Not Every Court Can Hear Every Case: A Modern Guide to Subject Matter Jurisdiction

By Arjan Bir Sodhi for Lex Republica

Before a lawsuit ever reaches discovery, motion practice, or trial, one threshold question quietly determines whether the case survives at all: does the court have the power to hear it? This concept, known as subject matter jurisdiction, defines the authority of a court to adjudicate particular types of disputes. Unlike personal jurisdiction, which can be waived, subject matter jurisdiction is foundational. If it is missing, the case cannot proceed, no matter how strong the merits may be.

Why State Courts Handle Most Litigation

State courts are courts of general jurisdiction. That simple fact explains why they handle the overwhelming majority of legal disputes in the United States. From car accidents and contract breaches to property disputes and family law matters, state courts possess broad authority to hear most categories of cases unless the law expressly says otherwise.

Imagine a common scenario. A student temporarily living in Boston is injured in a bar fight. The alleged tortfeasor lives out of state, and the bar itself is owned by a corporation incorporated elsewhere. Despite the multistate elements, the claim itself is ordinary: a common law battery claim. State courts are fully empowered to hear that dispute, and they do so every day.

This broad authority is not accidental. State courts existed before the Constitution, and the Framers never intended to displace them. Instead, they assumed state courts would remain the primary fora for civil litigation. The numbers bear this out. Even today, states employ hundreds of trial judges, while federal courts operate with comparatively lean benches. State courts remain the workhorses of the American judicial system.

Within each state system, however, jurisdiction is not always uniform. Many states divide authority among trial courts. Probate courts handle estates and family matters. Specialized courts hear administrative appeals or housing disputes. Filing in the wrong state court can be just as fatal as filing in the wrong system altogether.

Why Federal Courts Are Different by Design

Federal courts operate under a fundamentally different model. They are courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning they may hear only those cases that fall within specific categories defined by the Constitution and authorized by Congress.

Article III of the Constitution lists the types of cases that may fall within federal judicial power. These include cases arising under federal law, disputes between citizens of different states, cases involving foreign nations, admiralty matters, and disputes in which the United States is a party. If a case does not fall within one of these categories, federal courts lack the power to hear it.

Importantly, Article III does not require that every qualifying case be heard in federal court. Instead, it merely permits Congress to authorize federal jurisdiction. Congress may choose to open federal courts to certain disputes, limit that access, or reserve jurisdiction exclusively to the federal system.

Federal Question and Diversity Jurisdiction in Practice

Although Article III lists multiple categories, modern federal litigation is dominated by two. Federal question jurisdiction covers cases arising under the Constitution, federal statutes, or treaties. Diversity jurisdiction applies when the parties are citizens of different states and Congress’s statutory requirements are met.

When either basis exists, plaintiffs often have a choice. They may file in state court or federal court because, as a general rule, state courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims. The Supreme Court made this clear long ago, holding that federal jurisdiction does not automatically strip state courts of authority to hear federal causes of action. That principle remains firmly entrenched today.¹

Congress, however, may decide otherwise. In certain areas, such as patent law and admiralty, Congress has granted exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts, barring state courts from hearing those cases entirely.²

Choosing the Forum Is Often Strategic

When jurisdiction overlaps, lawyers engage in what is politely called strategic forum selection and less politely called forum shopping. This is not misconduct. It is advocacy.

A plaintiff may prefer state court because it is closer, faster, or more familiar. A defendant may prefer federal court for its procedural rigor, broader jury pools, or perceived neutrality toward out-of-state parties. Federal judges, appointed for life, are insulated from local political pressures, a feature the Framers viewed as essential to maintaining fairness in interstate disputes.

Federal courts also tend to exercise tighter control over litigation, setting firm deadlines and managing cases from filing through trial. In complex matters or politically sensitive cases, this structure can be decisive. State courts, by contrast, may offer greater flexibility and deeper expertise in areas traditionally governed by state law.

When a plaintiff files in state court but the case qualifies for federal jurisdiction, the defendant may remove it to federal court, ensuring access to the federal forum even when the plaintiff would prefer otherwise.

Why Subject Matter Jurisdiction Still Matters

Subject matter jurisdiction is not a technicality. It reflects constitutional structure, federalism, and the balance of power between state and national governments. It explains why most civil disputes are resolved locally, while certain cases demand a national forum.

Understanding where a case belongs is the first act of effective lawyering. File in the wrong court, and the case ends before it begins. File in the right one, and strategy, skill, and substance finally get their chance to matter.

References

Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U.S. 130 (1876).

Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (1981).

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2.

28 U.S.C. § 1333.

28 U.S.C. § 1338.