Constitution

Article III, Section 2: Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

Section 2 lists the cases federal courts may hear, gives the Supreme Court original and appellate jurisdiction, and guarantees jury trial in crimes.

4Conservative Editors · Published November 8, 2026

The text

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.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Note: Article III, section 2, was modified by the 11th amendment.

In plain English

Clause 1: the list of cases. Federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws and treaties; cases affecting ambassadors; admiralty and maritime cases; controversies involving the United States; controversies between states; between a state and citizens of another state (modified by the 11th Amendment); between citizens of different states (the diversity jurisdiction); and between a state or its citizens and foreign states or citizens.

Clause 2: original and appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court hears cases affecting ambassadors and those in which a state is a party as a trial court. In all other cases it hears appeals "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Clause 3: criminal juries and venue. Every federal crime, except impeachment, must be tried by jury in the state where it was committed.

Courts hear "Cases" and "Controversies," not abstract questions. That requirement is the textual root of standing, ripeness and the rule against advisory opinions.

What the Founders said

Hamilton described the federal courts' jurisdiction in Federalist Nos. 80 to 83. No. 80 argued that a national government must be able to decide questions arising under its own laws and cases involving foreign nations and different states. No. 83 defended the jury, and explained that the Constitution did not abolish civil jury trial, leaving it for later addition.

Anti-Federalists objected to the breadth of diversity jurisdiction and to the loose phrase "Law and Equity." They also feared that the appellate power "as to Law and Fact" would let the Supreme Court override jury findings. The Seventh Amendment answered part of that worry.

The Exceptions Clause was meant to let Congress shape the Court's appeals. Hamilton's own account in Federalist No. 81 spoke of Congress's regulation of the Court's appellate power.

How the courts have read it

  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): Congress cannot add to the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution lists.
  • Hayburn's Case (1792) and Muskrat v. United States (1911): courts may not give advisory opinions.
  • Ex parte McCardle (1869): Congress may withdraw appellate jurisdiction, even in a pending case.
  • Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): the Court held a state could be sued by a citizen of another state; the 11th Amendment overturned the decision.
  • Swift v. Tyson (1842) and Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938): federal courts sitting in diversity apply state substantive law.
  • Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992): standing requires injury in fact, causation and redressability.
  • Ramos v. Louisiana (2020): the Sixth Amendment requires a unanimous jury for serious crimes in state as well as federal courts.
  • Trump v. CASA, Inc. (2025): federal courts generally lack authority under the Judiciary Act to issue universal injunctions.

Why it matters now

The jurisdiction clause is where the "judicial Power" gets its limits. Federal courts decide actual disputes between real parties, not policy questions. That is a safeguard for self-government: a court that may rule only on a live injury cannot become a standing council of review.

The Exceptions Clause has been a quiet source of tension between Congress and the courts. It has been invoked since the Founding to argue that Congress holds a real check on appellate power. It has rarely been used, which is why the argument often feels theoretical, but the text is clear and the authority is real.

The requirement of trial by jury in every federal crime is the oldest civil-liberties provision in the original Constitution. Jury service is also a duty of citizens: a jury is the community, not the government, deciding whether a fellow citizen may lose liberty.

Latest on this topic