Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Purpose of Art III §2

1. State courts might prove hostile to enforcing federally-created rights. 2. Litigation in the unitary federal court system would help ensure that laws of national scope were interpreted uniformly.

Where do most cause of action involving federal question jurisdiction stem from?

1. Statutes-cause of action can be set forth by either statute's express language or judicial interpretation. 2. Federal Common Law-Limited body of federal judge-made substantive law exists; any claims arising under federal common law may be heard in a federal district court under §1331

Federal question jurisdiction

Allows the federal district court to hear cases involving federal and constitutional claims.

Where can a case that qualifies for diversity jurisdiction be filed?

Almost always in either state or federal court.

Subject matter jurisdiction

Authority to adjudicate and decide a case. Without it, any party, including the plaintiff, may move to have the action dismissed. Subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, unlike personal jurisdiction.

FRCP 12(h)

Because subject matter jurisdiction is so fundamental, it can be challenged by any party to the action.

Grable

Court held that the federal question involved, one challenging IRS selling of land due to nonpayment of federal taxes, was "substantial" and could be resolved by the federal court without encroaching too greatly on the authority of state courts.

Sua sponte

Court raises sua sponte its own lack of subject matter jurisdiction; jurisdiction may not be vested in courts by parties' consent.

Empire Healthchoice

Distinguished from Grable because: 1. FA (federal act)-Grable involved the acts of a federal agency, which directly caused the sale of the land and, therefore, the claim. 2.FI (federal interest)- Implication of a federal interest, i.e., the collection of federal taxes. 3. FL (federal law)-Grable involved an issue of federal law (IRS notification in connection with the sale) while Empire was fact-based.

Substantiality

Federal claim must be substantial; frivolous claims do not constitute federal question jurisdiction

Domestic relations and probate exceptions

Federal courts, unless in diversity cases or federal question, shall not hear cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody and probate of wills.

28 U.S.C. §1331

General federal question statute. District courts shall have jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, [federal] laws, or treaties of the United States.

Effect of Art. III §2

Gives federal courts the authority to hear "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under [the U.S.] Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties..."

Constitutional issues

If the Constitution itself is the source of plaintiff's claim, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the cases. Only in some cases may a party whose constitutional rights are being violated may they bring an action directly under the U.S. Constitution.

Concurrence

In most cases, a federal question may be litigated in either state or federal court, unless specified by federal statute or where the courts imply that federal jurisdiction is exclusive from the nature of the federal statutory scheme.

Can a court hear a case if it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, but maintains personal jurisdiction?

In order to hear a case, the court must have subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to hear a case. Even if there is personal jurisdiction, a court CANNOT hear a case if it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Treaties

International treaties are negotiated at the federal level. Where treaties provide a legally enforceable right to P, federal courts may hear the claim under §1331. However, most treaties do not create rights themselves but are instead implemented by federal statute.

Article III, §2

Lists nine categories for federal jurisdiction. Unless a case falls in one of these categories, it is unconstitutional for the federal court to hear the case. Doesn't apply to district courts to which Congress allocates jurisdiction.

How may a P invoke federal question jurisdiction?

Need only allege a claim based on: 1. Federal law (either statute or federal common law); 2. Constitution; or Treat.

Can any party challenge personal jurisdiction and venue?

No. Only defendants and other parties joined against their will, including third-party defendants and members of a class in an action, may raise these challenges.

Are subject matter and personal jurisdiction interchangeable?

No. They're both separate requirements that must be satisfied for a court to hear a case.

Are there time limits to challenging subject matter jurisdiction?

No. Unlike personal jurisdiction and venue, but similar to transfer motions, Court or parties may raise the issue at any time during the lawsuit or during appeal, even if it was never raised during earlier proceedings.

Plaintiff's burden

Plaintiff wishing to invoke §1331 must included a statement in her federal complaint alleging that the requirements of the statute are satisfied, i.e. whenever a claim is being petitioned to be litigated in federal court.

28 U.S.C. §2201-Declaratory judgment

Relief declaring the parties' relative rights; often used to preempt a later lawsuit. Determination by court if a declaratory judgment case is a federal question, a court looks behind the declaratory judgment claim to the essential nature of the lawsuit. Case is a federal question only if the lawsuit that is being preempted would itself qualify for federal question jurisdiction.

Louisville

Set out the well-pleaded complaint rule. SCOTUS held that the complaint failed to present a federal question; all Ps needed to allege was the existence of a contract and breach, which are state law issues. Defendant's reason for breach was not an essential element of P's claim.

Where can case that qualifies for federal question jurisdiction be filed?

Usually can be filed in either state or federal court.

Well-pleaded complaint rule

When a P is filing under Section 1331, he/she must present: 1. The federal question on the face of the complaint; and 2. Whether the federal element is necessary to P's case.

If a federal statute creates a cause of action and P's complaint invokes that federal cause of action as the basis for recovery, does this satisfy §1331?

Yes, if a federal statute creates a cause of action and P's complaint invokes that federal cause of action as the basis for recovery, it satisfies §1331.