Scott Erik Stafne v. Bank of New York Mellon

Alexander Hamilton hypothesized in Federalist Paper No. 78 the People had little to fear from oppression at the hands of the judicial department. A reason for Hamilton’s confidence was that under the Constitution the exercise of judicial power by independent judges is limited to deciding cases and controversies between aggrieved parties arising within the limited subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts. The issues in this case are:

1. Whether the Federalism structure of government prevented the District Court from assuming subject-matter jurisdiction over a real property res for purposes of determining its boundary lines where that same issue was already being adjudicated in a state court having jurisdiction over the same res.

2. Whether the courts below had the authority to ignore or overrule this Court’s precedent requiring attorneys to prove that authority by which they claim to represent purported parties in federal courts.

3. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a)(3) authorized the courts below to avoid (a) performing a traditional Article III injury-infact analysis, (b) applying the presumption against their jurisdiction; and (c) considering Congress divestiture of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1359.

4. Whether the senior judge who decided this action was an independent judge within the meaning of Article III where he had to be periodically delegated and assigned by other judges to exercise federal judicial power.