Brewer dissented without a written opinion.
Analysis:
In re Burrus is the seminal case establishing the 'domestic relations exception' to federal court jurisdiction. It clarified that even when parties are from different states (diversity jurisdiction), federal courts generally cannot hear cases involving divorce, alimony, or child custody. The Court drew a hard line between state and federal power, emphasizing that the welfare of children and the regulation of families are sovereign interests of the States. The decision underscores that federal habeas corpus is a limited remedy intended primarily for unlawful government detention, not for resolving private family disputes.
