In a case involving a dispute between two states over water rights to a shared river, the Supreme Court determines the outcome by crafting a judicial rule to govern the allocation of water. Which principle most accurately supports why the court is permitted to create federal common law in this instance?
Federal common law is developed in cases where Congress has not provided detailed statutory guidance, leaving courts to create rules in the absence of legislation.
Federal courts generally apply the law of the state where the dispute arose unless Congress enacts a specific statute to provide a uniform rule of decision.
The Supreme Court considers interstate compacts approved by Congress and may apply federal common law in cases where disputes are not directly addressed by such compacts.
Federal common law helps ensure a consistent legal framework for resolving disputes between states, which falls under the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction.
The correct answer rests on the principle that federal common law is appropriate in areas of significant federal interest, such as resolving disputes between states. These types of disputes often necessitate uniform judicial treatment because they involve questions that cannot be solved by applying any single state’s law. The incorrect answers misapply federal common law by assuming it is based on statutory silence, overly strict adherence to state law, or exclusive deference to alternative solutions like interstate compacts, which do not fully address such fundamental federal disputes.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is federal common law, and how does it differ from state law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does 'original jurisdiction' mean in the context of the Supreme Court's authority?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is it important for federal common law to provide a uniform approach to interstate disputes?