Part two, judicial review. Section one, jurisdiction. Let's start first with how a case can make its way to federal courts in the first place, either to the lower federal courts or to the Supreme Court.

The jurisdiction of the federal courts comes directly from the U.S. Constitution, specifically, Article Three.

Two Parts to Federal Courts' Jurisdiction

There are two parts to the courts’ jurisdiction, jurisdiction based on law and jurisdiction based on the parties. Let's take those in turn.

Jurisdiction Based on Law

"Arising Under" Jurisdiction

The law-based federal jurisdiction includes cases arising under the Constitution or federal law. That is, if the parties are arguing about what the Constitution says or a law that Congress passed, the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Admiralty and Maritime Law

Another area is admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. These cases are also appropriate for federal courts.

Jurisdiction Based on Parties

The other area of jurisdiction is party-based federal jurisdiction.

There are five ways that the parties can get a case into federal court. Controversies to which the U.S. is a party, controversies between two or more states, cases between a state and citizens of another state, cases between citizens of different states when the amount they're fighting over is greater than $75,000, and cases affecting ambassadors or councils. These are the parties to a case that can make the case appropriate for federal court review.

Remember, this doesn't mean that the federal courts are the only courts that can hear cases with these parties. Only that the federal courts’ jurisdiction extends to these cases and parties. Also, there is no need to have party-based jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. One is sufficient to allow a party to file in federal court or to get a case removed to federal court if it was filed initially in state court.

State Sovereign Immunity

There's a critical exception to the jurisdictional rules I just described, and that comes from the concept of state sovereign immunity.

State sovereign immunity arises from the implications of our federal structure, more than from any particular constitutional provision, although the Eleventh Amendment is frequently cited, and it is generally understood to deprive federal courts of the power to entertain legal actions for monetary damages against a state without its consent. This is because of principles of federalism, which we'll hear more about later, but essentially it's the recognition that states are sovereign and therefore can't be sued in another sovereign’s court, that is a federal court, without permission.

Exceptions to State Sovereign Immunity

There are four exceptions here.

Consent to Suit

The first is when a state consents to be sued. You might laugh because who would ever consent to be sued if they didn't have to, but this does happen, either explicitly by a state statute that gives such permission, or by initiating or participating in litigation. If the state started the case and it loses, a state can't go back and claim the suit shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Constitutional Authority

Second, a federal court may hear a case against a state where the Constitution specifically provides for it. One example is Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, which specifically grants Congress the power to regulate state action to effectuate the Fourteenth Amendment. Another example of where the Constitution specifically provides for suits against states is in bankruptcy proceedings, stemming directly from the grant of the bankruptcy power to Congress in Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. This has been held to abrogate state sovereign immunity in bankruptcy matters.

Remember, Congress can't provide for suing a state about just anything. It has to flow directly from a constitutional provision that permits it. For example, suppose Congress enacts a law that says citizens can sue for money damages for violence committed by state police. This cause of action would not be appropriate in federal court because there's no constitutional provision that explicitly authorizes such abrogation of state sovereign immunity. On the other hand, suppose Congress enacts a law that says private parties can sue states for money damages for racially discriminatory police practices, under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment because racial discrimination is something that is explicitly forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a law, and the resulting lawsuit, would not be blocked by sovereign immunity and could be heard by the federal court.

Now we've heard two reasons that a federal court could hear a suit against a state. First, if the state waives its immunity and, second, if another constitutional provision explicitly provides for it. For example, the bankruptcy provisions and Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Federal Government against State Government

There are two more ways. First, the federal government may sue a state government. State immunity does not bar this.

State Officers

Finally, state officers, but not the state itself, may be sued for both money damages and injunctive relief if they were acting in their official capacities, but whatever money recovered may not come from the state treasury. Suing an individual officer isn't a way to get at the state treasury.

Abstention

A final point that stems from the concept of sovereign immunity is called abstention. This means that federal courts will not enjoin pending state court proceedings. If a case is ongoing in a state, the federal court will abstain from hearing it to give the state courts the chance to work through the issue first.

Supreme Court

Let's now turn to special jurisdictional issues pertaining to the Supreme Court.

There are two parts to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear cases, original and appellate jurisdiction.

Original Jurisdiction

Under Article Three, Section Two, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and councils and suits between state governments. Parties to these cases will include ambassadors, public ministers and, of course, states.

The Constitution says that Congress may not enlarge or restrict the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction the way that it can with the lower federal courts. Say, for example, by requiring certain classes of cases to be heard in specialized courts. That's the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It is defined by the Constitution.

Appellate Jurisdiction

There are two other ways that a case can get to the Supreme Court and that's through its appellate jurisdiction, or cases on appeal.

One way is a writ of certiorari and the second way is directly from a federal district court in certain circumstances.

Writ of Certiorari

Let's start with the writ. The Supreme Court can hear cases on appeal through a writ of certiorari, or a writ of cert, when four justices agree to grant certiorari and hear the case. There is no right to have your case heard by the Supreme Court on appeal. It usually accepts only 100 to 150 of the more than 7,000 cases that apply every year. It writes an opinion on only about 80.

The justices pick and choose which cases are important enough to make it onto their docket. What kind of cases can earn a writ of cert? Two types, cases from state courts and cases from the U.S. federal courts of appeals.

Direct Appeal from Federal District Court

The second kind of case on appellate review after a writ of certiorari is when the Supreme Court takes review from a three-judge panel of a federal district court, where a statute provides for the Supreme Court to review by appeal. If such a statute exists, the parties can bypass the federal appellate courts and go directly from federal district court to the Supreme Court. Most such statutes have been repealed, but the Voting Rights Act continues to contain such a provision.

Final Judgment Rule

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction is also limited to what's called final judgment review, meaning that the Court will hear cases on appeal only after there has been a final judgment from a state high court or a federal court of appeals, or one of those three-judge district court panels I just talked about. The Supreme Court will not provide what's called interlocutory review. Meaning they won't hear a case about an evidentiary decision or whether to continue an injunction.

Independent and Adequate State Grounds

Also, the Court will not hear the case unless reversing the federal law grounds will change the result. This is called the doctrine of independent and adequate state law and that is where a state court rules on both state and federal law. The Supreme Court will not hear the case if there's sufficient basis for the decision under state law. This is true even if the lower court got the federal law wrong. The Supreme Court still won't take the case just to correct the analysis if it wouldn't change the result.

Example

Let's take an example here. Say a plaintiff, a prisoner in state prison, sues the prison officials for violating his civil rights. The state court agrees with the plaintiff's claims, awarding the defendant $10,000 in damages, both for violation of state constitutional rights and for violating the federal constitution. The problem is they got the federal constitutional analysis really wrong, but it doesn't actually matter.

Even if the state court’s constitutional analysis is erroneous, if the $10,000 judgment was awarded under state law, the Supreme Court won't hear the case because a reversal under federal law wouldn't change the result.

Multiple-choice review question. The federal books for schools program provides library books to public schools subject to income eligibility. The federal law provides that the director of the program may, if in doubt about a school's eligibility, submit the questions to an appropriate federal district court for guidance about whether the school is eligible.

The statute gives the same federal district court original jurisdiction over challenges to eligibility determinations. The court will most likely find that the federal statute is, A, constitutional because the case arises under the federal books for schools law. B, constitutional because federal programs have authority to control the method of resolution of disputes involved in their implementation. C, unconstitutional because the federal statute placing jurisdiction in the federal court violates the Eleventh Amendment. And D, unconstitutional because the federal statute requires the federal court to render an advisory opinion.

The answer is D because the federal statute requires the federal court to render an advisory opinion. There's no case or controversy until a school actually applies for the books and gets rejected. The answer is not A. While the case does arise under a federal law, because the statute unconstitutionally broadens the federal court’s jurisdiction, suits under the law will not be permitted.

The answer is not B because federal programs cannot use any means to control their own dispute resolution. It is subject to constitutional limitation. The answer is not C about the Eleventh Amendment because the statute does not appear to allow a plaintiff to sue a state for money damages. Therefore, it does not implicate the Eleventh Amendment or state sovereign immunity.