What is subject matter jurisdiction and how is it proven when challenged?
Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is a federal court’s legal power to hear and decide a particular category of dispute. Federal courts possess only constitutionally and statutorily authorized jurisdiction; it cannot be created by consent, waiver, or judicial agreement.[3]
The principal bases are:
- Federal-question jurisdiction: claims arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331
- Diversity jurisdiction: complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
- Supplemental jurisdiction: related state-law claims forming part of the same case or controversy as a claim within federal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Burden When Jurisdiction Is Challenged
The party invoking federal jurisdiction—ordinarily the plaintiff—bears the burden of establishing it.[3] The court does not “prove” jurisdiction in the ordinary evidentiary sense; it independently determines whether jurisdiction exists. Because subject-matter jurisdiction concerns the court’s power, the court must dismiss if jurisdiction is absent, even if no party raises the issue.[2] Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)
Types of Challenges
| Challenge | Court’s inquiry |
|---|---|
| Facial attack | The court accepts the complaint’s well-pleaded jurisdictional allegations as true and asks whether they are legally sufficient.[1] |
| Factual attack | The defendant introduces evidence contesting jurisdictional facts. The court may consider evidence outside the pleadings and resolve disputed jurisdictional facts.[1] |
At the pleading stage, general factual allegations may suffice, but the plaintiff must ultimately support standing and other jurisdictional requirements with evidence as the case progresses.[4]
“It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside” federal jurisdiction, and the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.[3]
A jurisdictional defect cannot be forfeited or waived. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The court therefore must address subject-matter jurisdiction whenever it appears deficient and must dismiss an action lacking it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3)