The Federal Court System
The United States federal court system has three levels. The federal courts hear cases involving the constitutionality of the law, laws, and treaties of U.S ambassadors and public ministers solves disputes between two or more states, maritime law, and bankruptcy cases. The federal court system works with the executive and the legislative branches of the government through the constitutional requirements (Carp, Stidham & Manning, 2010). When the federal laws are passed by the Congress and signed by the president, the judicial branch, through the federal courts, decides the constitutionality of the federal laws and resolves other disputes on national laws. The judges of the federal courts depend on the executive branch to enforce the decisions made in the court.
The federal court system is made up of the Supreme Court, courts of appeal and district courts. The Supreme Court is the highest in the United States, created through article III of the U.S constitution. The court is authorized by Congress to pass laws that would lead to the establishment of lower courts (Schmidhauser, 2016). The district courts and the courts of appeal are under the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is composed of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices. The justices of the Supreme Court are nominated by the president and confirmed through the Senate. The justices do not receive official endorsements by political parties, and they have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or get impeached. The decisions made by the supreme court are binding across the nation and establish a pattern in which the future cases can be resolved.
There is 13 court of appeal in the United States and sit below the Supreme Court. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits in which each has a court of appeal. The court of appeal determines whether or not the law was applied correctly by the trial courts. The court of appeal consists of three judges and no jury. The three judges should work together when making decisions (Pizzo, 2010). Each court of appeal hears challenges to the decisions of district courts within its circuit. The court also hears decisions made by the federal administrative agencies. The thirteenth court of appeal hears appeal from the court of international trade, the U.S. Court of federal claims, and the patent and trademark office. The federal courts are among the most powerful and influential courts in the United States. Decisions made by the supreme courts establish binding precedents by the other courts. When one federal court makes a decision, other federal courts within that circuit must follow the same procedure in similar cases.
There are 94 district courts in the United States. The courts resolve issues by listening to facts and applying legal decisions to decide who is right or wrong. Each trial court has a district judge who tries the case and a jury the makes decisions on the case (Schmidhauser, 2016). The district judge is assisted by the magistrate judge to prepare cases for trial. Each district consists of at least one court and a U.S. bankruptcy court unit. There are special trial courts created in the United States. These are the court of international trade, which addresses cases on international trade and customs laws, and the court of federal claims that address cases on money damages against the United States governments. The district court judges manage the courts and supervise the court’s employees. The judge is appointed and confirmed by the president and the Senate, respectively. The judge can serve as long as they maintain good behavior to avoid removal or impeachment by Congress.
Jurisdiction Of The Courts
Jurisdiction of the courts is the authority of courts to hear and decide cases
- The federal court’s jurisdiction
The United States has given the federal courts jurisdiction over eight kinds of cases. The three levels of the federal court have been given a mandate by the constitution to hear cases in which the laws in question involve the United States constitution (Wolff, 2016). The courts hear all the cases in which the federal laws have been violated. The federal courts, through the supreme courts, hear the cases in which there is a disagreement between the state governments. Cases in which the citizens are from different states are under the jurisdiction of the federal states through the district courts. Cases involving the U.S government against the citizens, foreign governments, or American private parties are heard and determined by the federal courts. Crimes committed through the admiralty and maritime laws, and U.S diplomats cases are heard and determined by the federal government.
- Jurisdiction of state courts
The state courts have the power to hear and decide on cases involving state laws and constitution. The interpretations of the federal laws and the U.S constitution can be challenged through the United States court of appeal or the Supreme Court. The state court hears and decides on criminal cases involving the will and estates. The state courts have the power to listen and decide on cases involving the contracts, tort cases, and family laws. The state-federal court is the highest and the last resort and hears and decides on the appeals of criminal and civil cases. The state supreme court also interprets federal law and the constitution.
Interrelationships between the Federal and State Court Systems
Although the federal and state court systems may seem different, the two systems are complex, and in most cases, they share the jurisdiction of hearing and deciding the cases. The courts also have significant differences in terms of their size and the nature of their cases. The states differ in their source of authority (Brogan, 2015). The federal government gets its authority from federal laws and the United States constitution. The state courts, on the other hand, get its authority from the laws of the state. There are fewer federal courts compared to the federal courts. The formation, authority, and jurisdiction of the state courts vary according to states.
Most of the state court systems are similar to the federal courts. They have the Supreme Court as a last resort to cases, and the lowest level is the trial courts. Both systems of the court allow a losing party to appeal as long as the legal process of appeal is followed. Both the federal and state laws have allowed some of the courts, including the state supreme court to have original jurisdiction of hearing a case for the first time. The relationship between the federal and state courts is the ability of the states to hear and decide cases according to the authority and jurisdiction of their exercise.
The interrelationship between the federal and the state court occur through dual sovereignty and concurrent jurisdiction. Crime against an action prohibited by both the federal and the state law is considered an offense against both sovereigns (Langbein, 2012). Under dual sovereignty, one or more states can prosecute the offense separately for the same unlawful conduct. A state or federal prosecutor can forego a criminal prosecution if the other sovereign is prosecuting the defendant. Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when both the state and the federal court have the jurisdiction to hear the same case. In such cases, the plaintiffs can choose to take the case to either the federal or the state courts. The federal and state courts can, therefore, work together to decide which system should hear cases under dual sovereignty and concurrent jurisdiction.
Diversity Jurisdiction in Federal Courts
Diversity jurisdiction is the civil procedure in which a district court in the federal judiciary can hear and make the decision of cases that can be determined through the state courts (Crump, 2010). The introduction of federal court diversity jurisdiction was based on the fact that the state courts can be biased. In order to have diversity jurisdiction, the jurisdiction amount shout should exceed $75,000, and the plaintiff should not share state citizenship with the defendant. The federal courts, in most cases, make decisions that differ from the state courts, thus creating an imbalance between the federal and the state courts.
The diversity jurisdiction of the federal states should be restricted to allow the state courts to exercise their authoritative exposition of state law. The state courts should be able to try issues regarding state laws, and the federal courts, on the other hand, should focus on providing solutions to cases affecting federal rights (Brogan, 2015). The fear of bias should be questioned to determine if it exists in the present day. If the state courts cannot be trusted to make fair decisions on citizens of different states, they should not be allowed to hear and decide on any case. With the increased mobility of populations to different states, the federal courts have a huge burden to heal and determine cases of diversity jurisdiction. Elimination of the jurisdiction will give the state courts more power and will reduce the burden taken by the few federal courts.
According to Pizzo (2014), diversity jurisdiction allows the free flow of ideas between the two systems of courts. It is, however, not reasonable to assume that there will be no communication between the federal and the state courts due to the elimination of the diversity jurisdiction. The United States has strategies in which the systems can share ideas without becoming one bar. The fear that federal courts will become specialized to deal does not serve the present-day situation in which Congress enacts laws allowing the federal states to refer to state laws for their hearing. Limiting the federal courts to federal laws is an effective way of ensuring efficiency and proactive specialization to both the state and the federal courts.
In conclusion, diversity jurisdiction has led to the overloading of the federal courts with claims that are not important to the federal court. The jurisdiction undermines the purpose of the federal governments and its institutions by dealing with issues that only concern the state laws. Allowing the states to hear cases of individuals from different states will allow and increase the institutions of the state, and the idea of Federalism in U.S. State court questions should be heard and decided by the state courts and not the federal courts.
References
Brogan, D. D. (2015). Less Mischief, Not Done: Respecting Federalism, respecting States, and respecting Judges in Diversity Jurisdiction Cases. Tulsa L. Rev., 51, 39.
Crump, D. (2010). The Case for Restricting Diversity Jurisdiction: The Undeveloped Arguments, from the Race to the Bottom of the Substitution Effect. Me. L., Rev., 62, 1.
Carp, R. A., Stidham, R., & Manning, K. L. (2010). The federal courts. SAGE.
Langbein, J. H. (2012). The disappearance of a civil trial in the United States. Yale LJ, 122, 522.
Pizzo, J. D. (2014). A Court by Any Other Name: Preserving the Right of Diversity Removal from State Administrative Agencies that Emulate Courts. W. Va. L. Rev., 117, 471.
Schmidhauser, J. R. (2016). The Supreme Court as Final Arbiter in Federal-State Relations, 1789-1957. UNC Press Books.
Wolff, T. B. (2016). Choice of law and jurisdictional policy in the federal courts. U. Pa. L. Rev., 165, 1847.