superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 5,705
I started a thread like this a while ago, but it's fallen away and it got derailed by relatively trivial questions (in part that was my fault). So let's try again. There were a few posts on another thread asking about jurisdiction of federal courts over executive branch officials. The questions betrayed a lack of understanding of the concept of jurisdiction, so I will explain and I'm sure others will chime in.
First, before we begin. There's no reason that posters who haven't attended law school SHOULD know about jurisdiction. And to be honest, I wonder if sometimes the lawyers among us (including me) are too cavalier in our explanations, assuming knowledge that our interlocutors don't have. That's mostly because it's hard for experts to teach novices. When I taught corporate law, it was at first challenging for me to appreciate how little my students knew on the first day of class. I would throw around words like "equity" and "debt," which are the most basic concepts in the whole world that surely everyone would know . . . except they didn't, because they were never taught that. I realized that, in our education system, it was actually MY JOB to teach them that. So starting in my second year, I opened my course with a lecture on the basics of finance where I explained things like "equity," "publicly traded," market capitalization, etc. That went much better for everyone, but it took teaching the course to fully realize the issue.
Now, jurisdiction:
1. Jurisdiction is nothing more than the judicial power to issue decisions in cases. When a court has jurisdiction, its decisions are binding on the parties to the case. When a court doesn't have jurisdiction, its pronouncements mean nothing. In our judicial system, especially in federal court, judges are not supposed to issue judgments, decisions, orders or disquisitions on issues over which they have no jurisdiction.
2. Jurisdiction is created when a plaintiff initiates a case, which the plaintiff does by filing a document with a clerk of court. One thing that non-lawyers (and some lawyers!) don't often realize is the almost comical simplicity of our powerful institutions. I would ask my students: what is a corporation? The answer is that it's a piece of paper (or a digital version) filed with the secretary of state that contains certain information (the required information can easily fit on one page). That's all. Note: the corporation is distinct from the business operated, which can be much more complicated. So too a lawsuit is just a document filed with a court.
3. Because jurisdiction is case-specific, it is technically incorrect to say that such-and-such judge has jurisdiction over the defendant. That's a shorthand, but what we really mean is that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant in a specific case, for a specific purpose. And jurisdiction would not lie (i.e. there would be no jurisdiction) unless the conditions for jurisdiction are met. One such condition is that the plaintiff must have standing (which is something of a distinct topic that we can talk to but not in this post).
4. So, some examples. Suppose Annie is planning to paint her fence, and the Environmental Protection Agency issues a rule prohibiting people from painting their fences unless they first obtain some sort of permit. Annie can challenge that rule in federal court by filing a complaint alleging some sort of violation of law. She has standing to sue the EPA administrator, currently Lee Zeldin, so there could be a case Annie v. Zeldin. For stupid reasons created by the Supreme Court in the robber baron era, we can't sue actual government agencies but we can sue the people who run them. It's only a cosmetic difference, in 99% of cases.
So in Annie v. Zeldin, the plaintiff could bring several different challenges. First, the EPA likely did not follow the required procedures for rule-making when promulgating that rule. That defect can lead to the rule being vacated. The EPA also likely exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress, because fence painting is not a significant source of pollution and it's hard to argue that the rule in any way protects human health.
The fact that Annie has properly filed a lawsuit with standing and plausible allegations means that the court, in deciding her case, has jurisdiction over Zeldin.
5. Now suppose Bob comes along. He says that Lee Zeldin owes him $30K on a contract, and wants the court to order Zeldin to pay. The case goes to the same judge as Annie. Does the judge have jurisdiction over Zeldin in this case? No -- and definitely not just because the court has jurisdiction in Annie v. Zeldin. Jurisdiction is a case-by-case concept, not judge-by-judge. In this case, it's an easy question because federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over contract disputes. Those are for state courts, not federal courts (with some exceptions, none of which apply here).
Meanwhile, the Annie and the EPA agree to settle their case, and thus does the judge dismiss the case. Now the judge has no jurisdiction over the case at all, nor the parties to the case (unless there is another case involving the parties). If the EPA reneges on its deal with Annie, the judge lacks jurisdiction to order compliance because the case has been dismissed. Annie will have to file another suit to enforce.
6. All of these hypothetical cases involve the EPA as the defendant. None of them confer jurisdiction over the president. Why? Because the president isn't actually responsible for the fence-painting regulation. That was promulgated by the EPA and its administrator. The president had nothing to do with it -- even if the president specifically instructed the Administrator to make that rule. Formally, per the law passed by Congress, it's the EPA who makes the rules, and thus it's the EPA that gets sued.
[Note: I never really thought about it, but the student loan case that reached the Supreme Court was for some reason captioned Nebraska v. Biden. Biden would not normally be a proper defendant, unless there's something I'm missing. It should have been Nebraska v. Carmona, Secretary of Education, but anyway . . . . ]
So how does the court get jurisdiction over the president? Only if a plaintiff files a case that implicates the president's authority. A soldier cannot file suit challenging the irrational military decisions of the commander in chief. The soldier would have standing, but the court lacks jurisdiction over the commander-in-chief function [which is NOT true across the board, by the way, but it is when it comes to operations]. But if a plaintiff files suit against a decision issued by the Office Of The President, and it's a justiciable claim, then the president is a proper defendant and the court has jurisdiction. It doesn't matter which federal court -- they all have jurisdiction if any of them do (again, except for special cases, or if Congress provides otherwise).
Right now, DOGE is housed in the office of the president. It's the only place it can be housed without Congressional approval and anyway Trump wants it there. So a plaintiff who sues over a DOGE action would sue the president, and the court would have jurisdiction. The plaintiff can't sue Musk, because Musk has no power or authority. It's an action of the president, and remains so even if the president delegates the decisions to others (especially non-Senate confirmed personnel, who cannot by law have any power to act as officers of the United States).
7. So in summary: when we say that a court does or doesn't have jurisdiction over an executive branch official (or anyone, really), that's a function of whether the plaintiff has properly filed a case against those defendants, meeting all requirements. If so, jurisdiction will lie in that particular case. If not, there will be no jurisdiction.
The media and public discourse often over-use the term jurisdiction and use it in confusing ways. Same with "executive order." We probably should all do a better job of being clear.
First, before we begin. There's no reason that posters who haven't attended law school SHOULD know about jurisdiction. And to be honest, I wonder if sometimes the lawyers among us (including me) are too cavalier in our explanations, assuming knowledge that our interlocutors don't have. That's mostly because it's hard for experts to teach novices. When I taught corporate law, it was at first challenging for me to appreciate how little my students knew on the first day of class. I would throw around words like "equity" and "debt," which are the most basic concepts in the whole world that surely everyone would know . . . except they didn't, because they were never taught that. I realized that, in our education system, it was actually MY JOB to teach them that. So starting in my second year, I opened my course with a lecture on the basics of finance where I explained things like "equity," "publicly traded," market capitalization, etc. That went much better for everyone, but it took teaching the course to fully realize the issue.
Now, jurisdiction:
1. Jurisdiction is nothing more than the judicial power to issue decisions in cases. When a court has jurisdiction, its decisions are binding on the parties to the case. When a court doesn't have jurisdiction, its pronouncements mean nothing. In our judicial system, especially in federal court, judges are not supposed to issue judgments, decisions, orders or disquisitions on issues over which they have no jurisdiction.
2. Jurisdiction is created when a plaintiff initiates a case, which the plaintiff does by filing a document with a clerk of court. One thing that non-lawyers (and some lawyers!) don't often realize is the almost comical simplicity of our powerful institutions. I would ask my students: what is a corporation? The answer is that it's a piece of paper (or a digital version) filed with the secretary of state that contains certain information (the required information can easily fit on one page). That's all. Note: the corporation is distinct from the business operated, which can be much more complicated. So too a lawsuit is just a document filed with a court.
3. Because jurisdiction is case-specific, it is technically incorrect to say that such-and-such judge has jurisdiction over the defendant. That's a shorthand, but what we really mean is that the court has jurisdiction over the defendant in a specific case, for a specific purpose. And jurisdiction would not lie (i.e. there would be no jurisdiction) unless the conditions for jurisdiction are met. One such condition is that the plaintiff must have standing (which is something of a distinct topic that we can talk to but not in this post).
4. So, some examples. Suppose Annie is planning to paint her fence, and the Environmental Protection Agency issues a rule prohibiting people from painting their fences unless they first obtain some sort of permit. Annie can challenge that rule in federal court by filing a complaint alleging some sort of violation of law. She has standing to sue the EPA administrator, currently Lee Zeldin, so there could be a case Annie v. Zeldin. For stupid reasons created by the Supreme Court in the robber baron era, we can't sue actual government agencies but we can sue the people who run them. It's only a cosmetic difference, in 99% of cases.
So in Annie v. Zeldin, the plaintiff could bring several different challenges. First, the EPA likely did not follow the required procedures for rule-making when promulgating that rule. That defect can lead to the rule being vacated. The EPA also likely exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress, because fence painting is not a significant source of pollution and it's hard to argue that the rule in any way protects human health.
The fact that Annie has properly filed a lawsuit with standing and plausible allegations means that the court, in deciding her case, has jurisdiction over Zeldin.
5. Now suppose Bob comes along. He says that Lee Zeldin owes him $30K on a contract, and wants the court to order Zeldin to pay. The case goes to the same judge as Annie. Does the judge have jurisdiction over Zeldin in this case? No -- and definitely not just because the court has jurisdiction in Annie v. Zeldin. Jurisdiction is a case-by-case concept, not judge-by-judge. In this case, it's an easy question because federal courts generally lack jurisdiction over contract disputes. Those are for state courts, not federal courts (with some exceptions, none of which apply here).
Meanwhile, the Annie and the EPA agree to settle their case, and thus does the judge dismiss the case. Now the judge has no jurisdiction over the case at all, nor the parties to the case (unless there is another case involving the parties). If the EPA reneges on its deal with Annie, the judge lacks jurisdiction to order compliance because the case has been dismissed. Annie will have to file another suit to enforce.
6. All of these hypothetical cases involve the EPA as the defendant. None of them confer jurisdiction over the president. Why? Because the president isn't actually responsible for the fence-painting regulation. That was promulgated by the EPA and its administrator. The president had nothing to do with it -- even if the president specifically instructed the Administrator to make that rule. Formally, per the law passed by Congress, it's the EPA who makes the rules, and thus it's the EPA that gets sued.
[Note: I never really thought about it, but the student loan case that reached the Supreme Court was for some reason captioned Nebraska v. Biden. Biden would not normally be a proper defendant, unless there's something I'm missing. It should have been Nebraska v. Carmona, Secretary of Education, but anyway . . . . ]
So how does the court get jurisdiction over the president? Only if a plaintiff files a case that implicates the president's authority. A soldier cannot file suit challenging the irrational military decisions of the commander in chief. The soldier would have standing, but the court lacks jurisdiction over the commander-in-chief function [which is NOT true across the board, by the way, but it is when it comes to operations]. But if a plaintiff files suit against a decision issued by the Office Of The President, and it's a justiciable claim, then the president is a proper defendant and the court has jurisdiction. It doesn't matter which federal court -- they all have jurisdiction if any of them do (again, except for special cases, or if Congress provides otherwise).
Right now, DOGE is housed in the office of the president. It's the only place it can be housed without Congressional approval and anyway Trump wants it there. So a plaintiff who sues over a DOGE action would sue the president, and the court would have jurisdiction. The plaintiff can't sue Musk, because Musk has no power or authority. It's an action of the president, and remains so even if the president delegates the decisions to others (especially non-Senate confirmed personnel, who cannot by law have any power to act as officers of the United States).
7. So in summary: when we say that a court does or doesn't have jurisdiction over an executive branch official (or anyone, really), that's a function of whether the plaintiff has properly filed a case against those defendants, meeting all requirements. If so, jurisdiction will lie in that particular case. If not, there will be no jurisdiction.
The media and public discourse often over-use the term jurisdiction and use it in confusing ways. Same with "executive order." We probably should all do a better job of being clear.
