Final answer:
A judgment rendered by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is void, meaning it has no legal effect. Jurisdiction is the authority to make legal decisions and judgments, and when it's missing, a court's actions are illegitimate. The Constitution and Federal Judiciary Act establish the jurisdiction of federal courts, which is crucial for the legitimacy of any court's ruling.
Step-by-step explanation:
If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, then any judgment is rendered void, which means that the judgment has no legal force or effect. This is because jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect that determines the power of the court to hear a case and to make a binding legal decision.
Without such jurisdiction, any summary judgment or other legal decisions made by the court would be considered illegitimate, and parties could potentially challenge and overturn such decisions due to the lack of jurisdiction. In cases where jurisdiction is an issue, such as when the judiciary strikes down laws as unconstitutional or in specific cases governed by original jurisdiction outlined in the Constitution, the legitimacy of the court's rulings is essential.
The Constitution and the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 establish the jurisdiction of the federal courts and delineate which cases they may hear. In the absence of proper jurisdiction, as seen in cases like Breard v. Greene, the court cannot proceed with making a lawful judgment. Furthermore, the judiciary has no force or will but merely judgment, relying on the executive arm for the efficacy of its judgments, as noted in historical documents describing the wealth of society.