Part 1 - Jurisdiction in History:
ETYMOLOGY

jurisdiction (n.)
Early 14c., jurisdiccioun, jurediction, etc., "administration of justice," from Old French juridicion (13c., Modern French juridiction) and directly from Latin iurisdictionem (nominative iurisdictio) "administration of justice, jurisdiction," from phrase iuris dictio, genitive of ius "law, right" (see jurist) + dictio "a saying" (from PIE root *deik- "to show," also "pronounce solemnly").
Meaning "extent or range of administrative power, domain over which a legal or judicial authority extends" is from late 14c. Meaning "judicial authority, right of making and enforcing laws" is from early 15c. The form in English assimilated to Latin 16c. Related: Jurisdictional.

​

jurist (n.)
Mid-15c., "one who practices law;" 1620s, "a legal writer, one who professes the science of the law," from Middle French juriste (14c.), from Medieval Latin iurista "jurist," from Latin ius (genitive iuris) "a right," especially "legal right or authority, law," also "place where justice is administered, court of justice," from Old Latin ious, perhaps literally "sacred formula," a word peculiar to Latin (not general Italic) that originated in the religious cults, from PIE root *yewes- "law" (compare Latin iurare "to pronounce a ritual formula," Vedic yos "health," Avestan yaoz-da- "make ritually pure," Irish huisse"just"). Related: Juristic. The more mundane Latin law-word lex meant specific laws as opposed to the body of laws.
The Germanic root represented by Old English æ "custom, law," Old High German ewa, German Ehe"marriage," sometimes is associated with this group, or it is traced to PIE *ei- "to go."

​

diction (n.) 

1540s, "a word," a sense now obsolete, from Late Latin dictionem (nominative dictio) "a saying, expression; a word; kind of delivery, style," noun of action from past-participle stem of Latin dicere "speak, tell, say" (source of French dire "to say"), which is related to dicare "proclaim, dedicate," from PIE root *deik- "to show," also "pronounce solemnly." Meaning "manner of saying," especially in reference to the choice of words, is from 1700.

​

Dictio

Administration of justice, colloquy, conversation, declaration of judgment|penalty, delivery, diction, expression, in the phrase, inflection, iuris dictio, method|style|form of speaking, oracular response, prediction, public speaking, saying, speaking, speech, style, term, uttering, word

In summary
One who practices a law with a certain style or delivery (administration or justice)

Origination

​

Roman Ecclesiastical jurisdiction

During the Apostolic Era of the Church ecclesiastical jurisdiction was created. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction means primarily authority exercised by ecclesiastical persons over other ecclesiastics and lay persons. It is not limited to ecclesiastics only. The beginnings of the exercise of spiritual authority over members of the church antedate the conversion of the Empire to Christianity, and go back. to the Age of the Apostles

Ecclesiastical jurisdiction was exercised during the Early Roman Empire following the Apostolic Age until the conversion of the Empire to Christianity. After the Apostolic Age, criminal spiritual jurisdiction was exercised by each bishop over his churches. But St. Ignatius9 held that this authority should be exercised with the advice of his presbyters. With the coalescing of episcopal dioceses into provinces, and provinces into still larger districts (in imitation of the administrative organization of the Roman Empire) provincial synods of the bishops and other still larger synods acquired a criminal spiritual jurisdiction, - at first original jurisdiction principally over bishops.

​

In this period began the exercise of appellate jurisdiction as to the clergy and laymen. Although a bishop had no formal right of appeal from the jurisdiction of a synod over him, yet sometimes other bishops would refuse to recognize a synodical sentence of deposition as unjust and would continue to communicate with the bishop as if not sentenced

Growth of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Later Roman Empire from Constantine onward. (1) Criminal jurisdiction. The recognition of Christianity by the Roman State, was soon accompanied by a great development in criminal ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The secular power began to support the decrees of the Church. Episcopal and synodal sentences were made effective throughout the Empire.

​

As for Civil jurisdiction. The temporal jurisdiction of the church also has its roots in the New Testament.3' Originally it was based upon the free and voluntary consent of the parties to accept the arbitration of the bishop.

 

Roman and Eurpoean battles over jurisdiction

The competition for authority between States and the Holy Roman Empire, both within and beyond Europe, has involved debates over the meaning of jurisdiction, imperium, territory, and possession. Those questions were not resolved with the demise of the Holy Roman Empire and the emergence of the modern State in Europe, but have continued to play out in battles over the proper relation between state jurisdiction and international jurisdiction.

The debate, as with many debates over authority in Europe during that time, was framed using the language and concepts of Roman law.8 The most important of these Roman law concepts to this debate were those of ius, dominium, imperium, and iurisdictio. 

​

Central to those debates was the question of whether either the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor could properly claim to exercise universal jurisdiction (ius dicere) as dominus mundi or lord of the world. The idea that the papacy and the Emperor exercised dual forms of universal jurisdiction shaped medieval legal thought. 6 The extent of papal and imperial jurisdiction, and the relation between jurisdiction and control (or ius and fact), had important implications both within and beyond

 

Europe

The competition for authority between States and the Holy Roman Empire, both within and beyond Europe, has involved debates over the meaning of jurisdiction, imperium, territory, and possession. Those questions were not resolved with the demise of the Holy Roman Empire and the emergence of the modern State in Europe, but have continued to play out in battles over the proper relation between state jurisdiction and international jurisdiction. Part II outlines the ways in which the relation between state (or domestic) jurisdiction and international jurisdiction was defined in the Charter of the United Nations (U.N.), and traces the growing importance of the claim that authority must be constrained in particular ways in order to be legitimate in the post-United Nations era.

​

The Pope or Elizabeth claimed to have a form of jurisdiction that enabled them to declare rights to title in far-flung territories, they represented themselves as something other than mere tyrants or de facto rulers whose armies or followers were able to gain control of territory by force.

​

The rulers of emerging States in Europe thus faced "two universal antagonists outside their own realms," in the form of the Papacy and the Empire.42 Both claimed authority as a supranational body descended from the Roman Empire, and both alleged that this legacy gave them universal jurisdiction, understood as the power to state what is lawful for the whole world. Those who opposed medieval forms of government sought to counter papal and imperial authority with detailed arguments showing why the claim to be dominus mundi or lord of the world was flawed. As the next Section shows, these statist arguments were premised on the claim that sovereignty, and thus jurisdiction, depended upon de facto control over territory. Worldly authority, to be legitimate, must be effective.

​

                                                               Colonial America and the development of jurisdiction

In the beginnings of colonial America a simple form of in personam jurisdiction constituted the basis for the assertion of jurisdiction over defendants. At that time the power of a court to enter a judgment was dependent upon the actual physical presence of the defendant before the court. This idea, carried from England, was compatible with the simple, compact, agricultural society that existed initially, but it was soon found to be inadequate. Both the economic and physical setting of colonial America differed from that of England. Credit arrangements were an essential feature of the American economy and, when debt collection became a problem, the colonial legislatures and courts responded to the demands of the creditor class by employing quasi in rem jurisdiction-the predicating of a judgment not upon the physical presence of a defendant but upon the ability to seize under judicial process the property of the defendant-to meet these needs. This process of securing credit arrangements provided the foundation for later industrialization in nineteenth-century America.

The period from 1790 to the 1930s.2 This was a period of substantial jurisdictional evolution as the legal system confronted the rise and expansion of one of the major forces of industrialization-the business corporation. It was a time of territorial and economic growth, accompanied by a change in attitudes. During the first part of the period the attempts of states to control corporate activities and to protect local businesses from outside competition produced jurisdictional rules predicated upon corporations having only limited legal existence outside the states in which they were chartered.' During the second half of the period the increased activities of business corporations and the extension of the interstate commerce clause required broader jurisdictional principles, but the laissez-faire philosophy of the times operated as a constraint on any jurisdictional assertions that might seriously impair the activities and growth of such corporations.4 As a result, personal jurisdiction expanded, but the approach was defendant oriented, and concern focused on the disadvantages suffered by a defendant forced to litigate in a forum where it had only minimal business contacts.

Jurisdictional development has not been wholly uniform, largely as a result of the nation's size and the regional differences within its borders. Nonetheless, despite inevitable variation among the approaches adopted by the

Suggested Reading Links

https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4045&context=californialawreview
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=mjil
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2679&context=dlj

 

                                                                                          Part 2 - Jurisdiction in Law:
Cornell Law

Jurisdiction
Definition
Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders.
Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

Jurisdiction: an overview
One of the most fundamental questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into three components:
whether there is personal jurisdiction [aka whether the court may even hear the case involving the particular defendant(s)]. This is further broken down into 3 categories (See Pennoyer v. Neff for additional information): 

in personam jurisdiction
in rem jurisdiction
quasi in rem jurisdiction
whether there is jurisdiction over the subject matter 
whether there is jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought.

In Personam Jurisdiction- A court having personal jurisdiction can exercise powers over the person of a particular defendant.
In Rem Jurisdiction- A court having in rem jurisdiction will have the power to adjudicate the rights of all persons with respect to a particular item of property.  However to exercise in rem jurisdiction, the property must generally be located within physical boundaries of the state.

Quasi-in-rem Jurisdiction- A court having quasi in rem jurisdiction will have the power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the court’s control.  The court can adjudicate disputes other than ownership based upon the presence of the defendant’s property in the forum.
The term jurisdiction can be best understood by being compared to "power." Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, and/or legislation of the sovereignty on behalf of which it functions (ex: a state court in Mississippi may need statutory permission by the Mississippi legislature to hear certain types of cases). The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as "jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction."

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court's authority to decide the issue in controversy such as a contracts issue, or a civil rights issue. State courts have general jurisdiction, meaning that they can hear any controversy except those prohibited by state law (some states, for example, deny subject matter jurisdiction for a case that does not involve state citizens and did not take place in the state) and those allocated to federal courts of exclusive jurisdiction such as bankruptcy issues (see 28 U.S.C. § 1334). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction in that they can only hear cases that fall both within the scope defined by the Constitution in Article III Section 2 and Congressional statutes (See 28 U.S.C. §1251, §1253, §1331, §1332).

Territorial jurisdiction is the court's power to bind the parties to the action. This law determines the scope of federal and state court power. State court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment and the federal court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution's Fifth Amendment. (For more, see World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson; see also International Shoe v. Washington).
Other forms of jurisdiction include appellate jurisdiction (the power of one court to correct the errors of another, lower court), concurrent jurisdiction (the notion that two courts might share the power to hear cases of the same type, arising in the same place), and diversity jurisdiction (the power of Federal courts to hear cases in which the parties are from different states). An example showing the interplay of diversity jurisdiction with subject-matter jurisdiction is Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L. P. (02-1689), 541 U.S. 567 (2004).
Other forms of Territorial jurisdiction

3. Soil / Birthright Citizenship
    Any executive proposal to restrict birthright citizenship would probably take the approach of interpreting INA § 301(a) to mean that the children of certain aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore do not acquire citizenship by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. ~ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10214.pdf

2. Land Law and Legal Definition
The ordinary meaning of the word ‘land’ is that of dry superficies of the earth as distinguished from water or air. As a legal term, land means not merely the dry superficies of the earth, but also comprises of all that has material form that man has received or can receive from nature, that is to say, from God. Furthermore, the expansive meaning of the term land means the surface of the earth often distinguished from water. Land legally includes all houses and other buildings standing or built on it. Moreover, land includes that part of the property which is in a direct line between the surface and the centre of the earth, such as mines of metals and fossils.
In other words, land is defined as a real property. Land is also an area of ground with defined boundaries, including minerals or resources below the surface and anything growing on or attached to the surface. Generally, all the buildings erected upon it are land, but there are some exceptions to this general rule. In case if a stranger constructs a building on another’s land, they will be a part of the owner’s land, and will belong to the owner. Some cases have been decided that such an erection, under peculiar circumstances, would be considered as personal property.
~ https://definitions.uslegal.com/l/land/

​

3.     Sea/Maritime Admiralty Jurisdiction
 
The founders broadly agreed that the federal courts would exercise admiralty jurisdiction, since maritime suits often involved questions of national importance that implicated commerce, international relations, and the rights of foreign citizens. The exercise of admiralty jurisdiction by the federal judiciary represented an important transfer of authority from state to federal courts, which functioned according to unique procedures and laws rooted in federal statutes, ancient civil codes, and international custom.
~ https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/jurisdiction-admiralty-and-maritime