Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: Cases and controversies

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; –to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; –to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; –to Controversies between two or more States;–between a State and Citizens of another State; –between Citizens of different States; –between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This clause enumerates the cases which fall under the federal courts rather than state courts. In keeping with the general character of the federal government, all cases not specifically enumerated here are regarded as falling under the jurisdiction of state courts.

The federal courts have jurisdiction both in cases of law and equity. Historically, law meant criminal cases and those civil cases in which monetary damages were sought. Cases in equity seek such things as injunctions or other non-monetary remedies. Under the English system, cases in equity were tried in their own special courts (courts of chancery) and, unlike cases in law, there was no right to a jury trial. Under the Constitution, the same courts hear both kinds of cases; however, cases in equity continue to be heard by a judge alone, without a jury acting as the trier of facts.

The enumeration of cases falling under federal jurisdiction is reasonably straightforward. Cases based on the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties (essentially regarded as federal law once ratified and, if not self-executing, once implementing legislation has been enacted) always fall under federal jurisdiction. Likewise, cases falling under admiralty law or or other maritime jurisdiction are always heard in federal courts. A number of other types of cases are conditionally  heard by federal courts, based on who the parties to the case are; otherwise, they fall under state jurisdiction. These include cases where foreign diplomats, foreign states or their citizens or subjects, or the United States are parties, or where parties come from different states. In the latter cases, it would be unclear which state courts had jurisdiction.

The clause says little about who has standing to sue and does not exhaustively set out which kinds of questions are subject to adjudication. This is a rich area of law, including such interesting questions as whether a taxpayer can sue the government for how public funds are spent (usually “no”.)  Perhaps the most heated recent debate has been over the doctrine of qualified immunity, which holds that public officials cannot be personally sued for violating the rights of citizens so long as the official reasonably believed that his actions were constitutional. This doctrine is largely an invention of the Supreme Court, in  Pierson v. Ray (1967). It was likely motivated by a fear of police being sued frivolously by political activists during the tumultuous 1960s. It is the view of most of us that qualified immunity should be jettisoned as a legal doctrine, and more traditional protections against frivolous lawsuits relied on to restrain “lawfare” against law enforcement officers.