State Law Board: Exclusive Jurisdiction Examined

The jurisdiction of a court is its power to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide a remedy. Jurisdiction is divided into two categories: personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. In the United States, the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law, and issues concerning federal lands. State courts have jurisdiction over most cases that raise issues under the Constitution or federal law, unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits between states, and the judicial power to address controversies between a state and citizens of another state. State courts may also establish specialty courts with limited jurisdiction, such as family courts or land courts.

Federal and state court jurisdiction

Jurisdiction refers to the power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded. In the United States, the federal court system has three main levels: district courts (the trial court), circuit courts (the first level of appeal), and the Supreme Court of the United States (the final level of appeal).

The jurisdiction of the federal courts has been defined by the Constitution, congressional statutes, and decisions of the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution extends the judicial power to "Controversies between two or more States, between a State and Citizens of another State, and between a State and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects," and provides that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party. The federal district court is the starting point for any case arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties, and this type of jurisdiction is called "original jurisdiction".

The federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over certain subject matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law, bankruptcy cases, and tax, claims against the federal government, and international trade. This exclusive jurisdiction reflects the federal government's substantial interest in these issues and facilitates the development of a uniform body of federal law.

In some instances, the jurisdiction of state courts will overlap with that of federal courts, and cases can be brought in either court. State courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction unless the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter. For example, in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law, but federal law now grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to the federal courts. Cases that are entirely based on state law may also be brought in federal court under the court's "diversity jurisdiction," which allows a plaintiff of one state to file a lawsuit in federal court when the defendant is located in a different state.

State governments have also entered federal courts as plaintiffs, usually through original proceedings before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has exclusive original jurisdiction in suits between two or more states, with the remainder of state party suits left concurrent with other courts. The Supreme Court has, at times, carved out exceptions to the broad application of state sovereign immunity, ruling that one could sue for prospective relief, such as an injunction, against a state officer to prevent the enforcement of a state law or regulation alleged to be unconstitutional.

State law board's jurisdiction over federal lands

The jurisdiction of state law boards over federal lands is a complex issue that involves the interplay of federal and state laws. While the federal government has the authority to own and manage public lands, the enforcement of laws on these lands can vary depending on the category of jurisdiction.

One category of federal land ownership is known as "proprietary jurisdiction," where the federal government takes on the role of a landowner without assuming any law enforcement responsibilities. In these cases, state and local law enforcement officers continue to handle calls for service as if the land were privately owned. This means that state law boards can have jurisdiction over federal lands in certain situations.

Another category of federal land ownership is "exclusive legislative jurisdiction," where the federal government assumes all law enforcement responsibilities. In these cases, violations occurring on federal lands are handled by federal law enforcement officers. States can cede their jurisdiction to the federal government, as California did between 1852 and 1939 for lands purchased or condemned for military use and other government purposes.

A third category is "concurrent legislative jurisdiction," where the federal and state governments share law enforcement responsibilities to varying degrees. For example, California ceded its legislative authority to establish concurrent jurisdiction with the United States between 1961 and 1976.

The jurisdiction over federal lands can also depend on the nature of the case. For instance, in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law, even though federal courts now have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases.

Additionally, the Assimilative Crimes Act allows for the adoption of state laws on federal lands for criminal offenses that are not punishable under federal law. This Act ensures that state laws apply to criminal offenses committed on federal lands when the offense is not a federal crime.

To fully understand the jurisdiction of state law boards over specific federal lands, it is necessary to research the state statutes and any cessions of legislative jurisdiction that have occurred since the Eisenhower Report in 1962.

State court enforcement of federal law

The concept of subject matter jurisdiction holds that a court must have the power to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded. In the United States, the judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in inferior courts ordained and established by Congress. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain subject matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law, and issues like bankruptcy.

The question of state court enforcement of federal law is related to, but distinct from, the anti-commandeering doctrine. In the 2009 case of Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a state statute that divested New York state courts of jurisdiction over suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking money damages from corrections officers. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, as state courts are expected to hear federal claims. Similarly, in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law.

In the 1929 case of Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R.R., the Supreme Court upheld New York's refusal to adjudicate an FELA claim, which fell into a class of cases in which claims under state law would not be entertained. However, in the 1947 case of Testa v. Katt, the Court unanimously held that state courts are required to enforce "penal" laws of the United States.

While the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, state courts may hear cases over which the federal courts would also have jurisdiction unless the federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction. This division of jurisdiction ensures that federal and state courts address the types of cases best suited to their respective expertise and roles, with state courts often being more knowledgeable about the applicable law.

State court jurisdiction over federal claims

The concept of subject matter jurisdiction governs what a court can hear specifically. In the United States, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. To bring an action in a federal court, the plaintiff must establish a constitutional or congressional basis for the federal court to hear the claim. Most state courts, on the other hand, are courts of general jurisdiction and are presumed to have the power to hear virtually any claim arising under federal or state law, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts.

Federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over certain subject matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law, and issues like bankruptcy. This exclusive jurisdiction reflects the federal government's substantial interest in these issues and facilitates the development of a uniform body of federal law to govern complex matters with interstate implications.

However, in many areas, federal and state courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction, allowing individuals to choose the forum they believe will be most advantageous for their case. Unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction. This was affirmed in the 1876 case of Claflin v. Houseman, where the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law.

In the 2009 case of Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a New York state statute that sought to divest state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, emphasizing that only a neutral jurisdictional rule would be deemed a 'valid excuse' for departing from the assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.

State court jurisdiction over suits against states

Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded. While personal jurisdiction governs where the parties may be heard, subject matter jurisdiction governs what the court can hear specifically. In the United States, federal and state courts have distinct areas of jurisdiction. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain subject matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law, while state courts handle matters that are more relevant to their respective states.

The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction over suits between two or more states, with the remainder of state party suits left concurrent with other courts. These suits have often involved boundary disputes, water rights, and financial obligations of one state to another. State governments have also sued individuals or corporations in the Supreme Court, albeit sparingly, to address issues like environmental pollution, land titles, and financial obligations.

In the 1791 case of Farquhar v. Georgia, the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Georgia dismissed a suit against the state, ruling that the Constitution's grant of jurisdiction over state party suits was exclusive to the Supreme Court. This led to the 1793 Chisholm v. Georgia decision, where the Supreme Court ruled that Article III permitted a common-law suit against a state by a citizen of another state. This decision was criticised by state legislatures as a threat to their sovereignty, leading to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795, which barred citizens from suing their own state in federal court.

The Supreme Court has, over time, created exceptions to state sovereign immunity. In Ex parte Young (1908), the Court ruled that one could sue for prospective relief against a state officer to prevent the enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional state law or regulation. In Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1964), the Court ruled that Congress could annul state sovereign immunity when enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment.

In the 2009 case of Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a New York state statute that removed jurisdiction over suits seeking damages from corrections officers from state courts. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, emphasising that only a neutral jurisdictional rule would be deemed a 'valid excuse' for a state court to refuse to hear a federal claim.

Frequently asked questions