Type of jurisdictional court authority
Seal of the United States
Bankruptcy Court
, which has subject-matter jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases
Subject-matter jurisdiction
, also called
jurisdiction
ratione materiae
,
[1]
is a legal doctrine holding that a
court
can only hear and decide cases of a particular type (i.e., cases relating to a specific subject matter). The subject matter jurisdiction of a court may be described as either
limited jurisdiction
, meaning it is able to hear only certain types of cases, or
general jurisdiction
, meaning it is presumed able to hear and decide all types of cases. For instance, a
bankruptcy court
only has the authority to hear
bankruptcy
cases.
Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from
personal jurisdiction
, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and
territorial jurisdiction
, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.
[2]
A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.
[3]
[4]
To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (
subjectam
) and either personal (
personam
) or territorial (
locum
) jurisdiction.
Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate
notice
are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.
United States
[
edit
]
General jurisdiction vs. limited jurisdiction
[
edit
]
The subject matter jurisdiction of state courts and federal courts in the United States often overlaps. Many types of cases can be heard either in state or federal courts. However, the federal courts are all courts of
limited jurisdiction
, while most states have both courts of limited jurisdiction and courts of
general jurisdiction
.
State courts
[
edit
]
Most
U.S. state
court systems include a
superior court
that has "general" jurisdiction; that is, it is competent to hear any case over which no other state or federal court has
exclusive jurisdiction
. (Superior Courts might nonetheless organize themselves into specialized departments or divisions, the court as a whole still has general jurisdiction.) Because the percentage of claims over which the United States federal courts have
exclusive jurisdiction
, such as
copyright
disputes,
patent
disputes, and
United States bankruptcy court
disputes, makes up a small percentage of overall cases, state courts have the authority to hear the vast majority state and federal of cases.
U.S. federal courts
[
edit
]
Subject-matter jurisdiction is significantly more limited in
United States federal courts
. The maximal constitutional bounds of federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction are defined by
Article III Section 2
of the
U.S. Constitution
. Federal courts' actual subject-matter jurisdiction derives from Congressional enabling statutes, such as
28 U.S.C.
§§ 1330
?
1369
and
28 U.S.C.
§§ 1441
?
1452
. The
United States Congress
has not extended federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction to its constitutional limits. For example, the
amount-in-controversy
requirement for
diversity jurisdiction
is based on
28 U.S.C.
§ 1332
, not a constitutional restriction. Moreover, Congress could constitutionally overrule the complete diversity rule in diversity cases, which predominantly holds that each plaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant.
[5]
The two primary categories of federal subject-matter jurisdiction in civil cases are
federal question jurisdiction
and diversity jurisdiction. The enabling statute for federal question jurisdiction,
28 U.S.C.
§ 1331
, provides that the district courts have original jurisdiction in
all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States
. As mentioned before, this jurisdiction by default is not exclusive; states can also hear claims based on federal law. The enabling statute for diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, grants the district courts jurisdiction in a most types of actions, so long as they meet two basic conditions:
- Complete diversity requirement
. No defendant is a citizen of the same state as any plaintiff.
- Amount in controversy requirement
. The matter in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Federal courts separately may exert diversity jurisdiction over
class action
cases so long as they meet the jurisdictional requirements of the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
, namely:
- Minimal diversity
. At least one member of the class is a citizen of a different state than at least one defendant.
- Amount in controversy requirement
. The matter in controversy exceeds $5 million.
[6]
Federal courts also have
removal jurisdiction
, which is the authority to try cases removed by defendants from state courts. The contours of removal jurisdiction are almost identical to those of original jurisdiction.
According to Rule 12(b)(1) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
, a federal court has the authority to dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction upon motion of a party or
sua sponte
, upon its own initiative.
[1]
In federal criminal cases (offenses against the laws of the United States), the federal district courts of the United States have subject matter jurisdiction granted under
18 U.S.C.
§ 3231
.
See also
[
edit
]
References
[
edit
]