Jurisdiction of courts

SIGNIFICANCE: Jurisdiction is a complicated but important issue. In criminal matters, a court is without authority to decide a criminal case unless it has both the jurisdiction to decide the particular kind of criminal case and jurisdiction over the defendant.

One of the most important issues facing a court in any case is whether it has jurisdiction over the case. In its broadest sense, “jurisdiction” is the authority of any branch of the justice system to interpret or apply the law. For example, the jurisdictions of federal law-enforcement agencies are explicitly defined by law. Within the court system, however, jurisdiction refers to the authority of courts to hear and decide cases. A court cannot decide a case unless it exercises authority that is appropriate to its own jurisdiction.

Both federal and state courts face limitations in the kinds of cases they can decide. The US Constitution, state constitutions, and federal and state laws grant and limit the jurisdiction of courts. A court must have both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction to make legally valid decisions.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the kinds of cases that a specific type of court is authorized to hear. In criminal cases, subject-matter jurisdiction refers to whether particular courts can hear and decide criminal cases, and if so, what kinds of criminal cases the courts can decide. Most criminal matters fall under the subject-matter jurisdiction of state courts because the US Constitution explicitly provides that the states have the duty of protecting the general welfare of the people. This duty includes deciding what acts should be criminal and what punishments should be awarded for committing specific crimes. A state’s criminal laws, known as a penal or criminal code, and its criminal procedure laws define the subject-matter jurisdiction for that state’s courts.

The US Constitution and laws enacted by the US Congress provide the subject-matter jurisdiction of federal courts. In criminal matters, federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction over cases concerning violations of federal criminal laws. In addition, federal courts can review convictions from state courts when defendants raise constitutional issues. In some instances, state and federal courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the same actions. Concurrent jurisdiction refers to the authority of different courts to decide the same case that occurs within the same territory, and over the same subject matter. For example, state criminal laws define robbery as a crime. Therefore, a state court would have subject-matter jurisdiction over a defendant charged with robbing a bank in its state. However, robbery of a bank that is federally insured is also a violation of federal law. Consequently, a federal court would have subject-matter jurisdiction over the same defendant under applicable federal law.

Courts also differ in terms of whether their subject-matter jurisdiction is limited or general. Limited-jurisdiction courts can decide only specific matters, while general-jurisdiction courts are not so limited. Each state has courts of general jurisdiction that can hear both civil and criminal matters. However, states also have lower-level courts that can decide specific kinds of cases.

Limited Jurisdiction Courts

While there is enormous variation among state court systems, some examples will illustrate the idea of limited jurisdiction. Many state laws provide that family courts have jurisdiction over matters such as child abuse, domestic violence, child custody, and child support. States often give surrogate courts the authority to adjudicate matters concerning wills, trusts, and estates. In criminal matters, town and justice courts frequently have jurisdiction over misdemeanors, while higher-level courts have jurisdiction over felonies. Thus, a court of limited criminal jurisdiction does not have the authority to hear and decide a murder case.

In the federal court system, the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction is more complex. Federal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction that are divided into three separate areas: diversity jurisdiction (suits between citizens of different states), ancillary jurisdiction (matters not ordinarily under federal jurisdiction that are associated with federal offenses), and federal-question jurisdiction. Federal criminal cases usually do not involve either diversity jurisdiction or ancillary jurisdiction. However, federal-question jurisdiction can involve criminal matters. Federal courts can hear two types of matters that fall under federal-question jurisdiction: violations of federal law and issues arising under the US Constitution. Federal-question jurisdiction explains why federal courts can decide cases concerning violations of federal criminal law as well as cases from state courts in which defendants raise constitutional issues.

Finally, subject-matter jurisdiction concerns the ideas of original and appellate jurisdiction. A court has original jurisdiction when it can hold trials and rule on matters directly, while appellate jurisdiction refers to courts that rule on matters previously decided by other courts. All states specify the courts that have original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. In federal courts, US district courts exercise original jurisdiction, while courts of appeals and the US Supreme Court exercise appellate jurisdiction. However, there are certain cases in which the Supreme Court can exercise original jurisdiction. These kinds of cases do not involve criminal matters.

Personal Jurisdiction

Also called in personam jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction refers to the authority that courts have over persons who are subjects of cases. Personal jurisdiction is sometimes confused with venue, a term for the location of a trial or proceeding. Personal jurisdiction concerns the question of whether a court has the authority to make a determination concerning a particular defendant.

For a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have some contact with the state that is to hear the case. In civil matters, the issue of personal jurisdiction is often a complicated question, especially when a defendant lives out of state. In criminal proceedings, a defendant’s contact with a state merges with the idea of territoriality. Therefore, personal jurisdiction exists over persons who commit offenses that affect the interests of that state. In federal criminal matters, personal jurisdiction exists over persons who commit offenses within the territory of the particular federal judicial district.

Bibliography

Barkan, Steven E., and George J. Bryjak. Fundamentals of Criminal Justice: A Sociological View. 2nd ed. Sudbury: Jones, 2011. Print.

"Introduction to the Federal Court System." Office of the United States Attorneys, www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts. Accessed 5 July 2024.

Latzer, Barry. State Constitutions and Criminal Justice. Westport: Greenwood, 1991. Print.

Meyer, Jon’a F., and Diana R. Grant. The Courts in Our Criminal Justice System. Upper Saddle River: Prentice, 2003. Print.

Miller, William S. A Primer on American Courts. New York: Pearson, 2005. Print.

Neubauer, David W., and Henry F. Fradella. America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. 13th ed. Cengage, 2018. Print.

Stolzenberg, Lisa, and Stewart J. D’Alessio. Criminal Courts for the 21st Century. 3rd ed. Miami: Dept. of Criminal Justice, Florida Intl. U, 2010. Print.

"Types of Cases." United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/types-cases. Accessed 5 July 2024.