Case ID: f-appx_596/html/0040-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Arjuna C. FERNANDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karen HAEKKERUP, Minister of Social Affairs and Integration, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-3591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 10, 2015.
    Arjuna C. Fernando, pro se, Roskilde, Denmark, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Peter L. Hessellund-Jensen, New York, NY, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Present: GUIDO CALABRESI, PETER W. HALL, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Appellant Arjuna C. Fernando, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint against Danish government officials for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 631 F.3d 29, 32 (2d Cir.2010). Here, the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over Fernando’s complaint because none of the statutes, treaties, or theories cited by Appellant below conferred federal question jurisdiction. Appellant argues for the first time on appeal that 28 U.S.C. § 1332 is unconstitutional insofar as it denies to Americans domiciled abroad the ability to sue foreign officials in federal court. Congress is well within its powers, however, to define diversity jurisdiction. See Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 84, 130 S.Ct. 1181, 175 L.Ed.2d 1029 (2010). Section 1332 does not violate an individual’s equal protection rights, and Congress had a rational basis for limiting the exercise of federal jurisdiction over claims that arise outside the United States — the need to respect foreign law as a matter of comity. See Republic of Austria v. Altmarm, 541 U.S. 677, 688-89, 124 S.Ct. 2240, 159 L.Ed.2d 1 (2004). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, treaties do not supersede § 1832 under the Supremacy Clause because treaties are to be regarded as equivalent, not superior, to federal statutory law. See Cheung v. United States, 213 F.3d 82, 94 (2d Cir.2000).

We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.