Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear the type of claim before it, and it is a prerequisite that no court can do without.
5. Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Not all courts have the power to hear all types of claims; instead, courts must have subject matter jurisdiction over the claims they adjudicate.
- This requirement of subject matter jurisdiction applies to all courts, state and federal.
- Constitutions, statutes, and court rules may all contribute to defining a court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Before filing a claim, a lawyer should consult those sources to ascertain the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
- Subject matter jurisdiction (unlike personal jurisdiction) cannot be conferred through consent of the parties. If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it will dismiss the claim, [whether on motion] or sua sponte.
- A court [must] dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction at any time. Even after a judgment has been entered and the case is on appeal, the case must be dismissed and any judgment vacated if a lack of subject matter jurisdiction is found.
- Subject matter jurisdiction is distinct from personal jurisdiction. A court needs both types of jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute.
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear the type of claim before it, and it is a prerequisite no court can do without. The parties cannot create it, the defect can be raised at any time, and a court needs both it and personal jurisdiction to decide a case.
Subject matter jurisdiction is a court's power to hear the type of claim before it. Every court, state and federal, must have it, and the boundaries of any court's subject matter jurisdiction are set by constitutions, statutes, and court rules, which a lawyer should consult before filing.
The defining feature that separates subject matter jurisdiction from personal jurisdiction is that the parties cannot create it. Personal jurisdiction can be waived or supplied by consent, but subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred through the parties' agreement, stipulation, or failure to object. Because the defect goes to the court's basic power, it can be raised by any party or by the court on its own at any time. There is no deadline. Even after a judgment has been entered and the case is on appeal, a reviewing court that finds the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction must dismiss the case and vacate the judgment.
Finally, the two jurisdictional requirements are independent and cumulative. A court needs both subject matter jurisdiction over the claim and personal jurisdiction over the parties before it may adjudicate the dispute, so having one does not excuse the absence of the other.
Do not confuse the two jurisdictions on consent. Personal jurisdiction can be waived or supplied by consent, but subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred through the parties' agreement, stipulation, or failure to object.
power, not permission: subject matter jurisdiction is the court's power over the type of claim, and the parties cannot grant it.
Consent can fix personal jurisdiction.
Consent can never fix subject matter jurisdiction.
No deadline: a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised any time, by anyone, even the court on its own, even on appeal after judgment.
both or neither: a court needs subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to decide a case.
All courts, state and federal, must have subject matter jurisdiction.
There is no exception.
A homeowner sues a contractor in a court that, it later turns out, has no power to hear that category of claim. The contractor never objects, fully litigates, and loses at trial. On appeal, for the first time, the contractor argues the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
An option says the defendant consented to, waived, or cured subject matter jurisdiction by agreeing, appearing, or litigating without objection.
Subject matter jurisdiction, unlike personal jurisdiction, cannot be conferred or waived by the parties; that consent-and-waiver rule belongs only to personal jurisdiction.An option says the subject matter jurisdiction objection is too late once trial is over, judgment is entered, or the case is on appeal.
A lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal after judgment; there is no deadline.An option treats subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction as interchangeable, so having one lets the court proceed despite the other.
The two are distinct and cumulative; a court needs BOTH subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to adjudicate.An option limits the requirement (only federal courts) or absolutizes it (any court can hear any claim if the parties agree).
The requirement applies to all courts, state and federal, and cannot be supplied by party agreement.Trigger the subject matter jurisdiction frame whenever a fact pattern raises the court's power over the type of claim rather than over the parties, or whenever a party tries to create, waive, cure, or excuse that power.
Watch for consent, stipulation, agreement to litigate, or a failure to object offered as a reason the court can hear the claim.
Watch for a late objection raised after judgment or on appeal and an argument that it is too late.
Watch for any suggestion that personal jurisdiction substitutes for subject matter jurisdiction or vice versa.
In each, ask whether the court actually has power over this kind of claim, remembering that the answer does not turn on what the parties did.
A homeowner and a roofing contractor sign a written agreement stating that any dispute between them will be decided by a particular court. A dispute arises, the homeowner files there, and it later appears that this court has no power to hear that category of claim. The contractor points to the agreement and argues the parties chose this court.
Does the parties' written agreement give the court subject matter jurisdiction over the claim?
A freight company is sued by a shipper and litigates the case to a final judgment without ever objecting to the court's authority. The freight company loses. On appeal, for the first time, it argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. The shipper responds that the objection comes too late because judgment has already been entered.
May the appellate court consider the freight company's subject matter jurisdiction objection?
A small-business owner is sued in a court that plainly has personal jurisdiction over her because she resides and operates within the court's territory. The court, however, has no power to hear the particular type of claim asserted against her. The plaintiff argues that because the court clearly has authority over the owner herself, it may proceed to decide the case.
Does the court's personal jurisdiction over the owner allow it to adjudicate the claim?
A state agency files a claim in a court that has subject matter jurisdiction over that type of claim. The defendant, however, has no contacts with the court's territory and is not subject to the court's authority over his person. The agency argues that because the court has power over this category of claim, it may go forward and enter judgment against the defendant.
May the court adjudicate the claim against this defendant?
A claim is filed in a state trial court. Neither party raises any question about the court's authority, and both are content to proceed. The judge, reviewing the file, doubts that the court has power to hear this type of claim at all. A party insists that because this is a state court rather than a federal court, and because no one has objected, the judge should simply move forward.
May the judge raise and act on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction even though neither party objected?