Article III, Section 2, Clause 1:

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.

Near the beginning of the Constitutional Convention, the delegates expressed an intent to create a Federal Judiciary with jurisdiction to hear cases arising under federal statutory law.1 Federal jurisdiction over cases involving the Constitution and treaties was added to drafts of Article III later in the Convention.2 Even as the Framers planned to vest federal question jurisdiction in the federal courts, they generally accepted that state courts would play a significant role in interpreting and applying federal law and did not make the constitutional grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under federal law exclusive to the federal courts.3 On the other hand, the Framers entertained concerns about whether state courts would apply federal law correctly, uniformly, and without bias.4 To mitigate those concerns, the Constitution allowed for Supreme Court appellate review of state judicial decisions involving issues related to federal treaties, statutes, or constitutional law.5 The Constitution also granted Congress discretion to establish lower federal courts, which could consider questions arising under the Constitution or federal law or treaties in the first instance.6

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained that the grant of federal question jurisdiction in Article III was based on the “obvious consideration that there ought always to be a constitutional method of giving efficacy to constitutional provisions.” 7 Specifically, he argued, “restrictions on the authority of the state legislations” must rest upon either “a direct negative on the state laws, or an authority in the federal courts, to overrule such as might be in manifest contravention of the articles of union.” 8 Hamilton noted that the Framers had adopted the latter approach of authorizing enforcement by the federal courts, which he “presume[d] will be most agreeable to the states.” 9

The Constitution vests federal judicial power in “one supreme Court” and any lower federal courts that Congress creates.10 The Constitutional provisions authorizing the establishment of lower federal courts and the grant of federal question jurisdiction to those courts are not self-executing, but instead had to be implemented (if at all) through federal legislation.11 In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress created lower federal courts but did not grant them general federal question jurisdiction.12 This meant that litigants could sue in state court to enforce rights under the Constitution or a federal law or treaty, then appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court if the state courts rejected a federal constitutional challenge to a state law or held invalid a federal law or treaty.13 In the late eighteenth century, Congress enacted statutes granting the lower federal courts jurisdiction over selected cases arising under federal law, such as suits relating to patents.14

Broader statutory grants of federal question jurisdiction were enacted in the nineteenth century. Following the Civil War, Congress granted the federal courts jurisdiction over civil rights cases, seeking to protect newly created federal civil rights.15 The current statutory grant of federal jurisdiction over civil rights cases is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1343, which authorizes the district courts to hear civil actions including suits to redress the deprivation “under color of any State law,” of any “right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States,” and suits “[t]o recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.” 16 Plaintiffs frequently rely on Section 1343 to bring suits in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging state and local governmental practices including racial discrimination, electoral malapportionment and suffrage restrictions, unconstitutional police practices, and state restrictions on access to welfare and other public assistance.17

In 1875, Congress enacted legislation conferring general federal question jurisdiction on the lower federal courts.18 The 1875 statute included an amount in controversy requirement, creating federal court jurisdiction over federal question suits only if the plaintiff sought money damages of more than five hundred dollars. Since that time, Congress has expanded the availability of general federal question jurisdiction by repealing the amount in controversy requirement.19 Additional statutory provisions grant the federal courts subject matter jurisdiction to enforce federal law in specific areas.20

Footnotes

1

1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 22, 211–12, 220, 244 (Max Farrand ed., 1911) [hereinafter Farrand’s Records]; 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 146–47, 186–87 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).

2

Farrand’s Records, supra note 1, at 423–24, 430, 431.

3

See, e.g., Farrand’s Records, supra note 1, at 243, 424; see also The Federalist No. 65 (Alexander Hamilton).

4

For instance, James Madison expressed concern about “improper Verdicts in State tribunals obtained under the biassed directions of a dependent Judge” and “the local prejudices of an undirected jury.” Farrand’s Records, supra note 1, at 124. In The Federalist Alexander Hamilton stated that “the most discerning cannot foresee how far the prevalency of a local spirit may be found to disqualify the local tribunals for the jurisdiction of national causes,” and argued in favor of uniformity that “[t]hirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.” The Federalist No. 80 (Alexander Hamilton). Hamilton also raised the possibility that “State judges, holding their offices during pleasure, or from year to year, will be too little independent to be relied upon for an inflexible execution of the national laws.” The Federalist No. 80 (Alexander Hamilton).

5

U.S. Const. art. III, § 2 ( “In all the other Cases before mentioned [including cases arising under the Constitution and federal law or treaties], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction[.]” ); cf. 1 Stat. 73, 85; Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816).

6

U.S. Const.art. III, § 1 ( “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” ); cf. Farrand’s Records, supra note 1, at 125.

7

The Federalist No. 80 (Alexander Hamilton).

8

Id.

9

Id. at 475.

10

U.S. Const. art. III, § 1.

11

See, e.g., Romero v. Int’l Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 364 (1959) (describing “enumerated classes of cases to which ‘judicial power’ was extended by the Constitution and which thereby authorized grants by Congress of ‘judicial Power’ to the ‘inferior’ federal courts” ); cf. Farrand’s Records, supra note 1, at 125 ( “Mr. Wilson & Mr. Madison then moved . . . to add . . . the words following ‘that the National Legislature be empowered to institute inferior tribunals'. They observed that there was a distinction between establishing such tribunals absolutely, and giving a discretion to the Legislature to establish or not establish them.” ).

12

1 Stat. 73, 77.

13

1 Stat. 73, 85.

14

Act of April 10, 1790, § 5, 1 Stat. 111, as amended, Act of February 21, 1793, § 6, 1 Stat. 322.

15

Act of April 9, 1866, § 3, 14 Stat, 27; Act of May 31, 1870, § 8, 16 Stat. 142; Act of February 28, 1871, § 15, 16 Stat. 438; Act of April 20, 1871, §§ 2, 6, 17 Stat. 14, 15.

16

28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), (4).

17

Section 1983 authorizes private civil suits for the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution” and federal laws. In these suits, Section 1983 provides the substantive cause of action and Section 1343 grants the federal courts jurisdiction. See, e.g., Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962). Section 1343’s grant of federal court jurisdiction is not exclusive, meaning that plaintiffs may also elect to bring claims under Section 1983 in state court. See, e.g., Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 U.S. 1 (1980).

18

Act of March 3, 1875, § 1, 18 Stat. 470 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a)). The 1875 act also allowed either party to remove a federal question case from state court to federal court.

19

Congress amended the current federal question statute, 28 U.S.C § 1331, in 1976 and 1980 to eliminate the jurisdictional amount requirement. Pub. L. No. 94-574, 90 Stat. 2721; Pub. L. No. 96-486, 94 Stat. 2369.

20

See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (granting the federal district courts “original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States,” over federal criminal proceedings); 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (granting the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State” in cases arising under the Constitution or federal laws or treaties); id. § 1334 (granting district courts jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases); id. § 1337 (granting district courts jurisdiction over antitrust cases).