Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties · ¶11

The Court held that it does not. The look-through approach, the Court emphasized, is a “highly unusual” “jurisdictional outlier.” Id., at 12, 14. That is because the look- through approach “locates jurisdiction not in the action actually before the court, but in another controversy neither there nor ever meant to be.” Id., at 12; see id., at 9 (similar). Vaden grounded its anomalous approach largely in § 4's “ `save for' ” language, whereas “Sections 9 and 10,” the Court observed, “contain none of the statutory language on which Vaden relied.” 596 U. S., at 10–11. Accordingly, Badgerow held that a court presented with a freestanding § 9 or § 10 motion may not look through that motion to a controversy involving a federal issue that is “not before the court” in order to establish jurisdiction. Id., at 5.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.