Replies

This gives some insight into the arguments presented... Likewise, the Court holds that the federal issue is substantial. With respect to the substantiality of the federal interest, the Supreme Court has considered four factors: “(1) whether the case includes a federal agency, and particularly, whether that agency’s compliance with the federal statute is in dispute; (2) whether the federal question is important (i.e., not trivial); (3) whether a decision on the federal question will resolve the case (i.e., the federal question is not merely incidental to the outcome); and (4) whether a decision as to the federal question will control numerous other cases (i.e., the issue is not anomalous or isolated).”16

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

Did these people actually contend in Court that the issue is "trivial"?!

I don't think so. I think you're missing the larger context of this decision (which, it should be noted, Van Irion's side lost). As I read it--and I'm not a lawyer--Irion's side first filed the challenge as a state issue. The defendants had the case moved to federal court. This was an attempt by the plaintiffs--Irion's side--to have it moved back to state court. The attempt was denied.

The judge says there are three reasons a state case might get moved to federal court: "(1) the plaintiff’s cause of action is created by federal law; (2) the well-pleaded state-law claim has as a necessary element a substantial, disputed question of federal law; or (3) the claim pleaded is in fact one of federal law." He then goes through these criteria to show this case meets them. Basically, he concludes that of course it has a question of federal law as a necessary element, because the definition of natural-born citizen is a matter of federal law; and of course it's a disputed issue, because a lot of people are disputing it.

The conclusion is just that therefore the case stays in federal court. Reading any more into it is wishful thinking.