Chicago Tribune Co. v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · Federal Courts

Federal Courtssubject-matter jurisdictionfederal-question jurisdictiondeclaratory judgmentstate-law claimfederal defenseGrableEmpire Healthchoice

Facts

The Tribune sought records under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act concerning applicants in a clout-review category, including parents' names and addresses and the identities of persons involved in the applications. The University denied the request, relying primarily on an Illinois FOIA exemption for information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law and pointing to FERPA, while also noting other possible Illinois-law exemptions. Instead of suing in state court under Illinois law, the Tribune filed in federal court for a declaratory judgment that FERPA did not bar disclosure. The case thus presented a state-law access claim with a disputed federal defense.

Issue

Whether a federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when the natural plaintiff in a state-law FOIA dispute files a declaratory-judgment action seeking a ruling that a defendant's anticipated federal defense under FERPA fails. More specifically, the question was whether the possibility that FERPA might supply a defense makes the case one arising under federal law.

Rule

A case does not arise under federal law for purposes of § 1331 merely because the defendant may assert a federal defense. Under Grable, federal jurisdiction over a state-law claim exists only when the plaintiff's own claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue that is actually disputed and substantial, and that a federal forum may entertain without disturbing the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. The natural plaintiff cannot use the Declaratory Judgment Act to obtain federal adjudication of an anticipated federal defense to a state-law claim.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Columbus, Ohio, Maya Benton requested inspection reports from the Ohio Department of Child Services under an Ohio public-records statute. The agency refused, asserting that a federal confidentiality statute bars disclosure, and Maya filed in federal district court seeking a declaration that the federal statute does not apply.

Does the federal court have subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331?

Explanation. No. Under the majority's rule, a case does not arise under federal law merely because the defendant may assert a federal defense to a state-law claim. Maya is the natural plaintiff seeking records under state law, and she cannot use a declaratory-judgment action to negate an anticipated federal defense. The Declaratory Judgment Act does not create jurisdiction. (Derived from Chicago Tribune Co. v. Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (n.d.).)