Six months after a federal case began, a defendant moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing a waiver issue. Which statement is most accurate?

• A. Lack of jurisdiction cannot be raised after discovery has begun
• B. Waiver arguments succeed if the defense was not raised in the answer
• C. Lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including after discovery, and may be considered even if raised late
• D. The court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because it was not raised at filing

Answer: (B)

Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is a power issue that courts must have to hear a case, and it cannot be defeated by usual waiver logic. In federal practice, this defense can be raised at any time, including after discovery, and the court may even consider it if raised late. Discovery does not cure a lack of jurisdiction, and the failure to raise the issue earlier does not force dismissal on its own.

So the most accurate statement is that lack of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including after discovery, and may be considered even if raised late. The notion that a waiver procedure could resolve lack of jurisdiction is not correct, and waiting until after discovery or beyond the initial pleading does not strip the court of the authority to address the issue. Similarly, neither the timing of the raise nor the absence of a pre-answer objection compels automatic dismissal.