From: GA.CJJ@forsythe.stanford.edu (Clifford Johnson)
Subject: Could a state abolish its courts?
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 23:02:43 GMT

Thanks to the incisive contributions of Mike and Ted, I think
we've established that the contention as to whether states can
disallow a defamation cause breaks up into distinct propositions.

First, whether states must provide a court system for resolution
of basic rights such as this, including property disputes, trespass,
and so forth.

Second, whether defamation is of this ilk of causes of action.

I think the second question is resolved beyond doubt.  Defamation
causes of action are often equivalent to deprivation of property,
and often equivalent to deprivation of liberty, and just cannot
be absolutely precluded.

But whether the states themselves *must* provide courts to resolve
such conflicts is less certain, given that there is the option
of resolving them in federal courts.

The point I got from Truax v. Corrigan (1921) was that the Fourteenth
Amendment did compel a state to provide for the resolution of
regular, common-law causes of action between private parties,
because otherwise classes of people would have no protection
against prevalent discriminations in the private sphere.  The point
that the federal courts could provide this was not considered.

Here's some more pertinent decisions:

In Logan v.  Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) the court
definitively restated that no state can deprive a diligent applicant
of meaningful access to a remedial process because of an admittance
error made by the state itself, without violating due process and
equal protection guarantees.  Logan had filed a timely charge of
wrongful termination of employment with the Illinois Fair Employment
Practices Commission, which was dismissed as untimely due to the
inadvertence of the Commission.  The issue decided by the Supreme
Court was (at 424, emphasis added) "whether a state may terminate a
complainant's cause of action because a state official, for reasons
beyond a complainant's control," made a mistake.  The court began
(at 428) by restating a point treated in depth under point 5 below,
namely, that "a cause of action is a species of property protected
by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause [citations]."
Logan recognized that this principle  extended to all "established
adjudicatory procedures."

Plaintiff also cites Chambers v.  Baltimore & Ohio R. R., 207 U.S.
142, 148 (1907), which states: "The right to sue and defend in the
courts is the alternative of force.  In an organized society it is
the right conservative of all other rights, and lies at the
foundation of orderly government.  It is one of the highest and most
essential privileges of citizenship, and must be allowed by each
State to [all equally].  Equality of treatment in this respect is
not left to depend upon comity between the States, but is granted
and protected by the Federal Constitution.  [Citations.]"

Plaintiff also cites Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 380-8
(1970) , which compelled state courts to recognize a private, civil
cause of action for dissolution of marriage, as follows:
[T]he State's refusal to admit these appellants to its courts, the
sole means in Connecticut of obtaining a divorce, must be regarded
as the equivalent of denying them an opportunity to be heard on
their claimed right to a dissolution of their marriages, and . . . a
denial of due process."

*****

My observation is that there is a tendency for the federal courts
to stress that equality of treatment must be assured assured,
rather than that causes of action must be guaranteed.  However,
language in both Corrigan and Boddie suggests that the Plaintiff's
had a right to a cause of action regardless -- the first because
of the right to defend property, the second because of the right to
a divorce.

But is there some more definitive case law or statute or ???
Must a state provide courts AT ALL?  If so, for what classes of
action is it compulsory?

Newsgroups: misc.legal