Federal Courts' Jurisdiction: What The Constitution Grants?

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and cases in which a state is a party. The judicial power of the Supreme Court shall extend to nine types of cases and controversies, including all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; controversies to which the United States is a party; controversies between two or more states; controversies between a state and citizens of another state; controversies between citizens of different states; controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states; and controversies between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. The Constitution also gives federal courts diversity jurisdiction, allowing a plaintiff from one state to file a lawsuit in federal court when the defendant is from another state, as well as nationwide jurisdiction over specific issues such as tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade.

Explore related products

Aspen Treatise for Federal Jurisdiction

$126.95 $126.95

Understanding Federal Courts and Jurisdiction (Understanding Series)

$57

Aspen Treatise for Federal Jurisdiction

$124.95

Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts 1896 [Leather Bound]

$18.95

Federal Courts: Context, Cases, and Problems [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook)

$359 $359

Examples & Explanations for Federal Courts: Learning Secured Transactions Through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95 $76.95

Federal courts' jurisdiction over cases involving the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the US

The US Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the US, as well as those affecting ambassadors, admiralty and maritime issues, and controversies to which the US is a party. The Constitution also gives federal courts the authority to resolve disputes between states, between citizens of different states, and between citizens of the same state claiming lands under different grants.

The US judicial system is divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, which operate within a system of "checks and balances". The Constitution grants the judicial branch the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and resolve cases involving federal laws. The Supreme Court, established by Article III of the Constitution, is the highest court in the US. It has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and public ministers, as well as cases in which a state is a party. The remaining cases fall under the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

The federal court system was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was signed by President Washington. This Act gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of all federal courts and established a limited jurisdiction for district and circuit courts. The Act also allowed cases to enter federal courts through original filing, removal from state court, or appeal from the highest state court to the Supreme Court.

Over time, Congress has passed statutes to redefine the jurisdiction of federal courts within the limits set by the Constitution. The Supreme Court has also played a role in shaping federal court jurisdiction through its decisions and doctrines. The jurisdiction of inferior federal courts, such as district courts and courts of appeals, is subject to congressional prescription. These courts handle a range of criminal and civil matters, including issuing warrants, conducting hearings, and handling pre-trial motions.

Jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls

Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction over "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". This means that the Supreme Court has the power to hear cases related to ambassadors, ministers, and consuls directly, without the need for the case to be heard by a lower court first.

The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in these cases, however, does not preclude suits in state courts against consular officials. For example, in the case of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, a Romanian vice-consul contested an Ohio judgment against him for divorce and alimony. This demonstrates that while the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, it does not have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls.

There have been several legal questions and considerations regarding the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in these cases. One question is whether the Court has jurisdiction when an ambassador or consul has only an indirect interest in the outcome of the case, rather than being a direct party in interest. In United States v. Ortega, the Court ruled that a prosecution for violating international law and US laws by offering violence to a foreign minister was not a suit "affecting" the minister but rather a public prosecution for vindication of the law.

Another question is whether the Supreme Court can determine the official status of an individual claiming to be an ambassador or consul. The Court has generally refused to review the decision of the Executive Branch in such cases, instead accepting a certificate from the Department of State on the matter. Additionally, the Court has held that its original jurisdiction extends only to persons accredited to the United States by foreign governments, excluding ambassadors and consuls accredited by the United States to foreign governments.

In matters of particular delicacy, such as suits against ambassadors and ministers or their servants, Congress previously made the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court exclusive of other courts. However, since 1978, the Court's jurisdiction has been original but not exclusive, allowing for concurrent jurisdiction with lower federal courts.

Jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases

The Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases. This jurisdiction is established in Article III of the Constitution, which deals with the judiciary branch of government.

Admiralty courts, also known as maritime courts, have jurisdiction over all admiralty and maritime actions. This includes two types of cases: those involving acts committed on the high seas or other navigable waters, such as torts, injuries, and crimes; and those involving contracts and transactions connected with shipping employed on the seas or navigable waters. Admiralty courts operate under unique maritime law rules and procedures, with the most notable difference being that admiralty courts do not impanel juries. Instead, cases are heard by a judge.

The establishment of a uniform body of maritime law and a system of federal courts with jurisdiction over admiralty and maritime cases was a logical step in promoting commerce and removing obstacles caused by diverse local rules in the states. This was particularly important given the objective of the Philadelphia Convention to facilitate commerce.

While the Constitution does not explicitly define "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction", it grants the judicial power of the United States to extend to "all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." The federal courts have the power to fashion substantive maritime law if required, and they are not bound by the source of maritime law applied in other countries.

The Supreme Court has also played a role in shaping admiralty jurisdiction. While earlier decisions sustained broader admiralty jurisdiction on specific issues, it was not until 1848 that the Court ruled squarely in favor of admiralty jurisdiction in cases involving contracts of affreightment.

Explore related products

Examples & Explanations for Federal Courts

$53 $76.95

The Business of the Supreme Court: A Study in the Federal Judicial System (Library of Liberal Thought)

$31.7 $63.99

Litigating in Federal Court: A Guide to the Rules

$28 $28

Federal Courts and the Law of Federal-State Relations (University Casebook Series)

$120.33 $305

Federal Courts in Context [Connected eBook](Aspen Casebook)

$270.42 $344

Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System (University Casebook Series)

$305

Jurisdiction over cases where the US is a party

Article III of the US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court and authorises Congress to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. The Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction over controversies to which the United States is a party. This includes suits brought against states as party defendants, such as when the United States sued North Carolina to recover upon bonds issued by the state.

Congress has permitted the United States to be sued in its own courts in certain cases, allowing individuals to assert their legal rights against the federal government. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave district courts jurisdiction over common-law suits filed by the United States involving at least $100 in dispute. The district courts were also granted exclusive jurisdiction over seizures on water and land, and government suits for penalties and forfeitures under US law.

Congress created the Court of Claims in 1855 to handle money claims against the government based on acts of Congress, regulations of an executive department, or contracts with the government. The Tucker Act of 1887 granted district and circuit courts concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Claims for cases involving smaller amounts. The Tucker Act also expanded the right to sue the federal government to include claims based on the Constitution and permitted claims for damages in contract cases.

Congress has waived sovereign immunity in some cases, allowing individuals to seek injunctive relief against federal officials by suing them as individuals. However, Congress prohibited suits to prevent the assessment or collection of taxes. The Supreme Court ruled in Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp. that an injunction petition against an official that did not challenge the constitutionality of a statute or regulation was barred under sovereign immunity.

Federal courts have nationwide jurisdiction over issues such as tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade.

Jurisdiction over cases between citizens of the same state

The U.S. Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over controversies between citizens of the same state. This is outlined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which states that the judicial power of the federal courts extends to "Controversies...between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States".

This means that federal courts have the authority to hear and decide on legal disputes between citizens of the same state when they are claiming ownership of land based on grants from different states. This provision ensures that these types of controversies are resolved in a neutral forum, as the federal courts are not affiliated with any particular state.

It's worth noting that the Supreme Court, which is the highest court in the United States, generally does not have jurisdiction over suits between a state and its own citizens. This was established in the case of Cohens v. Virginia, where the Court ruled that its original jurisdiction does not include such suits. However, there may be exceptions to this rule, as indicated in cases like Chisholm v. Georgia and Alabama v. Arizona, where the Court asserted jurisdiction due to specific circumstances.

In addition to controversies between citizens of the same state, the federal courts' jurisdiction also covers a range of other cases, including those arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties; cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls; admiralty and maritime cases; controversies to which the United States is a party; and disputes between citizens of different states.

The federal court system was established through the Judiciary Act of 1789, signed by President Washington. This act gave Congress the power to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts and created a limited jurisdiction for district and circuit courts, with the Supreme Court having original jurisdiction over certain matters. The federal court system operates within a constitutional framework of checks and balances, where each branch of government has its own roles and areas of authority.

Frequently asked questions