Can Federal Courts Hear State Law Cases (and Vice Versa)?
When can a Federal Court hear State Law Issues in a Federal Trial?
Written by J. Mance Gordon
Updated at April 21st, 2024
- Marketing, Advertising, Sales & PR
- Accounting, Taxation, and Reporting
- Professionalism & Career Development
-
Law, Transactions, & Risk Management
Government, Legal System, Administrative Law, & Constitutional Law Legal Disputes - Civil & Criminal Law Agency Law HR, Employment, Labor, & Discrimination Business Entities, Corporate Governance & Ownership Business Transactions, Antitrust, & Securities Law Real Estate, Personal, & Intellectual Property Commercial Law: Contract, Payments, Security Interests, & Bankruptcy Consumer Protection Insurance & Risk Management Immigration Law Environmental Protection Law Inheritance, Estates, and Trusts
- Business Management & Operations
- Economics, Finance, & Analytics
- Courses
Can federal trial court hear matters of state law? And vice versa?
It depends. The nuances of federal and state trial court authority in such situations are discussed below.
A state trial court may hear a case involving a federal question under certain circumstances.
There are, however, certain types of cases that a state court cannot hear.
Those cases involve a legal situation in which the applicable federal law preempts the entire area of law, such as immigration or bankruptcy.
Likewise, a federal trial court may hear a state-law case under certain circumstances.
For a federal court to hear a state matter and vice versa, courts must have subject-matter jurisdiction over some legal issue in the case.
This generally occurs in two circumstances:
- the case may involve a mixture of state and federal law, or
- the case is a diversity action.
If a case involving federal law also involves issues of state law, the federal court may adjudicate the state law issues arising in that case.
Likewise, a state court hearing issues of state law case may apply federal law to adjudicate a federal law issue.
Lastly, a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over diversity cases that involve only state law.
The federal court will apply the substantive law of the state in which the court is located.
The court will apply federal procedural law unless the federal procedural law would likely change the outcome of the case or is outcome determinative.
In such an event, the state procedural law will apply. These rules are known collectively as the Erie Doctrine.
Related Topics
- US Courts (Intro)
- What is the Authority for Article III Courts?
- What is the Authority for Article I Courts?
- What is the authority for courts under Article II?
- What is the authority for Article IV Territorial Courts?
- What is the authority for State Courts?
- What are Article III Courts?
- What are Article I Administrative Courts?
- What are Article IV Territorial Courts?
- What are state courts?
- What is Subject-Matter Jurisdiction?
- What is Federal Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction?
- What is State Court Subject-Matter Jurisdiction?
- Can a Federal trial courts hear state matters & vice versa?
- Can a Federal appellate court hear federal matters & vice versa?
- What is Personal Jurisdiction?
- How to establish Federal Court Personal Jurisdiction?
- How to establish State Court Personal Jurisdiction?
- What is a Long-Arm Statute?
- Who are the primary players in the state judicial system?
- What types of judges are part of the judiciary?
- What are the duties of trial judges in the legal system?
- Contempt of Court
- Declaratory Judgment
- Equitable Relief
- Equity - Definition
- What are the duties of Appellate Judges & Justices?
- De Novo Review
- What is the role of jurors in the judicial system?
- What number of jurors and juror votes are required for guilt or liability?
- What do Attorneys do?
- Who are the other players in the judicial system?
- US Circuit Court?
- US Supreme Court?
- Appeals from Legislative and Administrative Courts
- Appeals in the state court system?