Also known as: ratione materiae · subject-matter jurisdiction · jurisdiction ratione materiae
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for a court's authority to adjudicate a dispute arising from the nature of the claim or controversy presented rather than from the parties' identities or the location of property.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rebecca Ross filed a complaint in federal district court asserting only state-law tort claims against a local defendant and referencing national environmental guidelines without tying them to any federal statute. The defendant moved under Rule 12(h)(3) after affidavits showed incomplete diversity. The court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the action.
Ruby Rivera sued a state agency in federal court on state-law claims while adding a federal statutory count. The agency filed a Rule 12(b)(1) motion supported by evidence that the federal claim was insubstantial. The court examined the face of the complaint and granted the motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Raymond Ramos and other voters sued state officials in federal court alleging that legislative districts violated equal protection. The district court dismissed on the ground that the claim presented a nonjusticiable political question. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the federal courts possessed subject-matter jurisdiction over the constitutional claim.
Ronald Reed and other insurers sued California officials and foreign reinsurers in federal court alleging a conspiracy to restrict coverage. The defendants moved to dismiss on comity grounds. The Supreme Court held that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Sherman Act claims despite the foreign conduct.
Rosa Ruiz, a debtor, sued a pipeline company in bankruptcy court for breach of contract. The defendant moved to withdraw the reference. The Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to enter final judgment on the state-law claim because it did not arise under title 11.
Rowan Russell and other asbestos claimants sought certification of a nationwide class and approval of a settlement in federal court. Objectors challenged the court's power to bind future claimants. The Supreme Court held that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to approve a settlement that exceeded the limits of Rule 23.
A federal court must dismiss whenever it determines that subject-matter jurisdiction is absent, even if the case has advanced to trial. The requirement cannot be waived by the parties or created by consent. Rule 12(h)(3) imposes this duty on the court at any stage of the proceedings.
A party may assert lack of subject-matter jurisdiction by motion under Rule 12(b)(1) or in the responsive pleading. The defense is never waived and may be raised at any time. When the motion is granted, the court must dismiss the action.
…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…
…issued in conformity with the court's per curiam opinion. The opinion reveals that the court rested its dismissal upon lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of a justiciable cause of action without attempting to distinguish between these grounds. After noting that the plaintiffs challenged the existing legislative apportionment in…
…against two other defendants, a municipality and a utility company. 490 U. S., at 546-547. No independent basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction
…contention, post , at 599, n. 4, that by refusing to waive our settled rule for purposes of this case we have made "federal subject-matter jurisdiction
…Circuit affirmed. Held: 1. The Second Circuit erred in considering §10(b)’s extraterritorial reach to raise a question of subject-matter jurisdiction
No. The complaint must show on its face that the claim arises under federal law or satisfies diversity requirements. Mere citation of national guidelines without a federal private right of action is insufficient to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.
Supplemental jurisdiction exists when the state claims share a common nucleus of operative fact with a federal claim that is properly before the court. The claims must form part of the same case or controversy under Article III.
Yes. Jurisdiction turns on whether the well-pleaded complaint asserts a nonfrivolous right to relief under the Constitution or federal law. The existence of an implied cause of action is a merits question, not a jurisdictional prerequisite.