Federal Law Claims: Jurisdiction Of Federal Courts

The United States Constitution creates a federal system of government, where power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both federal and state governments have their own court systems. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. Federal question jurisdiction permits an individual to bring a claim in federal court if it arises under federal law. However, unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction.

Can Federal Courts Hear Federal Law Claims?

Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law

The concept of federal courts having exclusive jurisdiction over specific matters is rooted in the US Constitution, which establishes a federal system of government where power is shared between the federal and state governments. Each level of government has its own court system, with the US Constitution serving as the supreme law of the land.

In the context of federal courts, jurisdiction can be further categorized into personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction pertains to where the parties may be heard, while subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to what the court is authorized to hear. Subject-matter jurisdiction is non-negotiable, and a court must possess it to render a valid and enforceable judgment on a claim.

Federal courts' exclusive jurisdiction over matters of national significance, as mentioned earlier, falls under subject-matter jurisdiction. This jurisdiction reflects the significant federal interest in these issues and aims to facilitate the development of a uniform body of federal law to address complex interstate matters. By limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts, parties are encouraged to bring cases to state courts when appropriate, preventing excessive federal intervention.

One notable example of federal courts' exclusive jurisdiction is in patent law. By statute, all cases "arising under" patent law must be heard exclusively by federal courts. However, it is important to distinguish that not all cases involving patents "arise under" patent law. For instance, the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the application of patent law in a malpractice case involving a patent lawyer does not trigger exclusive jurisdiction. Instead, for a case without patent infringement claims to fall under patent law, the patent issue must hold importance to the federal system as a whole.

Federal question jurisdiction allows individuals to bring a claim in federal court if it arises under federal law

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear cases authorized by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. Federal question jurisdiction permits an individual to bring a claim in federal court if it arises under federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. This is known as "original jurisdiction."

Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal question appears on the face of a well-pleaded complaint, is a substantial component of the complainant's claim, and is of significant federal interest. Federal question subject-matter jurisdiction is frequently derived from federal statutes granting a cause of action to parties who have suffered a particular injury.

In some cases, federal and state courts have concurrent subject matter jurisdiction, giving parties the flexibility to choose the forum they believe will be most advantageous for their case. 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. However, federal law now grants exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases to federal courts.

While state courts generally must hear federal law claims, they may be barred from doing so by a neutral rule of judicial administration that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law. For example, in Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a New York state statute that divested state courts of jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, as it undermined the federal policy of making relief under Section 1983 broadly available.

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal statutes, the Constitution, or treaties

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States extends 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". This provision ensures that federal courts have the authority to adjudicate cases that require the interpretation and application of federal law, the Constitution, and treaties.

The federal courts' original jurisdiction over these cases is further reinforced by the concept of federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows individuals to bring claims in federal court if they arise under federal law, regardless of the value of the claim. This means that as long as a case involves an interpretation of federal law, the Constitution, or treaties, it falls under the original jurisdiction of the federal courts.

It is important to note that while federal courts have original jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law, the Constitution, and treaties, state courts may also hear these cases unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction. In certain matters of national significance, such as patent and admiralty law, federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction. However, in many areas, federal and state courts have concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction, allowing parties to choose the forum they believe will be most advantageous for their case.

State courts can hear federal law claims unless state law bars them through a neutral rule of judicial administration

The US Constitution creates a federal system of government, where power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both federal and state governments have their own court systems.

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".

In some cases, the jurisdiction of state courts will overlap with that of federal courts, meaning that some cases can be brought in both courts. The plaintiff can choose to bring the case in either state or federal court. However, if the plaintiff chooses a state court, the defendant may sometimes opt to "remove" the case to a federal court.

The Supreme Court has ruled that state courts must generally hear federal law claims unless state law bars a state court from hearing a federal claim through a neutral rule of judicial administration that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law. This ruling was made in the 1990 case Howlett v. Rose, and in the 1876 case Claflin v. Houseman, where the Supreme Court held that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law.

In the 2009 case Haywood v. Drown, the Supreme Court considered a New York state statute that removed jurisdiction over suits seeking money damages from corrections officers. The Court held that the New York law violated the Supremacy Clause, and that only a neutral jurisdictional rule will be deemed a 'valid excuse' for departing from the default assumption that state courts will hear federal claims.

The US Supreme Court is the highest court and decides appeals on all cases brought in federal court or state court dealing with federal law

The US Constitution establishes 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. The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the American judicial system. It has the power to decide appeals on all cases brought in federal court or state court dealing with federal law. For instance, if a First Amendment freedom of speech case was decided by the highest court of a state, the case could be appealed to the federal Supreme Court. However, if the same case were decided based on a state law similar to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court would not be able to consider the case.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, such as suits between two or more states and cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. It also has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law. Some examples include cases to which the United States is a party, cases involving treaties, and cases involving ships on the high seas and navigable waterways (admiralty cases).

The Supreme Court typically hears cases when there are conflicting decisions across the country on a particular issue or when there is an egregious error in a case. The Court also usually hears cases involving an unusually important legal principle or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. In some cases, the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.

To appeal to the Supreme Court, parties may file a "writ of certiorari" to the court, asking it to hear the case. Certiorari is not often granted; less than 1% of appeals to the high court are heard by it. If the writ is not granted, the lower court's opinion stands.

Frequently asked questions