Subject-matter jurisdiction

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Subject-matter jurisdiction" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this article, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new article, as appropriate. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article needs attention from an expert in Law. The specific problem is: check title; improve exposition; fill in missing citations. WikiProject Law may be able to help recruit an expert. (October 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

United States federal civil procedure doctrines
Justiciability
Advisory opinions Standing Ripeness Mootness Political questions Constitutional avoidance
Jurisdiction
Subject-matter Federal question Diversity Amount in controversy Supplemental Removal Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 Personal In personam In rem Quasi in rem
Federalism
Erie doctrine Abstention Anti-Injunction Act Sovereign immunity Abrogation Rooker–Feldman doctrine Adequate and independent state ground
v t e

Subject-matter jurisdiction, also called jurisdiction ratione materiae,^[1] is a legal doctrine regarding the ability of a court to lawfully hear and adjudicate a case. Subject-matter relates to the nature of a case; whether it is criminal, civil, whether it is a state issue or a federal issue, and other substantive features of the case. Courts must have subject-matter jurisdiction over the particular case in order to hear it. A court is given the ability to hear a case by a foundational document, usually a Constitution. Courts are granted either general jurisdiction or limited jurisdiction, depending on their type. For example, in the US, state courts have general jurisdiction over the affairs within their state. That means, for most cases, subject-matter jurisdiction of the state courts covers nearly all subjects within that state, such as family law, state criminal law, state civil claims, state tort claims, etc. That power is usually vested in the state courts by their state Constitution.^[2] Limited jurisdiction, by contrast, would mean a court does not have jurisdiction over any given case unless specific conditions are met. US federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, as specific conditions, as outlined in 28 USC 1332, must be met before a federal court can hear a case.^[3]

Subject-matter jurisdiction must be distinguished from personal jurisdiction, which is the power of a court to render a judgment against a particular defendant, and territorial jurisdiction, which is the power of the court to render a judgment concerning events that have occurred within a well-defined territory. Unlike personal or territorial jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.^[4] A judgment from a court that did not have subject-matter jurisdiction is forever a nullity.^[5][6] To decide a case, a court must have a combination of subject (subjectam) and either personal (personam) or territorial (locum) jurisdiction.

Subject-matter jurisdiction, personal or territorial jurisdiction, and adequate notice are the three most fundamental constitutional requirements for a valid judgment.