Is a proposed piece of legislation constitutional if it would grant federal courts jurisdiction over state claims based on state law, without requiring diversity of citizenship?

• A. Yes, because Congress has plenary power to extend federal jurisdiction to any questions arising under federal law
• B. Yes, because Congress has plenary power to create federal courts and determine their jurisdiction
• C. No, because it would extend federal jurisdiction to state-law claims without requiring diversity of citizenship
• D. No, because it would not extend federal jurisdiction to defendants who invoked state products liability as a defense

Answer: (C)

The main idea is that federal courts can hear cases only within established jurisdiction bases: federal-question claims (arising under federal law) or diversity-of-citizenship claims (and certain related limits). Congress does have power to create and shape federal courts, but that power is not unlimited; it must operate within the constitutional grant of subject-matter jurisdiction. Granting federal courts jurisdiction over purely state-law claims without a federal question or complete diversity would expand federal judicial power beyond what Article III allows. Therefore, the proposal is unconstitutional for that reason: it would extend federal jurisdiction to state-law claims without diversity. The other choices miss or misstate the constitutional boundaries or rely on irrelevant points.