Also known as: subject matter jurisdiction · subject-matter jurisdiction · SMJ
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A court's power to hear and decide a particular category of cases or controversies. The power must appear from the face of the complaint or from undisputed jurisdictional facts and cannot be created by consent, waiver, or the parties' litigation conduct.
Precision Steel sued Apex Builders and Titan Stadium Holdings in federal court alleging diversity jurisdiction. After a full bench trial the judge learned that Titan's principal place of business was in the same state as Precision Steel. The court dismissed the action because complete diversity had never existed.
Jillian James, a citizen of State A, sued Jamal Jefferson, a citizen of State B, in federal court on a state-law claim. Complete diversity existed on the filing date. Jefferson later moved to State A. The court retained the case because diversity jurisdiction is measured at the time of filing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jennings Forge removed a state-court contract action to federal court. The district court later determined that the amount in controversy fell below the jurisdictional threshold. The court remanded the case to state court and ordered Jennings Forge to pay the plaintiff's removal-related costs.
Jordan Dynamics sued Jeffrey Jha in federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction. Jha moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss, submitting evidence that one of Jordan Dynamics' members shared citizenship with Jha. The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judy Jacobs sued Jerome Jackson in federal court on a state-law trespass claim. The complaint mentioned a federal environmental statute only to anticipate Jackson's likely defense. The court dismissed for lack of federal-question jurisdiction because the claim did not arise under federal law.
James Johnson obtained a Virginia divorce decree that included maintenance for his former wife and daughter. After moving to another state he sought to set the decree aside in federal court. The court held that the Virginia court had properly exercised jurisdiction over the subject matter and declined to disturb the decree.
A federal court must dismiss whenever it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, even after trial or verdict. The obligation is independent and continuing. The parties cannot waive or cure the defect by consent or litigation conduct.
Supporting sources
No. Diversity is measured when the suit is filed. Later changes in domicile do not destroy jurisdiction that attached at filing.
Supporting sources
The district court must remand the case. The remand order is generally not reviewable on appeal, and the court may award costs and attorney fees incurred because of the improper removal.
Supporting sources
Yes. The defense may be raised at any time, including by motion under Rule 12(b)(1) or on the court's own initiative, because subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.
Supporting sources
No. Jurisdiction exists only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint presents a federal claim on its face. Anticipating a federal defense does not suffice.
Supporting sources
…to provide the respondent with a pretermination hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. The District Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Pp. 324-332. 2. The procedures for review and termination of disability benefits under the Social Security Act do not violate the Due Process…