Jurisdiction in federal court
Another installment in my series on US law for researchers and law students from other countries.
About this post
In this post we will discuss the “three rings” of jurisdiction in civil cases:
- Personal jurisdiction
- Subject matter jurisdiction
- Venue
In order for a case to be heard in a particular court, that case must meet the requirements of each of the three element outlined above (think of the rings in a Venn diagram). We will be discussing two of these rings — personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. The third ring, venue, concerns which particular court can hear a case. This issue is not as relevant to the comparative study of US law for researchers and law students (from outside the US) and so will not be discussed.
Personal jurisdiction
Personal (in personam) jurisdiction is whether or not a court can exercise control over a defendant in an action, and revolves on a central question: “Is it fair for the defendant to be asked to appear in this court?” This question usually revolves around the amount and kind of contacts that the defendant had in the forum — the place where the court sits.
We have discussed in the previous posts how the 14th Amendment applies to the states, and the Bill of Rights apply to the federal government. As a matter of Constitutional law, the federal courts are constrained by principles of due process (that have been developed through case law) in the 5th Amendment, and state are constrained by 14th Amendment due process principles (which have also been developed through caselaw).
The limits of personal jurisdiction for states in the 14th Amendment represents a minimum amount of contacts with a state that the state’s can apply in order to exercise personal jurisidiction over a defendant. State’s are free to require more contacts with a state (thus granting personal jurisdiction in fewer cases) than the Constitutional minimum. The statutes describing the jurisdiction of a state court to reach non-state residents (personal jurisdiction) are known as “long arm statutes” because of their ability to “reach out” of a state and require someone not present in the state to appear in its courts.
Issues of personal jurisdiction often come into play when looking at internet-related litigation because of its trans-jurisdictional nature.
Subject matter jurisdiction
This type of jurisdiction deals with the authority of the court to hear the type of case. Some courts have very broad subject matter jurisdiction (often called “general jurisdiction”) and can hear all kinds of claims, such as torts/delict, contract, and real property. In contrast, some courts have very limited jurisdiction, such as courts that only hear probate cases, or family law matters.
Like the split in legislative power, the Constitution splits judicial power along principles of federalism. The federal court system was never meant to completely replace state courts, and so it has a limited subject matter jurisdiction. Article III Section 2 of the Constitution lists the limited categories of cases that may be heard in federal courts, and we will be discussing two primary areas — disputes involving federal questions and disputes between citizens of different states.
The result of this two-part system is that for every case, there are generally three options for the court that can hear the case:
- State court only;
- Federal court only; or
- Either state or federal court.
Given that the federal courts are more limited in their subject matter jurisdiction, it should come as no surprise that most of the cases filed are in state courts.
Federal question
Federal question jurisdiction comes from the ‘arising under’ language in Article III Section 2 of the Constitution. This language was given a broad interpretation in Osborn v. Bank of the United States 22 U.S. 738 (1824):
We think, then, that when a question to which the judicial power of the Union is extended by the constitution, forms an ingredient of the original cause, it is in the power of Congress to give the Circuit Courts jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved in it. P. 22.
This idea of a “federal ingredient” gives an extremely broad range of cases that could come under federal jurisdiction — however there must be some federal element (such as a federal statute or Constitutional issue) in the case.
It should be kept in mind that Article III, however, does not create lower federal courts:
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Congress has the power to establish the lower courts (any court other than the Supreme Court) and to grant their jurisdiction. This is one way that the Legislative branch keeps the Judicial branch in check within the system of “checks and balances” of the three branches of government. There is no requirement for Congress to vest jurisdiction in the lower federal courts all the way to outer limits of the meaning of ‘arising under’ — for absolutely any case involving a federal ingredient. So at the heart of every federal question jurisdiction issue is two questions — is there a constitutional power to hear the case and is there statutory authority to hear the case. Federal question jurisdiction is granted in 28 U.S.C. 1331.
There is a great deal of case law and many interesting procedural questions involved in this issue, but we will leave those aside for the moment. The key issue is that if a case involves federal issues, there is the possibility of it being tried in a federal court.
Diversity
Diversity jurisdiction also originates with Article III Section 2 — the ‘between citizens of different states’ language. Like in federal question jurisdiction, Congress has the power to establish the lower federal courts and determine their jurisdiction. There is an outer limit of jurisdiction in Article III — any case where there are parties from different states on either the plaintiff or defendant side — and a narrower limit granted by statute — 28 U.S.C. 1332. This statute requires that the all the parties on both sides of a case be diverse (from another state) and that the claim is for over a certain dollar amount (the “amount in controversy”).
Removal
Removal is another aspect of federalism and the dual nature of the US court system. Removal is when a defendant asks that an action commenced in a state court against him or or her be brought to the federal court. For actions that fit into the third option outlined above — actions that could be in either state or federal court — it makes sense that the defendant gets the chance to have the action heard in federal court. Generally cases can only be removed if the action could have been filed by the plaintiff in federal court.
We will be exploring issues of procedure in the next several installments of this series.
