Article III, Section 2

Definition

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. It establishes the types of cases that federal courts can hear, including those involving ambassadors, maritime law, and controversies between states or citizens of different states, thus setting the foundation for diversity jurisdiction. This section plays a vital role in delineating the boundaries between state and federal court authority.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Article III, Section 2 grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers, while it has appellate jurisdiction in most other cases.
2. The diversity jurisdiction provision requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
3. This section ensures that federal courts can handle certain disputes that might be unfairly biased if heard in state courts due to local prejudices.
4. Article III, Section 2 was crucial in shaping how federal and state courts interact, particularly concerning issues of state law and interstate disputes.
5. Judicial interpretations of Article III, Section 2 have evolved over time, influencing landmark decisions related to federalism and the scope of federal power.

Review Questions

• How does Article III, Section 2 define the scope of diversity jurisdiction in federal courts?
  • Article III, Section 2 specifies that diversity jurisdiction exists when the parties involved are citizens of different states or when a foreign state is involved. This section also establishes a monetary threshold for cases heard under diversity jurisdiction, which is currently set at over $75,000. By doing so, it aims to provide a neutral forum for parties who might otherwise face bias in state courts, thus promoting fairness in legal proceedings.
• Discuss the implications of Article III, Section 2 on the relationship between state and federal court systems.
  • Article III, Section 2 clarifies which cases can be brought before federal courts, particularly those involving diversity jurisdiction. This section helps to define the boundaries between state and federal authority, creating a framework for resolving disputes that cross state lines. The existence of diversity jurisdiction means that individuals from different states can seek justice in federal courts when they fear bias in their home state's legal system. This ultimately enhances the integrity of the judiciary by providing an alternative venue for resolving conflicts.
• Evaluate how judicial interpretations of Article III, Section 2 have impacted case law related to federalism and civil rights.
  • Judicial interpretations of Article III, Section 2 have had profound effects on case law involving federalism and civil rights. Courts have expanded the understanding of diversity jurisdiction over time, addressing issues like class action lawsuits and the scope of what constitutes sufficient 'amount in controversy.' Such rulings reflect broader themes of ensuring equal access to justice while balancing state rights against federal oversight. The evolving interpretation emphasizes protecting individual rights within a diverse society by facilitating access to impartial forums for those seeking redress against discrimination or bias.

Related terms

Diversity Jurisdiction: A form of subject-matter jurisdiction that allows federal courts to hear cases where the parties are citizens of different states, or a foreign state is involved.

Federal Jurisdiction: The legal authority of federal courts to hear cases that arise under federal law or involve specific parties as outlined in the Constitution.

Original Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, which involves reviewing decisions made by lower courts.