Explain the difference between personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction?

Answer 1

Both deal with (generally) federal court jurisdiction. In order for a court (and this can apply to state courts as well) to have jurisdiction over the parties involved, they must somehow be connected to that state. Generally this is satisfied by citizenship in that state. For instance, TN would have jurisdiction over a TN citizen. If the parties are not both from the forum state, then in order for the court to exercise jurisdiction, the foreign party must have certain connections with the forum state. This can become pretty complex, but the operative case is International Shoe v. Washington which requires so called "minimum contacts" between the foreign party and the forum state. For example, If I buy a bad burger that makes from a national fast food chain with multiple locations in TN, then that company may be sued in TN, even if it is not "domiciled" in TN, because there is probably personal jurisdiction over it because of its contacts with the forum state. There are other ways to exercise jurisdiction and there are multiple levels of intricacy, but that's the general gist.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction instead deals with what types of cases a federal court can hear. Generally there are two types of Subject Matter Jurisdiction: First is Diversity Jurisdiction. This requires that the parties be "diverse" or from different states and that the "amount in controversy" be over $75,000. The second type is federal question jurisdiction, which provides a federal forum for any claim arising under federal law. Federal Civil Rights Violations are a good example. For federal question claims, there is not amount in controversy requirement and diversity is not necessary.