
The US Constitution outlines the types of cases that federal courts can hear. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the US Constitution or federal statutes. The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties. This type of jurisdiction is called original jurisdiction. State courts do not have jurisdiction over each other, so the Supreme Court handles disputes between state governments. The plaintiff has the initial choice of bringing the case to state or federal court, and if they choose state court, the defendant may sometimes choose to remove the case to federal court.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Can a court apply the law of a different state? | Yes, but only the Supreme Court. State courts do not have jurisdiction over each other. |
| Which court handles disputes between state governments? | The Supreme Court. |
| Can a state court hear cases involving another state? | No. |
| What happens when two state governments are in a legal dispute? | The Supreme Court handles the case. |
| Can a state court hear criminal cases? | Yes. |
| Can a federal court hear criminal cases? | Yes, but only if brought by the federal government. |
| Can a federal court hear civil cases? | Yes, but only if authorized by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. |
| Can a case be appealed from a federal district court to a United States court of appeal? | Yes. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn

Jurisdiction of state courts and federal courts can overlap
The US Constitution creates a federal system of government where power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both the federal and state governments have their own court systems. These court systems have different structures, methods of judicial selection, and types of cases they hear.
The federal court system has jurisdiction over cases arising under the US Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the US Constitution or federal statutes. The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal law, the Constitution, or treaties. This type of jurisdiction is called "original jurisdiction."
On the other hand, state courts handle cases based on state law. Sometimes, the jurisdiction of state courts will overlap with that of federal courts, meaning some cases can be brought in both courts. This is known as "diversity jurisdiction." Diversity jurisdiction allows a plaintiff of one state to file a lawsuit in federal court when the defendant is located in a different state. To bring a state law claim in federal court, all plaintiffs must be located in different states than the defendants, and the "amount in controversy" must exceed $75,000. It is important to note that criminal cases may not be brought under diversity jurisdiction.
Additionally, some federal courts have nationwide jurisdiction over specific issues, such as tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade. These courts include the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the United States Court of International Trade. Federal trial courts have also been established for a few subject-specific areas, such as bankruptcy.
Practicing Law Across State Lines: Kansas to Texas
You may want to see also
Explore related products

Criminal cases cannot be brought under diversity jurisdiction
The United States Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over "cases and controversies". Diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that allows federal courts to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. This means that a plaintiff of one state can file a lawsuit in federal court if all the defendants are located in different states and the "amount in controversy" is more than $75,000.
However, criminal cases cannot be brought under diversity jurisdiction. This is because states may only bring criminal prosecutions in state courts, and the federal government may only bring criminal prosecutions in federal court. This distinction between state and federal court jurisdiction is important to understand when considering the application of the law of different states.
While federal courts have limited jurisdiction, extending only to specific types of cases, state courts are typically courts of general jurisdiction, meaning they can hear any dispute unless another court has jurisdiction over it. In cases where a state court's jurisdiction overlaps with a federal court's, the plaintiff can initially choose to bring the case to either court. However, if the plaintiff chooses a state court, the defendant may sometimes choose to "remove" the case to a federal court.
The Supreme Court handles disputes between state governments, as state courts do not have jurisdiction over each other. This is outlined in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that the judicial power shall extend to "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made [...] to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States".
Diversity jurisdiction, therefore, plays a crucial role in determining whether a case is heard in state or federal court, but it is important to note that it does not apply to criminal cases.
Mail-in Registration: Texas Laws and Requirements
You may want to see also
Explore related products

Supreme Court handles disputes between state governments
State courts do not have jurisdiction over one another and cannot hear cases involving another state. This means that when two state governments have a legal dispute, it is the Supreme Court that handles these cases.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution states:
> The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State, between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Supreme Court has summarised the "several related but more specific sets of principles" that govern the doctrine of equitable apportionment in interstate disputes between two states. For example, in Florida v. Georgia, the Supreme Court may proceed ex parte if a state refuses to appear when duly summoned. In Chisholm v. Georgia, the Supreme Court made a similar ruling.
The Supreme Court has also taken the view that its enforcement authority includes ordering the disgorgement of part of one state's gain from its breach of an interstate compact. In addition, the Court has emphasised that its enforcement authority comes from its "inherent authority" to apportion interstate streams between states equitably.
Disability Income: Can Texas Law Protect from Garnishment?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$28.02 $32.95

Cases may be appealed to the circuit court
Once a case has been decided by a federal district court, the case can be appealed to a United States court of appeal. There are twelve federal circuits that divide the country into different regions. The Fifth Circuit, for example, includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Cases from the district courts of those states are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana. Each circuit court has multiple judges, ranging from six on the First Circuit to twenty-nine on the Ninth Circuit.
Any case may be appealed to the circuit court once the district court has finalized a decision. Appeals to circuit courts are first heard by a panel, consisting of three circuit court judges. These judges are appointed for life by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in writing, in a document called a "brief". In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error and that its decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the "appellee", tries in its brief to show why the trial court's decision was correct, or why any error made by the trial court was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.
After the briefs are filed, the court will schedule "oral argument", a structured discussion in which the lawyers come before the court to make their arguments and answer the judges' questions. Each side is given a short time — usually about 15 minutes — to present their arguments. Though it is rare, the entire circuit court may consider certain appeals in a process called an "en banc hearing". En banc opinions tend to carry more weight and are usually decided only after a panel has first heard the case. Once a panel has ruled on an issue and "published" the opinion, no future panel can overrule the previous decision. The panel can, however, suggest that the circuit take up the case en banc to reconsider the first panel's decision.
The court of appeals decision will usually be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a "writ of certiorari", which is a document asking the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, does not have to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves an unusually important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently.
Congress' Ex Post Facto Law Powers: Exploring Limits
You may want to see also
Explore related products

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction
Cases that are entirely based on state law may be brought in federal court under the court's "diversity jurisdiction". Diversity jurisdiction allows a plaintiff of one state to file a lawsuit in federal court when the defendant is located in a different state. To bring a state law claim in federal court, all plaintiffs must be located in different states than the defendants, and the "amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. It is important to note that criminal cases may not be brought under diversity jurisdiction. States may only bring criminal prosecutions in state courts, and the federal government may only bring criminal prosecutions in federal court.
Federal trial courts have also been established for specific subject areas. Each federal district has a bankruptcy court for bankruptcy proceedings. Additionally, some courts have nationwide jurisdiction for issues such as tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade. Once the federal district court has decided a case, it can be appealed to a United States court of appeal. There are twelve federal circuits that divide the country into different regions. For example, the Fifth Circuit includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Cases from the district courts of these states are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is headquartered in New Orleans, Louisiana.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has nationwide jurisdiction over specific issues such as patents. Each circuit court has multiple judges, ranging from six on the First Circuit to twenty-nine on the Ninth Circuit. Circuit court judges are appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Any case may be appealed to the circuit court once the district court has finalized a decision.
Practicing Law: Who Can and Who Cannot?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, but only the Supreme Court. State courts do not have jurisdiction over each other, so the Supreme Court handles disputes between state governments.
The Supreme Court may proceed ex parte.
A long-running case was the litigation between Rhode Island and Massachusetts over a boundary dispute.
Missouri v. Illinois & Chicago District, which sustained jurisdiction to entertain an injunction suit to restrain the discharge of sewage into the Mississippi River.
Yes, once a state district court has decided a case, it can be appealed to a United States court of appeal.



![Conflict of Laws: Cases, Materials, and Problems [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61gkMj3IgcL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
![Conflict of Laws: Cases, Materials, and Problems [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61enOe2bo1L._AC_UY218_.jpg)


































