2/8/2020 Subject matter jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Subject matter jurisdiction

Definition
The power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy
demanded.

Overview
A court must have jurisdiction to enter a valid, enforceable judgment on a claim.
Where jurisdiction is lacking, litigants, through various procedural mechanisms, may
retroactively challenge the validity of a judgment.

Jurisdiction may be broken down into two categories: personal jurisdiction and
subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction is the requirement that a given court
have power over the defendant, based on minimum contacts with the forum. Subject-
matter jurisdiction is the requirement that a given court have power to hear the
specific kind of claim that is brought to that court. While litigating parties may waive
personal jurisdiction, they cannot waive subject-matter jurisdiction. In federal court,
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction is considered a favored defense and may be raised at any point in
the litigation process, even if the parties had previously argued that subject-matter
jurisdiction existed. In fact, the court may dismiss a case sua sponte (on its own) for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1).

General and Limited Jurisdiction

The requirement that a court have subject-matter jurisdiction means that the court
can only assume power over a claim which it is authorized to hear under the laws of
the jurisdiction. For example, Congress limited the subject-matter jurisdiction of the
United States Tax Court to cases related to taxation; thus, that court does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over any other matter. Most state courts are courts of
general jurisdiction, whereas federal courts have limited jurisdiction. That is, state
courts are presumed to have power to hear virtually any claim arising under federal
or state law, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
However, for pragmatic reasons some states deny subject-matter jurisdiction to
specific claims, such as those arising in other states. Most states also maintain

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction 1/5
2/8/2020 Subject matter jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

specialized courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction. Examples of these types of

courts include probate courts, traffic courts, juvenile courts, and small claims courts.
As for federal courts, with few exceptions found in the Constitution itself, Congress
defines their limited subject-matter jurisdiction. In order to bring an action in federal
court, the plaintiff must find a constitutional or congressional grant of subject-matter
jurisdiction to allow the federal court to hear the claim. See U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec.
2. As a general rule, courts read congressional grants of subject-matter jurisdiction
narrowly, resolving any ambiguities in favor of denying jurisdiction.

Standing
A threshold concern for all federal courts is the presence, or absence, of constitutional
standing. The standing requirement, as governed by Article III of the Constitution,
permits federal courts to adjudicate only cases or controversies. A case or controversy
must comprise an actual injury that can be redressed. See Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife at p559. Subject-matter jurisdiction does not exist in the absence of
constitutional standing. This restriction prevents courts—whose members are not
elected and are therefore not politically accountable—from influencing the law in a
legislative capacity. In this sense, the standing doctrine and subject-matter
jurisdiction facilitate the separation of powers.

Federal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Sources

The two primary sources of the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts are
diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction generally
permits individuals to bring claims in federal court where the claim exceeds $75,000
and the parties are citizens of different states. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. So, if a citizen
of New York sues a citizen of California for more than $75,000, a federal court would
have subject-matter jurisdiction to hear that claim. Under federal question
jurisdiction, a litigant—regardless of the value of the claim—may bring a claim in
federal court if it arises under federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction requires that the federal element appears
on the face of a well-plead 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. Furthermore, it is important to note that
28 U.S.C. § 1367 provides for supplemental jurisdiction in federal courts.
Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to adjudicate a claim over which it
does not have independent subject-matter jurisdiction, on the basis that the claim is
related to a claim over which the federal court does have independent jurisdiction.

Federalism

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction 2/5
2/8/2020 Subject matter jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

The jurisdictional division between state and federal tribunals is an essential

component of American federalism. Federal courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over
certain subject matter, notably issues like patent and admiralty law, which have
national significance. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1333, 1338. Exclusive jurisdiction over such
issues indicates a significant federal interest in the subject matter and allows for the
development of a uniform body of federal law governing complex issues that have
interstate implications. Further, the limited jurisdiction of federal courts encourages
parties to resort to local tribunals when adjudicating issues relevant to those courts.
This inhibits excessive federal judicial intervention and funnels claims into courts that
are most knowledgeable about the applicable law. Federal and state courts also have
concurrent subject-matter jurisdiction over many issues, allowing parties to chose
whether to litigate in a federal or state tribunal.

Finally, it is important to recognize the far-reaching impact of the concept of subject-

matter jurisdiction. While discourse on subject-matter jurisdiction is often related to
the relationship between domestic courts, subject-matter jurisdiction plays a role in
international law as well. For example, issues frequently arise involving the
jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals, like the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda. Here, subject-matter jurisdiction has international political significance
because parties must decide the degree to which a supranational tribunal can affect
persons traditionally subject to domestic law.

See jurisdiction.

Last updated in June of 2017 by Stephanie Jurkowski.

wex
THE LEGAL PROCESS
courts
civil procedure
wex articles
wex definitions

Stretch Your Savings Account

OPEN
Easy to Join Credit Union in Torrance. Friendly Local Service. Get Started Online
Today. Arrowhead Credit Union

 Wex Toolbox
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction 3/5
2/8/2020 Subject matter jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

104 184

ACCESSIBILITY

ABOUT LII

CONTACT US

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction 4/5
2/8/2020 Subject matter jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

ADVERTISE HERE

HELP

TERMS OF USE

PRIVACY

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction 5/5