Testa v. Katt
330 U.S. 386 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, state courts with jurisdiction adequate to hear analogous state-law claims cannot refuse to enforce a valid federal law, even if the state characterizes that law as penal.
Facts:
- The U.S. Congress enacted the Emergency Price Control Act, which established maximum ceiling prices for goods during wartime.
- The Act allowed a buyer who was overcharged to sue the seller for three times the amount of the overcharge.
- In 1944, the respondent, an automobile dealer in Providence, Rhode Island, sold an automobile to petitioner Testa, also a resident of Providence.
- The sale price of the automobile was $1100, which was $210 above the federally mandated ceiling price.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Testa sued respondent Katt in the State District Court in Providence, Rhode Island, under the Emergency Price Control Act.
- The State District Court awarded a judgment of treble damages to Testa.
- The respondent appealed to the State Superior Court, which held a trial de novo and awarded Testa only the amount of the overcharge plus attorney's fees.
- The case was then appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court reversed, holding that the federal statute was a penal law that it was not obligated to enforce.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
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 the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution require a state court, which has jurisdiction to adjudicate similar state law claims, to enforce a private citizen's cause of action for treble damages under a federal statute it deems penal in nature?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes. The Supremacy Clause requires state courts to enforce valid federal laws. A state court cannot refuse to enforce a federal claim on the ground that it is a 'penal' law of a foreign sovereign, because the federal government is not foreign to the states. The court reasoned that Article VI of the Constitution makes federal laws the 'supreme Law of the Land,' binding on all state judges. Citing Claflin v. Houseman, the court repudiated the idea that federal laws are like those of a foreign government. It also relied heavily on Mondou v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., which established that when Congress acts within its constitutional power, it establishes a policy for all states, and state courts cannot decline jurisdiction based on a conflicting state policy. Because the Rhode Island courts have jurisdiction adequate and appropriate to enforce similar state and federal claims, they cannot discriminate against this federal cause of action and must entertain the suit.
Analysis:
Testa v. Katt firmly establishes the principle that state courts are not merely permitted but are obligated to enforce federal law under the Supremacy Clause, a concept known as the 'mandatory jurisdiction' doctrine. This decision prevents states from undermining federal policy by refusing to open their courts to federal causes of action, ensuring a more uniform application of federal law across the nation. By rejecting the 'penal law' exception in the context of federal-state relations, the case significantly strengthened federalism by integrating state judiciaries into the enforcement mechanism of national law. It clarifies that a state cannot use a 'valid excuse' to decline jurisdiction over a federal claim if it hears analogous state-law claims.
Unlock the full brief for Testa v. Katt