1

1) Chapter 3 Subject Matter Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

A) The Idea and the Structure of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
In some states, the Federal Government and the State government SHARE POWER.
In others, the Fed. Gov. is SUPREME, and others, NO POWER.
Doctrine
Constitutional Source

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

FEDERAL SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
Article III

Due Process Clause

(4th Amendment)
Statutory Source
State and Federal long arm
Federal jurisdictional statutes
statutes (e.g. 4(k)(1)(A))
(e.g. 28 USC 1331, 1332)
Effect
Limits power of State and
Limits power of Federal
Federal courts in any given
courts to certain kinds of cases
state over cases involving
(those involving federal
particular defendants
claims, or diverse parties etc).
Article III 1 REQUIRES Federal Supreme courts but NOT lower federal courts
(optional).
2 of Article III limits federal courts jurisdiction to the list set forth in 2.
o The question that the court has to ask in order to find if it has jurisdiction is:
Does the case fall within one of the enumerated categories of Article III 2
and has congress further authorized the lower federal courts to assume that
jurisdiction?
o Rule 8(a) reflects these concerns by REQUIRING every federal complaint to
begin with a short and plain statement of the grounds for the courts
jurisdiction.
1331 General federal question statute grants federal courts jurisdiction over
cases that arise under federal law.
o This, however, does NOT mean that they have EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over
such cases.
The case CAN be brought in STATE court (which is known as concurrent).
1332 Diversity jurisdiction question also concurrent.
1333 (admiralty), 1334 (bankruptcy), 1337 (antitrust)NOT CONCURRENT
1341 state tax collection federal courts are FORBIDDEN from hearing.
The reasons for choosing one over the other can be POLITICAL, SPEED,
SYMPATHETIC JURIESetc.
o Federal judges are LIFETIME TENURE.
o State judges are ELECTED.
B) Federal Question Jurisdiction
No power was given to federal courts to hear questions of claims based on federal law
o This means that the only way to get to a federal court was to appeal all the way
up you cant start with a claim that something is violating the constitution or a
federal statute.
1331 Federal Questions can now be brought.

But there is really no test to determine what questions arise under this.

Note: Challenging Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction

As counsel, if you want to get a case thrown out of federal court, you can:
o Use Rule 12(b)(1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction
There is no federal claim, therefore no federal jurisdiction.
o Use Rule 12(b)(6) Failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted
There is no jurisdiction because there is no claim arising under federal
law.
This is the CORRECT ARGUMENT to bring up to dismiss a case
according to the Court.
Notes and Problems (pg. 187)
1) Why does it matter how that question is decided?
A) Because if further litigation arises out of the same matters, the should use the 12(b)(6)
motion to get SUMMARY JUDGMENT on those matters (so that nothing is further
litigated. Using 12(b)(1) would leave the issue open to re-litigation.
B) Once the 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the can STILL argue that the federal dismissal
requires dismissal of the state claim.
C) If 12(b)(6) is used, the federal court can still hear the case if its jurisdiction is close
enough, making the system more efficient than using the 12(b)(1) because once it is
decided that there is no SMJ, it is out of federal court for good.
2) Keep in mind that federal courts can sua sponte dismiss the case if it finds lack of SMJ.
3) Collateral attack on a judgment alleged to be without federal jurisdiction:
A) If the appears, challenges SMJ and loses
may not thereafter challenge the judgment in a second action.
B) If the appears but fails to challenge and loses
Again, the may not challenge the judgment in a second action.
C) If the entirely defaults
Under the doctrine of Pennoyer, are they entitled to collaterally attack the judgment?
o Its iffy in this instance.
4) What about s who COMBINE challenges to SMJ and PJ?
A) If the brings up 12(b)(1) & (2) and gets the case dismissed, there can be different
consequences for a refilled suit depending on which ground is used for dismissal.
B) is free to REFILE if only the 12(b)(1) is granted
C) If the suit is dismissed on the grounds of the 12(b)(2) motion, former adjudication barrs
the from refilling (either in Federal or State court).
D) If the federal court is given both motions, the SC has said that the federal courts are
allowed to dismiss the case using their discretion (if the fed. Ct. thinks that 12(b)(1) is
most obvious, then it can use that instead of 12(b)(2) or vice versa).