Talk:Federal question jurisdiction

Untitled
Must discuss Motley--Layne & Bowler--Kansas City--Merrell Dow line of cases defining what constitutes jurisdiction on the face of the complaint. -- 8^D BD2412gab 21:26, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)


 * And don't forget Franchise Tax Board! Ellsworth 23:19, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

There has been considerable dispute over what constitutes a "federal question" in these circumstances, but it is now settled law that the plaintiff cannot seek the jurisdiction of a federal court merely because it anticipates that the defendant is going to raise a defense based on the Constitution, or on a federal statute.

This should be supplemented with a discussion or cite to: Louisville & Nashvill RR. Co. v. Mottley Supreme Court of the United States, 1908. 211 u.s. 149, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126.

Where does the Constitution say this?
"Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect." This sentence says that in order for the federal courts to hear cases under the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty, the Congress first has to pass a law permitting such jurisdiction. Where is that requirement in Article III of the Constitution? I don't see it.
 * I am rather late to answer this but for future talk page visitors: The line from Section I of Article III which states that "judicial power...shall be vested...in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" has been interpreted to mean that Congress can set subject matter jurisdiction. If Congress can establish the courts, they can dictate their jurisdiction. Muttnick (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)