Also known as: lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter · lack of subject matter jurisdiction · subject matter jurisdiction · SMJ · no SMJ
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A fundamental defect preventing a court from adjudicating the category of dispute presented. The defect exists when no statute or constitutional provision grants the court power over the type of claim or the parties' citizenship alignment. It may be raised at any time before final judgment and renders any resulting judgment void.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Leo Lynch, a citizen of State A, files a diversity suit against Landmark Realty in federal court. After the complaint is filed Leo relocates to State B. The court retains power because the parties were diverse when the action began.
Luke Latham removes a state action to federal court. The district court later determines that complete diversity never existed. The court remands the case to state court even though trial is months away.
Lucas Lee sues in state court on a state tort claim and mentions that the defendant will invoke a federal permit. The defendant removes asserting federal question jurisdiction. The federal court remands because the complaint states only state-law claims.
Luis Lopez, a citizen of State A, sues a diverse defendant in federal court. The defendant impleads a nondiverse third party. When Luis Lopez asserts his own claim against the impleaded party the court dismisses that claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Lars Lindstrom brings a federal claim and a factually unrelated state claim in the same complaint. The court dismisses the state claim because the two do not share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Layla Lane signs a contract containing a clause designating a particular federal court. When she later sues in that court the defendant shows the claim does not satisfy any statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction. The court dismisses the action.
A party may raise the defense at any time before final judgment. The court must also dismiss on its own motion whenever the defect appears.
Supporting sources
No. Diversity is measured at the time the suit is instituted. Later changes in domicile do not divest the court of power once jurisdiction has attached.
Supporting sources
…arose from the same Article III case or controversy. Id. , at 725 ("The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court. . . . [A]ssuming substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole"). As we later noted, the decision allowing jurisdiction over…
…before the court comprises but one constitutional "case."[^maj-12] The federal claim must have substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction
…that "allowing such waivers seems inconsistent with viewing the Eleventh Amendment as a restriction on the federal courts' subject matter jurisdiction
…to full professor, and compensatory and punitive damages. App. 21-25. The University of Montevallo moved to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
…firm released the documents, court awarded fees because of the release, even though the partner's claims were "dismissed for
No. The well-pleaded complaint rule requires the federal issue to appear on the face of the plaintiff's own claim. A predicted defense does not confer jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
In a diversity-only case the supplemental jurisdiction statute withholds jurisdiction over such a claim by a plaintiff. The court must dismiss the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
No. Parties cannot create jurisdiction by agreement. The court must still find an independent statutory or constitutional basis.
Supporting sources
Yes. A judgment rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void and may be challenged even after the time for direct appeal has expired.
Supporting sources