---
title: U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2. Jurisdiction and Justiciability
collection: code
id: us-const:art-iii-sec-2
cite_as: U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-2
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-2.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-2/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/1us-const-(v1)-2025-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=328b75b8_0#page=122
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/index.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-1.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-3.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
omitted: notes
omitted_chars: 45433
omitted_url: https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-2.md?notes=all&start=11973
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
heading_path: Judicial Power
---

# U.S. Const. Art. III, Sec. 2. Jurisdiction and Justiciability

A constitution provision shown as in force is in force as printed in the volume. A court decision can make a printed provision unenforceable without changing the volume, and the volume does not record that.

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.

## Editor's Notes

United States Const., amend. 11 modifies U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 1 by restricting the judicial power of federal courts as to controversies commenced against a state by citizens of another or foreign state. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as to questions of “fact,” granted in U.S. Const., art. III, sec. II, cl. 2, has been curtailed by U.S. Const., amend. 7.

## Law Reviews

For comment concerning standing of utility to challenge constitutionality of Tennessee Valley Authority Act, in light of Tennessee Elec. Power Co. v. T.V.A., 306 U.S. 118, 59 S. Ct. 366, 83 L. Ed. 543 (1939), see 2 Ga. B.J. 59 (1939).

For comment on Hibdon v. United States, 204 F.2d 834 (6th Cir. 1953), reversing a felony conviction decided by a majority verdict upon the accused’s waiver of a unanimous verdict induced by the trial court, see 16 Ga. B.J. 234 (1953).

For note, “Another Milepost in Jury Selection Under the Constitution,” see 2 J. of Pub. L. 456 (1953).

For article, “Georgia Versus the United States Supreme Court,” see 4 J. of Pub. L. 285 (1955).

For article, “The Law of the Land,” focusing on the role of the Supreme Court, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 444 (1957).

For comment on Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 77 S. Ct. 1222, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1148 (1957) and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470, 76 S. Ct. 886, 100 L. Ed. 1342 (1956), as to military authority overseas over dependents of servicemen, see 6 J. of Pub. L. 540 (1957).

For article, “Whether the Appellate Power of the Supreme Court Should Be Limited, Or More Expressly Declared,” see 21 Ga. B.J. 19 (1958).

For article, “In Re: The Supreme Court of the United States, Report and Resolution of the Conference of Chief Justices,” see 21 Ga. B.J. 139 (1958).

For article, “The Scope of Review of Facts by United States Courts ofAppeals,” see 21 Ga. B.J. 291 (1959).

For article, “Criminal Venue and Related Problems,” see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 331 (1966).

For article, “Motorboat Collisions and the Family Purpose Doctrine,” see 2 Ga. St. B.J. 473 (1966).

For article discussing the doctrine of sovereign immunity in light of the eleventh amendment, see 2 Ga. L. Rev. 207 (1968).

For comment on O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U.S. 258, 89 S. Ct. 1683, 23 L. Ed. 291 (1969), as to limits of court-martial’s jurisdiction to try serviceman, see 18 J. of Pub. L. 471 (1969).

For article, “Chief Justice Burger and Extra-Case Activism,” see 20 J. of Pub. L. 533 (1971).

For comment on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), and Samuelo v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S. Ct. 764, 27 L. Ed. 2d 688 (1971), concerning a federal court’s jurisdiction to grant injunction and declaratory relief in state court proceedings brought pursuant to allegedly unconstitutional state statutes, see 20 J. of Pub. L. 581 (1971).

For article, “The Role and Impact of the Supreme Court and Judicial Decision-Making in the Evolution of American Federalism,” see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 457 (1972).

For comment discussing constitutionality of conviction upon less-than-unanimous jury vote, see 7 Ga. L. Rev. 339 (1973).

For note discussing the doctrine of federal preemption in the allocation of powers between the nation and the states, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 391 (1973).

For note discussing federal courts’ practice of abstention, see 22 J. of Pub. L. 439 (1973).

For comment discussing admiralty jurisdiction over airplane crash, in light of Executive Jet Aviation, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 409 U.S. 249, 93 S. Ct. 493, 34 L. Ed. 2d 454 (1972), see 25 Mercer L. Rev. 927 (1974).

For article discussing the definition of the “cases” and “controversies” requirement of U.S. Const., Art. III, see 11 Ga. L. Rev. 1069 (1977).

For comment, “Ancillary Jurisdiction: The Kroger Approach and The Federal Rules,” see 28 Emory L.J. 463 (1979).

For article discussing federal civil litigation, with respect to Article III, first, fourteenth and fifteenth amendment issues, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 821 (1979).

For article, “Constitutional Criminal Litigation,” see 32 Mercer L. Rev. 993 (1981).

For note, “State Standing in Police Misconduct Cases: Expanding the Boundaries of Parens Patriae,” see 16 Ga. L. Rev. 865 (1982).

For article discussing congressional legislation which seeks to overturn or frustrate constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 707 (1982).

For note, “Express Waiver of Eleventh Amendment Immunity,” see 17 Ga. L. Rev. 513 (1983).

For comment on ACLU v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., 698 F.2d 1098 (11th Cir. 1983), see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 1603 (1983).

For article, “The Georgia Bill of Rights: Dead or Alive?,” see 34 Emory L.J. 341 (1985).

For article, “Title VII Class Actions: The End of the Era of the Irrelevant Plaintiff,” see 36 Mercer L. Rev. 907 (1985).

For article, “Problems in Search of Principles: The First Amendment in the Supreme Court from 1791-1930,” see 35 Emory L.J. 59 (1986).

For article, “Justice and Juror,” see 20 Ga. L. Rev. 257 (1986).

For article, “Separation of Political Powers: Boundaries or Balance?,” see 21 Ga. L. Rev. 171 (1986).

For survey of 1984-85 Eleventh Circuit cases on admiralty, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 1169 (1986).

For comment, “Supreme Court Review of State Court Cases: Principled Federalism or Selective Bias?,” see 36 Emory L.J. 1277 (1987).

For article, “Georgia and the Development of Constitutional Principles: An Essay in Honor of the Bicentennial,” see 24 Ga. St. B.J. 6 (1987).

For article, “Eleventh Amendment Jurisprudence After Atascadero: The Coming Clash with Antitrust, Copyright, and Other Causes of Action over Which the Federal Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction,” see 37 Emory L.J. 645 (1988).

For survey of 1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on administrative law, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1057 (1988).

For survey of 1986-1987 Eleventh Circuit cases on admiralty, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1107 (1988).

For survey of Eleventh Circuit cases on trial practice and procedure, see 39 Mercer L. Rev. 1307 (1988).

For comment, “Pendent Party Jurisdiction After Finley v. United States: A Trend Toward Its Abolition,” see 24 Ga. L. Rev. 447 (1990).

For annual eleventh circuit survey of admiralty law, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 1209 (1991).

For survey of 1995 Eleventh Circuit cases on admiralty law, see 47 Mercer L. Rev. 691 (1996).

For note on solid waste disposal, flow control ordinances and regulations, see 32 Ga. L. Rev. 1227 (1998).

For article, “The Cauldron Boils: Supplemental Jurisdiction, Amount in Controversy, and Diversity of Citizenship Class Actions,” see 53 Emory L.J. 55 (2004).

For article, “Appellate Practice and Procedure,” see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 1185 (2005).

For comment, “Inappropriate Forum or Inappropriate Law? A Choice of Law Solution to the Jurisdictional Standoff Between the United States and Latin America,” see 60 Emory L.J. 1437 (2011).

For note, “Foreign States are Foreign States: Why Foreign State-Owned Corporations Are Not Persons Under the Due Process Clause,” see 45 Ga. L. Rev. 913 (2011).

For article, “Eleventh Circuit Survey: January 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014: Class Actions,” see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 903 (2015).

For comment, “Resurrecting the Public Voice: The Expansion of Standing in Patent Litigation,” see 65 Emory L.J. 893 (2016).

For comment, “Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Invisible Justices: How Our Highest Court Hides from the American People,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 787 (2016).

For comment, “Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media: Myth or Reality?,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 849 (2016).

For comment, “Invisible Justices: Supreme Court Transparency and Policy-making at the Supreme Court,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 903 (2016).

For comment, “Supreme Court Transparency in the Age of Social Media,” see 32 Georgia St. U.L. Rev. 927 (2016).

For note, “Intergovernmental Federalism Disputes,” see 52 Ga. L. Rev. 834 (2018).

For note, “Partisan Gerrymandering and Georgia: Red, White, and Blue or Just Red and Blue?,” see 35 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 487 (2019).

For article, “Foreword: Lawyers and Linguists Collaborate in Using Corpus Linguistics to Produce New Insights Into Original Meaning,” see 36 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. vi (2020).

For article, “‘Questions Involving National Peace and Harmony’ or ‘Injured Plaintiff Litigation’? The Original Meaning of ‘Cases’ in Article III of the Constitution,” see 36 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 535 (2020).

For note, “YOU’VE GOT MAIL: How the Eleventh Circuit Will Now Allow Debt-Collectors to Collect Time-Barred Debts,” see 72 Mercer L. Rev. 1321 (2021).

For article, “Bankruptcy Law,” see 74 Mercer L. Rev. 1313 (2023).

For article, “Class Actions,” see 74 Mercer L. Rev. 1351 (2023).

For article, “Testing the Limits of Virtual Compliance: Website Accessibility ‘Tester’ Plaintiffs, and Article III Standing Under the ADA,” see 58 Ga. L. Rev. 935 (2024).

For article, “Excepting Nondelegation from Supreme Court Review,” see 58 Ga. L. Rev. 1495 (2024).

## Germane to Bankruptcy Act.

As federal district courts have personal jurisdiction in federal bankruptcy actions over any person with minimum contacts with General Consideration (Cont’d) the United States, and as the federal Bankruptcy Act permits nationwide service of process, a federal district court had ancillary personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a “non-core,” related bankruptcy proceeding. This was true even though the defendant lacked minimum contacts with the forum state. Chemical Bank v. Grigsby’s World of Carpet, Inc. (In re WWG Indus., Inc.), 44 B.R. 287, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21671 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Congress clearly had the power to confer on the United States District Court subject matter jurisdiction of a suit against a nonresident by an assignee of a debtor in bankruptcy to collect on accounts allegedly owed the debtor. Chemical Bank v. Grigsby’s World of Carpet, Inc. (In re WWG Indus., Inc.), 44 B.R. 287, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21671 (N.D. Ga. 1984).

Prosecution for violation of 29 U.S.C. § 461 must occur in the Dis-

## Trict of Columbia.

Prosecution for failure to file with the Secretary of Labor the trusteeship reports required by 29 U.S.C. §§ 461(a) and (c) (1980) when an international union takes over the operation of a local union can only take place in the District of Columbia. United States v. DiJames, 731 F.2d 758, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22897 (11th Cir. 1984).

## Maritime Attachment Procedures.

— For case discussing the constitutionality of maritime attachment procedures under admiralty rules, see Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. Bottacchi, 732 F.2d 1543, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22118 (11th Cir. 1984).

Composition and placement of United States Sentencing Commission, created by the federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (28 U.S.C. §§ 991-998), was unconstitutional because it violated the doctrine of separation of powers. United States v. Richardson, 690 F. Supp. 1030, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8683 (N.D. Ga. 1988); United States v. Kane, 691 F. Supp. 341, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6424 (N.D. Ga. 1988). ecutions against members of armed

## Statute Allowing Removal of Prosforces.

The statute allowing removal of certain state criminal prosecutions against members of the armed forces, 28 U.S.C. § 1442a, is not a statute upon which “arising under” jurisdiction can be based; it requires that a defendant must present a federal defense for removal. Georgia v. Westlake, 929 F. Supp. 1516, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9172 (M.D. Ga. 1996).

Extent of Jurisdiction

1. In General

The language, “shall extend . . . To all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction,” imports an absolute

## And Exclusive Grant of Power.

Maryland Cas. Co. v. Grant, 169 Ga. 325, 150 S.E. 424, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 352 (1929), cert. denied, 281 U.S. 690, 50 S. Ct. 240, 74 L. Ed. 1120, 1930 U.S. LEXIS 421 (1930).

Nature of admiralty and maritime


> The printed notes continue for 45,433 more characters, not shown here. Continue at https://georgiacommons.org/constitution/us/art-iii-sec-2.md?notes=all&start=11973