If you're not interested in the word "jurisdiction," please skip this.
I don't imagine most people on this forum are dying to read a mini-treatise on the variety of meanings of the word "jurisdiction," but it might be useful here to mention that a wide range of issues can arise under the heading "jurisdiction," and many of these issues have little or nothing to do with ordinary uses of the word.
In popular speech, the word "jurisdiction" often centers on territory or geography (bailiwick, turf).
In law, too, territorial aspects of jurisdiction can sometimes be important, but the most fundamental jurisdictional issues go beyond issues relating to location or to the related notion of venue.
The jurisdictional authority of any court or judicial system (and the legitimacy of a court) is limited by the accepted role of the judiciary and/or by constitutional provisions that create the judiciary and define its possible powers and duties. Jurisdiction is also limited by specific laws restricting the court's powers. A basic principle is that unauthorized power is illegitimate, and that it would be a grossly dictatorial violation of the entire legal order if a court were to exercise power (jurisdiction) beyond its authority.
For example, the federal courts in the United States are generally limited in their powers and are authorized to hear only cases and controversies that arise under federal law, or that involve diversity of citizenship of the parties in matters where the amount in controversy is above a certain dollar threshold. Sometimes this is referred to as "subject matter jurisdiction." (A different sense of "subject matter jurisdiction" concerns whether it is proper for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a particular legal matter, even assuming the court is generally authorized to hear the type of subject.)
If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss a matter. (Unfortunately, sometimes a plaintiff--in a civil rights case, for example--will be denied a day in federal court in a way that strikes me personally as highly unjust or that seems like a judicial cop-out, but I still value the broader principle that unlimited power is antithetical to liberty.)
There are many doctrines in the federal courts that tend to restrict the exercise of jurisdiction. For example, the "political question" doctrine is often invoked when the courts decline to hear a matter they feel is more properly addressed by the executive and/or legislative branches. Sometimes cases are dismissed on grounds of "failure to exhaust remedies" available in other tribunals, agencies, or organizations. These are only a few of the many doctrines that limit federal court jurisdiction.
Another set of jurisdictional issues concerns whether a court has "personal jurisdiction" over a defendant. Has the defendant been properly served with process and summoned to court? Is the defendant amenable to suit in the particular court? Have the due process requirements of notice and a opportunity to be heard been met? etc.
I offer this as a bit of background to give an idea that the notion of "jurisdiction" is not simple.
I don't imagine most people on this forum are dying to read a mini-treatise on the variety of meanings of the word "jurisdiction," but it might be useful here to mention that a wide range of issues can arise under the heading "jurisdiction," and many of these issues have little or nothing to do with ordinary uses of the word.
In popular speech, the word "jurisdiction" often centers on territory or geography (bailiwick, turf).
In law, too, territorial aspects of jurisdiction can sometimes be important, but the most fundamental jurisdictional issues go beyond issues relating to location or to the related notion of venue.
The jurisdictional authority of any court or judicial system (and the legitimacy of a court) is limited by the accepted role of the judiciary and/or by constitutional provisions that create the judiciary and define its possible powers and duties. Jurisdiction is also limited by specific laws restricting the court's powers. A basic principle is that unauthorized power is illegitimate, and that it would be a grossly dictatorial violation of the entire legal order if a court were to exercise power (jurisdiction) beyond its authority.
For example, the federal courts in the United States are generally limited in their powers and are authorized to hear only cases and controversies that arise under federal law, or that involve diversity of citizenship of the parties in matters where the amount in controversy is above a certain dollar threshold. Sometimes this is referred to as "subject matter jurisdiction." (A different sense of "subject matter jurisdiction" concerns whether it is proper for a court to exercise jurisdiction over a particular legal matter, even assuming the court is generally authorized to hear the type of subject.)
If a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss a matter. (Unfortunately, sometimes a plaintiff--in a civil rights case, for example--will be denied a day in federal court in a way that strikes me personally as highly unjust or that seems like a judicial cop-out, but I still value the broader principle that unlimited power is antithetical to liberty.)
There are many doctrines in the federal courts that tend to restrict the exercise of jurisdiction. For example, the "political question" doctrine is often invoked when the courts decline to hear a matter they feel is more properly addressed by the executive and/or legislative branches. Sometimes cases are dismissed on grounds of "failure to exhaust remedies" available in other tribunals, agencies, or organizations. These are only a few of the many doctrines that limit federal court jurisdiction.
Another set of jurisdictional issues concerns whether a court has "personal jurisdiction" over a defendant. Has the defendant been properly served with process and summoned to court? Is the defendant amenable to suit in the particular court? Have the due process requirements of notice and a opportunity to be heard been met? etc.
I offer this as a bit of background to give an idea that the notion of "jurisdiction" is not simple.