Full Answer Section

(a) A farmer in Georgia is suing a supplier in Alabama over some bad seed.

This case would likely fall under diversity jurisdiction in federal court. Diversity jurisdiction, established by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1332, allows federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The rationale behind diversity jurisdiction is to protect out-of-state litigants from potential bias in state courts.  

In this scenario, the farmer is a citizen of Georgia, and the supplier is a citizen of Alabama, satisfying the diversity of citizenship requirement. Assuming the damages claimed by the farmer for the “bad seed” exceed $75,000, the farmer could file the lawsuit in federal court in either Georgia or Alabama. It is important to note that for corporations, their citizenship is determined both by their state of incorporation and the state where they have their principal place of business. If the supplier is incorporated in a different state than Alabama or has its principal place of business elsewhere, the analysis of diversity would need to include those factors as well. (Wright & Miller, 2022).  

(b) An active duty soldier wants to appeal his court martial decision.

Appeals of court-martial decisions fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), a specialized federal court. The CAAF, established by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), reviews court-martial convictions from all branches of the armed forces. This court operates outside the typical federal court system and is specifically designed to address legal issues arising within the military justice system.  

The CAAF consists of five civilian judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Its jurisdiction is worldwide and covers members of the armed forces on active duty. Further appeal from a CAAF decision can be made to the Supreme Court of the United States. (Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 2019). Regular federal courts of appeals do not have jurisdiction over court-martial appeals.  

(c) A woman wants to declare bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy cases fall exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” This power has been exercised through the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 of the United States Code).  

Bankruptcy cases are handled by specialized bankruptcy courts, which are units of the federal district courts. These courts have exclusive jurisdiction over all bankruptcy matters, including the filing of petitions, administration of estates, and resolution of related disputes. State courts have no jurisdiction over bankruptcy proceedings. (Epstein et al., 2020).  

(d) John, age 15, steals a car.

This case highlights the interplay between state and federal jurisdiction, particularly when juveniles are involved. Generally, crimes committed by juveniles are handled in state juvenile courts. However, there are specific circumstances where federal law might become applicable.

Car theft itself is usually a state crime. If John stole the car within a state and did not cross state lines, the case would likely remain in state juvenile court. However, if the car was transported across state lines, it could potentially become a federal offense under the National Stolen Motor Vehicle Act (also known as the Dyer Act). Additionally, if the carjacking involved other federal offenses, such as kidnapping, federal charges might be added. Age is a significant factor in juvenile cases. State laws generally define the age of majority, and the juvenile justice system operates separately from the adult criminal justice system. Even if a federal offense is involved, the case might still be handled in juvenile court or transferred to adult court depending on the severity of the crime and other factors. (Feld, 2018).  

Conclusion:

Jurisdiction is a complex area of law, particularly when it comes to the division of power between state and federal courts. Understanding the specific legal basis for jurisdiction in each case is vital to ensuring the proper forum for resolving disputes. The cases analyzed demonstrate various bases for federal court jurisdiction, including diversity of citizenship, specific federal statutes related to military justice and bankruptcy, and the potential intersection of state and federal laws in juvenile crime. It is crucial to remember that these are general explanations, and the specific facts of each case, including the exact nature of the claims, the parties involved, and any applicable federal laws, will ultimately determine the proper jurisdiction.