David J. Zawistowski v. Michael D. Kramer, et al.

The domestic relations exception “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992). This exception originates from the Supreme Court’s decision in Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 (1859) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revisited the exception; “In view of lower federal court decisions expansively interpreting the two exceptions, this Court reined in the domestic relations exception in Ankenbrandt, We nevertheless emphasized that the exception covers only “a narrow range of domestic relations issues.” Id., at 701. Noting that some lower federal courts had applied the exception “well beyond the circumscribed situations posed by Barber and its progeny,” ibid., we clarified that only “divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees” remain outside federal jurisdictional bounds, id., at 703, 704.” See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293 (2006) Ankenbrandt held that the domestic relations exception was not of constitutional dimension, but rested on Congress’ intent in enacting the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (based mainly on the statute’s pre-1948 text, the Court’s longstanding interpretation, and stare decisis) Ankenbrandt did not address whether the exception applies to the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The question presented is: Does the domestic relations exception apply to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or is the exception limited to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332?