What does this mean in simple terms?

Question

The Appellants argued that Congress’s use of the permissive “may” instead be obligatory “must” demonstrate an intention to sustain concurrent jurisdiction because of the use of the permissive “may”, the statutes at issue in such cases did not contain the more potent language contained in this statue: “original exclusive jurisdiction.” That difference makes the analysis in those cases inapplicable.

Update:

NOTE: I know what it means, I am just having trouble putting it into Laymen Terms

At Law · Accepted Answer

If congress used "may" they meant it to be something that can be done, but doesn't have to.  If congress used "must", they meant it has to be done.  Sounds like it was an argument on whether more than one court has jurisdiction over a case (these are usually state court vs federal court).  Concurrent jurisdiction is when either court can here a case.  Exclusive jurisdiction is when only one court has authority to hear a case.

Anonym · Answer

its allowed if it completely demonstrated the need but if not it can not be applied

What does this mean in simple terms?

2 Antworten