Yes. The Bank can always sue in federal court. The only reason the Bank even exists is because Congress passed a law to create it. Every power the bank has—to do business, to make contracts, to sue people—comes from that federal law. So, no matter what the lawsuit is about, that federal law is always the starting point, or an 'original ingredient,' of the case. Therefore, it's a federal case.

No. This is going too far. A case should only be in federal court if it's actually about a federal law. Just because the bank was created by a federal law doesn't mean a simple robbery case is a 'federal case.' Following this logic would let federal courts take over all sorts of normal cases that should be handled by state courts, which is not what the Constitution intended.

Yes, Ohio did break the rules. The national bank can use federal courts because it's part of the government's work. Ohio's tax is against the Constitution because it gets in the way of the government's powers. The bank is allowed to stop Ohio from doing this and should get back the money that was taken because courts are there to enforce the law, not the personal preferences of judges.

I don't think the Constitution allows the national bank to sue in federal court in cases that are only about personal matters or just because a constitutional question might possibly come up. Just the chance of a constitutional issue isn't enough reason for federal courts to get involved in everything. The bank's right to sue should depend on what the specific case is about, not just the fact that it was created by federal law.

—to the effect that the Eleventh Amendment is' limited to those suits in which a State is a party on the record.'Id.

—the Supreme Court sustained the authority of an Ohio federal circuit court to entertain a suit brought by the Second Bank of the United States to enjoin the collection of a state tax levied against the bank.

It then becomes a case, and the constitution declares, that the judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.

Nearly two centuries ago Chief Justice Marshall wrote for the Supreme Court that Article III's "arising under" jurisdiction authorized Congress to confer federal court jurisdiction over any action to which the Bank of the United States, a federally chartered bank, was a party.

Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Judge; always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the Legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law

The Supreme Court has interpreted "arising under" in Article III to grant federal courts jurisdiction when federal law "forms an ingredient of the original cause."

W] hen a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the constitution, forms an ingredient of the original cause, it is in the power of Congress to give the Circuit Courts jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved in it

—as it was held that the 3rd Article of the Constitution "enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the Constitution, laws and treaties of the United States, when any question respecting them shall assume such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting on it. That power is capable of acting only when the subject is submitted to it, by a …

—chiefly upon the ground that it was an appropriate means for carrying on the money transactions of the government.

Our job is not to give effect to our own will, but instead to "the will of the law"—in this case, the Constitution.

Yes. A suit by or against the Bank of the United States is a case arising under the laws of the United States, granting federal courts jurisdiction. The Bank's very existence, its capacity to make contracts, and its right to sue are all faculties given to it by its federal charter. Therefore, the federal law that created the Bank forms an 'original ingredient' of any cause of action it brings, regardless of the specific legal claims or defenses raised in the case. The right of the plaintiff to sue cannot depend on the defense which the defendant may choose to set up. Because the Bank's capacity to sue is the first question in any case it brings, and that capacity depends on a law of the United States, every case involving the Bank arises under federal law. Furthermore, reaffirming McCulloch v. Maryland, the state law taxing the Bank is unconstitutional and void, as it attempts to tax an instrument of the federal government.

No. Federal jurisdiction should not be based on the mere possibility that a federal question might arise. This decision creates a legal fiction where federal jurisdiction is assumed in every case involving the Bank, even in simple contract or tort disputes governed entirely by state law. The Constitution extends judicial power only to actual 'cases arising' under federal law, not potential or hypothetical ones. To predicate jurisdiction on the fact that the Bank was created by federal law is to extend federal power beyond its constitutional limits, potentially allowing Congress to transfer vast areas of state-law litigation, like contract and property disputes, into federal courts simply by creating a corporate party.

Yes. The Bank of the United States has the right to sue in federal courts because it is a public corporation created by Congress for national purposes. The act of Ohio is unconstitutional because it interferes with the federal government's constitutional powers. The Bank's operations are essential to its role as a fiscal agent of the government and are thus protected from state control. The Bank is entitled to seek an injunction and recover the specific sum taken by the state officers because the judicial power of the Union extends to all cases arising under the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, and it is the role of the judiciary to give effect to the will of the law, not the will of the judges.

I cannot agree that the constitution sanctions vesting the right of action in this Bank in cases where the privilege is exclusively personal, or merely on the ground that a question might possibly be raised involving the constitution or laws of the United States. The possibility of a constitutional question arising is too insufficient a ground for assuming universal jurisdiction. The Bank's right to sue does not depend on its federal incorporation, but on the nature of the case itself. Unless the case necessarily involves a question arising under federal law, jurisdiction should not be granted to the federal courts.

No. I cannot agree that the Constitution automatically vests this Bank with a right of action in the federal courts merely because a constitutional question might possibly be raised. The possibility of such a question arising is an insufficient ground for assuming universal jurisdiction. The Bank's right to sue does not depend on its federal incorporation, but on the nature of the case itself. Unless the case necessarily involves a question arising under federal law, jurisdiction should not be granted to the federal courts.

Osborn v. Bank of the United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot