There is no automatic right to appear in federal court. In fact, the overwhelming majority of legal actions that occur in the United States take place in state courts, not the federal court. Two requirements must be met before an action can be judged in the federal system: jurisdiction and standing.

The Question of Jurisdiction

The federal judiciary is composed of courts of limited jurisdiction, meaning it can only hear cases where there is express authority to do so. Article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution dictates two such situations. The first is when the disputed matter involves a question of federal law. The “federal question” can derive from the Constitution, an act of Congress, an executive branch ruling, or a dispute arising under a treaty.

The second type of federal jurisdiction occurs when the litigating parties are citizens of different states. This is “diversity of citizenship” jurisdiction. The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000, however, in order for diversity jurisdiction to be established. Disputes between U.S. citizens and foreign governments or citizens also satisfies diversity requirements.

The Question of Standing

In order to bring suit in federal court, the moving party (the party bringing the lawsuit) must have legal “standing.” Standing is simply another way of saying that the litigant is entitled to appear before the court. Four conditions must be present to show standing:

• There must be a conflict. Federal courts do not rule on hypothetical situations or give advisory opinions. In 1997, the Supreme Court overruled a lower court's judgment that the presidential line-item veto was unconstitutional. The Court found that the six congressmen who had brought the suit weren't actually harmed by the line-item veto, because it hadn't been used yet.

• The plaintiff — or person bringing the action — must have been harmed in some way by the defendant, and there must be a remedy under the law for that harm. Generally speaking, litigants cannot bring suit on behalf of other injured parties (except in the case of minors).

• The conflict at issue cannot be “moot,” or have been resolved prior to adjudication. In one anti–affirmative action case that made its way before the Supreme Court, the high Court determined that the controversy had become moot when it learned that the plaintiff (a student) was admitted to the law school (defendant) subsequent to the legal action. It refused to rule on the merits of the case.

• There must be a specific plea alleged in the complaint. In order for a court to hear an action, the dispute must be based on a specific violation of law, whether it's a constitutional, statutory, or common law.