Examples of Why Sovereign Citizen Jurisdiction Claims Fail Case Law
Here are examples where Sovereign Citizen arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction have failed in court, along with explanations of when a jurisdictional defense would be appropriate:
1. United States v. Benabe, 654 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2011)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
The defendant claimed that he was a sovereign individual and therefore not subject to U.S. law or the court’s jurisdiction.
Why It Fails:
The court dismissed this argument as frivolous, stating that jurisdiction is based on residency or actions within U.S. borders, not personal beliefs.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
A valid jurisdictional challenge would be if a criminal case was brought in a state court that did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the federal offense.
2. United States v. Jagim, 978 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1992)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
The defendant argued that as a sovereign citizen, the federal court had no jurisdiction over him for tax evasion charges.
Why It Fails:
The court ruled that individuals residing in the United States are subject to federal law, including tax obligations. Sovereign Citizen claims do not remove jurisdiction.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
An appropriate jurisdictional defense could be raised if the case was filed in a wrong venue (e.g., if a defendant is sued in a state where they do not live or have no connection).
3. United States v. Mitchell, 405 F. Supp. 2d 602 (D. Md. 2005)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Mitchell claimed that by filing Sovereign Citizen paperwork, the court no longer had jurisdiction over him for tax evasion.
Why It Fails:
The court held that merely filing UCC documents does not change the court’s jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is based on the legal system’s authority, which cannot be waived or voided by personal belief.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
A legitimate challenge could occur if the court lacked personal jurisdiction, such as when a defendant was improperly served with a lawsuit.
4. United States v. Schneider, 910 F.2d 1569 (7th Cir. 1990)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Schneider argued that because he declared himself sovereign, the federal court had no jurisdiction over his fraud charges.
Why It Fails:
The court found that simply declaring oneself sovereign does not alter jurisdiction. Sovereign Citizen arguments are consistently deemed frivolous and legally invalid.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
An appropriate defense would be a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for instance, if the case was brought before a court that does not handle the type of case (e.g., bringing a bankruptcy matter in a criminal court).
5. United States v. Hilgeford, 7 F.3d 1340 (7th Cir. 1993)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Hilgeford argued that the federal government had no jurisdiction over him because he was a sovereign citizen.
Why It Fails:
The court ruled that individuals living within the United States are subject to its laws, and declaring oneself a sovereign citizen does not alter jurisdiction.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
A valid jurisdictional challenge could arise if the court lacks territorial jurisdiction, for example, if a lawsuit is filed in the wrong state or district.
6. United States v. Hart, 701 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1983)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Hart argued that by filing UCC paperwork and declaring himself a sovereign citizen, he was no longer subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.
Why It Fails:
The court rejected these arguments, stating that UCC filings have no bearing on jurisdiction, and individuals are subject to the laws of the country where they reside.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
A valid jurisdictional challenge would be if the court overstepped its jurisdictional boundaries, such as a state court trying to hear a case exclusively reserved for federal courts.
7. United States v. Phillips, 756 F.2d 600 (7th Cir. 1985)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Phillips claimed that the court had no jurisdiction over him because he was a sovereign citizen and not subject to federal law.
Why It Fails:
The court ruled that personal belief or sovereign status does not affect federal jurisdiction. Sovereign Citizens are still bound by the laws of the United States.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
An appropriate use would be in an international case where the U.S. lacks jurisdiction over foreign defendants in civil or criminal matters.
8. United States v. Hartsoe, 743 F.2d 1439 (10th Cir. 1984)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Hartsoe argued that as a sovereign citizen, the court had no jurisdiction over him for criminal charges.
Why It Fails:
The court dismissed this argument, stating that being a citizen or resident within the U.S. automatically subjects individuals to the jurisdiction of its courts.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
An appropriate challenge would be if a court tried to prosecute someone without personal jurisdiction, such as a person who had no connection to the state or territory where the case was filed.
9. United States v. Whitesel, 543 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1976)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Whitesel argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him as he claimed sovereign citizen status and filed UCC documents asserting such.
Why It Fails:
The court rejected these arguments as irrelevant to the matter of jurisdiction, affirming that the U.S. courts have jurisdiction over all individuals within its borders.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
A jurisdictional challenge would be valid if the case had been filed in a court that lacked the power to hear that specific kind of case, such as a civil case in a criminal court.
10. United States v. Morlino, 770 F.2d 253 (1st Cir. 1985)
Sovereign Citizen Claim:
Morlino argued that by filing certain UCC forms, he was outside the court’s jurisdiction, claiming sovereign status.
Why It Fails:
The court ruled that jurisdiction is based on the laws of the country, and filing UCC forms does not exempt individuals from federal jurisdiction.
Appropriate Use of Jurisdictional Defense:
A valid defense would be challenging jurisdiction if a party was sued in a state with no personal or subject matter jurisdiction, such as being sued in a state where they neither live nor do business.
