Overview - The Constitutional Basis

     Federal subject matter jurisdiction involves a fundamental aspect of American constitutional governance – the federal government is a government of limited powers. Put differently, the federal government in the United States can only exercise those powers granted to it under the Constitution. While in many areas constitutional amendments such as the 14th Amendment and judicial interpretations have expanded federal power so as to make it seem almost unlimited, where federal courts are concerned the limitations on federal power remain very much alive.

     The U.S. Constitution sets forth the judicial function of the federal government in Article 3. Article 3, Section 2, lists the kinds of cases the federal government may entertain in its courts. No cases can be heard by federal courts that are not included in the categories identified in Article 3, Section 2.

     Unlike the Constitutional limitations on judicial power that we have looked at previously (personal jurisdiction and notice), subject matter jurisdiction is not waivable by the parties. The parties cannot consent to subject matter jurisdiction when it is absent or doubtful. Put differently, the interest here is in limiting the reach of the federal government to the Constitutional scope, and it is not within the power of any litigant, even the government, to extend that power through consent. If at any stage of litigation a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is recognized, the case must be dismissed.

     We will not examine every type of case that Section 2 authorizes for federal court. We will limit our review to federal question cases, and cases that involve diversity or alienage jurisdiction. In addition, we will look at supplemental jurisdiction, which is when the court hearing a case that has a basis for subject matter jurisdiction over some counts can exercise jurisdiction over aspects of the case or controversy that might not on their own qualify for federal jurisdiction, and removal processes, which allow cases to be moved from state courts to federal courts in certain situations.

     As we have seen before, subject matter jurisdiction involves Constitutional and statutory layers. In addition to the Constitutional grant, there must be an enabling statute which grants and sometimes limits the power of federal courts to hear cases that fall within the Article 3, Section 2 grant.

     One term that might prove confusing in this context is 'general jurisdiction.' You remember that term from our discussion of personal jurisdiction. Here, it means something very different. Just as federal courts are courts of 'limited jurisdiction,' state court systems are courts of 'general jurisdiction' in the sense that their reach is not limited by a Constitutional grant. Unless a statute or the Constitution takes a case away from a state court, the state courts have the power to resolve the case. 

     To further complicate things, while state court systems are courts of general jurisdiction, not every court in a state court system will be one of general jurisdiction. Some courts in the state system have a limited purpose - hearing divorce cases or traffic violations, for example. Often, the main state trial courts - sometimes called Circuit Courts or Superior Courts or Courts of Common Pleas, although to be extra confusing New York calls its trial courts Supreme Courts - are referred to as courts of general jurisdiction because they are empowered under state law to hear a full range of cases.

     Don't let the terms lead you astray. Keep in mind the basic principle - federal courts are limited in their power, and can only hear certain kinds of cases. State courts, on the other hand, can hear both federal and state cases. In fact, they can hear any case that is not reserved to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. There are a few such areas, but they are the exception. (Exclusive areas of federal jurisdiction are copyright cases, admiralty cases, lawsuits involving the military, immigration laws, and bankruptcy proceedings.)

     As a practical matter, this means that state and federal courts often have what is called concurrent jurisdiction. Their jurisdictions overlap, and many cases can be heard in either federal court or state court. State law cases, as we will see in this section, can be heard in federal court if diversity or alienage jurisdiction exists. In addition, even the claim on its own does not meet the requirements of diversity or alienage jurisdiction, so-called 'supplemental jurisdiction' allows claims that arise in the same case or controversy to be in federal court alongside claims for which there is a federal jurisdictional basis. In other cases, even though a federal jurisdictional basis exists, the parties may simply prefer for any number of reasons to proceed in state court on either state or federal claims.

     This means that litigants often have the ability to select a forum. Sometimes, pejoratively, this is called forum shopping. Whether you view it as a good thing, a bad thing, or just an inevitable thing in a system that allows multiple courts to hear the same case, it is a feature of the US system. Understanding federal subject matter jurisdiction in all its complexity is an essential step to knowing when and how forums can be selected.

     In the section that follows, we will explore all that in more detail. For the most part, you will find this complicated with lots of rules, but not hard to understand. Keep in mind that forum selection can be an important and sometimes outcome-determining tool in the litigator's toolbox, so this is worth understanding well.