Here are examples of how this takes place
using 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to interpret Article III Section 2.1, known
as the “case arising clause.”
The words “arising under … laws of
the United States” have chiefly been construed in cases involving
not Article III directly, but the statutory grant of federal
question jurisdiction in 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and its predecessors,
which is cast in the same language. It is universally acknowledged,
however, that the statutory grant does not exhaust the
constitutional power. Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 379 n.51 (1959); Powell v. McCormack,
395 U.S. 486, 515 (1969); see National Mutual Ins. Co. v.
Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 613-14 (1949) (Rutledge,
J., concurring); Mishkin supra, at 160-63; Note on the effect of the
Statutory Adoption of the Constitutional Language, Hart &
Wechsler, at 870; Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice
and Procedure: Jurisdiction § 3562 (1975).
As noted in 76 L
Ed 2d 831 in reference to Verlinden v Bank of Nigeria 461
U.S. 480, concerning Article III Section 2 Clause 1, and “case
arising”. “However, it should be noted that the jurisdiction
conferred by the constitutional ‘arising under’ clause is broader
than the federal question jurisdiction provided by Congress in 28
U.S.C. §1331, even though the language of the statute is almost
identical to that of the constitutional clause. The reason given for
this distinction is that there exists policy consideration
underlying the purpose of the jurisdictional statute that limit its
application and which do not enter into the picture when
construing the constitutional authorization for statutory federal
question jurisdiction.” [Bold emphasis added]
Additionally, note
the distinction between 28 U.S.C. 1330, 1331 and 1337 as a further
example of judicial interpretation of the statute instead of the
literal constitutional meaning.
Courts §§ 254, 531— Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act — “arising under” jurisdiction
A
suit against a foreign state under § 2 of the Foreign Sovereign
Immunities Act of 1976 (28 USC § 1330) necessarily raises questions
of substantive federal law at the very outset and hence clearly
“arises under” federal law for purposes of Article III jurisdiction,
since at the threshold of every action in a District Court against a
foreign state the court must satisfy itself that one of the
specified exceptions to foreign sovereign immunity applies, and, in
doing so, it must apply the detailed federal law standards set forth
in the Act. Verlinden B. V. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S.
480, (1962).