The American Judicial System

How the Judicial System Works

Th­e United States is renowned for ha­ving one of the most sophisticated judicial systems in the world. Every day thousands of people, including law enforcement officers, lawyers, judges, government officials and ­even accused criminals, take part in this system, hoping to settle disputes and work for justice. What makes this system even more remarkable is that it is able to operate successfully in a country as large and diverse as the United States. One of the keys to this success is a balanced and carefully ordered hierarchy: Several different federal courts control issues relating to federal law and each state has its own set of courts that can adapt to the needs of its people.

Of course, it’s all a bit more complicated than that and no system works perfectly, but learning how the judicial system works can be useful in case you ever need to file a law suit, defend yourself in court, claim damages from the government or even pay a traffic ticket. In this article we’ll talk about what the different types of courts do, how judges are appointed and the basics of jury duty. Let’s start by looking at the essential elements of the U.S. judicial system.

Judicial System Basics

The U.S. legal system is in part inherited from English common law and depends on an adversarial system of justice. In an adversarial system, litigants present their cases before a neutral party. The arguments expressed by each litigant (usually represented by lawyers) are supposed to allow the judge or jury to determine the truth about the conflict. Besides presenting written or oral arguments, evidence and testimony are collected by litigants and their lawyers and presented to the court.

Litigants usually pay their own attorney’s fees in addition to a $150 350 fee for filing a civil case in federal court. (Plaintiffs who can’t afford the fee can ask to proceed without paying.) For criminal cases, the government provides a court-appointed attorney for anyone who can’t afford one.

Many rules exist regarding how evidence and testimony are presented, trial procedure, courtroom behavior and, etiquette and how evidence and testimony are presented. These rules are designed to promote fairness and allow each side an opportunity to adequately present its case. For federal courts, the rules are determined by committees composed of judges, professors and lawyers appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. The rules are then approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States and become law unless Congress votes to reject or modify them. State courts and local courts have their own committees and procedural rules, sometimes adapted from the rules for the federal courts. Many judges also have their own rules guiding conduct in their courtrooms.

The majority of legal disputes in the U.S. are settled in state courts, but federal courtshave considerable power. Many of their rulings become precedent, or a principle, law or interpretation of a law established by a court ruling. Precedent is generally respected by other courts when dealing with a case or situation similar to past precedent. This policy is known as stare decisis or “let the decision stand.” Precedent is sometimes overturned or disregarded by a court, but the policy generally provides continuity in courts’ interpretations of the law.

Let’s now take a look at the federal court system and why it’s so important.

The Supreme Court, which is the only court explicitly created by the Constitution, is the most powerful court in the United States. The Court has nine justices and its decisions cannot be appealed to any other court. For that reason, the Supreme Court is an incredibly powerful and important body, and a nomination of a new justice is an event that attracts significant media attention, debate and even controversy.

Thousands of cases are filed with the Supreme Court every year, but the Court only hears 100 to 150 cases a year. Most cases require the Court to interpret an existing law, the intent of Congress when passing legislation, or whether legislation or acts by the Executive are constitutional. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving foreign dignitaries or when the state is a party, meaning that those cases must first be filed in the Supreme Court but may later be passed down to a lower court. All other cases reach the Court on appeal from lower courts.

Although Congress has the right to decide how many judges are on the Supreme Court, it can’t change the powers given to the Court by the Constitution. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the Court with one chief justice and five associate justices. Between 1789 and 1869, the number of justices on the Court changed six times but has remained at nine (eight associate justices and one chief justice) since 1869.

The Chief Justice is the “executive officer” of the Court but, like the other justices, has only one vote in deciding cases. In order to decide a case, six justices must vote and a simple majority is all that’s required. When a decision isn’t unanimous, the Court issues majority and minority (or dissenting) opinions. Justices often write separate concurring opinions if they agree with the majority but for different reasons.

An opinion is a document that details the justices’ arguments and the reasons behind their decisions. These documents can also contain decisions about the constitutionality of a law or their beliefs about how a law should be interpreted. Opinions comprise a very important part of what’s known as case law, the law created by judges’ written opinions. Case law and precedent set by the Supreme Court are binding on lower courts. They are also used as a guide in the crafting of future legislation by Congress and as case studies by law school students and legal scholars.

One of the most important court opinions came in an 1803 case called Marbury v. Madison. Chief Justice John Marshall issued the majority opinion for this case, which established the concept known as judicial review. Although not specified in the Constitution, Chief Justice Marshall used the case as an opportunity to declare that “a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law” and that “it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” [ref]. In this way, he greatly expanded the powers of the Supreme Court.

Judicial review has also been used to cover state and local governments. The Court can declare their actions unconstitutional and thereby order them to cease the action in question. The most famous example of judicial review is the landmark 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education. In that case, the Supreme Court declared the Topeka, Kansas school board’s segregation of schools unconstitutional. The decision became part of case law and caused all other segregation laws across the country to be declared unconstitutional.

There are 12 regional Circuit Court of Appeals and one U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Created in 1891, the number of judges on each court varies from six to 28, but most have 10 to 15. Each court has the power to review decisions of district courts in its region. Appeals Courts, sometimes called appellate courts, can also review orders of independent regulatory agencies if a dispute remains after the agencies’ internal review processes have been exhausted.

Appeal Process

A defendant who is found guilty by a criminal court can appeal the ruling to have the case heard by the Court of Appeals. Either side may appeal in a civil case. When the Court of Appeals hears a case, the person appealing the case, called the appellant, must show that the trial court made a legal error that affected the outcome of the case. Each side presents its argument in written documents called briefs to a panel of three judges. The court bases its decision on the record of the case and does not solicit new testimony or evidence. Some panels also allow for short oral arguments.

The court’s decision is final unless the case is sent back to the trial court. Someone who loses in Appeals Court can petition for a writ of certiorari, an official request for the Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case but generally will if multiple appellate courts have interpreted the law differently, if an important legal principle is at stake, if the case presents an issue relating to how the Constitution is interpreted or if multiple appellate courts have interpreted the law differently.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has national jurisdiction for appeals in specialized cases, for example, patent laws or cases decided by courts of special jurisdiction, the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels

Bankruptcy Appellate Panels (BAPs) are panels made up of three judges that hear appeals of bankruptcy court decisions. Considered a unit of the Federal Court of Appeals, BAPs were created and modified by the Bankruptcy Reform Acts of 1978 and 1994. Appellants can appeal decisions by bankruptcy courts with the BAP or a District Court. The following circuits have BAPs: 1st, 6th, 8th, 9th and 10th.

One step below the Court of Appeals is the District Court. Each of the 94 districts has at least two judges; the biggest districts have 24 or more. Each district also has a U.S. bankruptcy court. District Courts are the trial courts of the federal system. Their criminal cases concern federal offenses, and their civil cases deal with matters of federal law or disputes between citizens of different states (remember subject matter jurisdiction). They’re also the only federal courts where grand juries indict the accused and juries decide the cases.

Congress determines the court districts based on size, population and case load. Some states have their own district while New York, California and Texas each have four. Judges have to live in the district they serve -- the District of Columbia is the lone exception -- but a judge may temporarily sit in another district to help with a heavy case load.

Magistrate Judges

Magistrate Judges are appointed by District Judges to serve an eight-year term in a U.S. District Court. Part-time magistrates serve four-year terms. This system was started in 1968 to help District Courts with their caseloads. Both parties involved in a case have to agree to be heard by a Magistrate Judge instead of a District Judge. Magistrate Judges also conduct initial proceedings for cases such as issuing warrants, bail hearings, appointing attorneys and reviewing petitions and motions.

Congress has the power to set up special “legislative courts” whose judges are appointed for life terms by the President and approved by the Senate. Today, there are two special trial courts with national jurisdiction.

The United States Court of International Trade

The U.S. Court of International Trade deals with cases involving international trade and customs. Previously called the United States Customs Court, the court was expanded and its name changed by the Customs Courts Act of 1980. The courtrooms and offices are in New York City, but the Court is also authorized to hold hearings in foreign countries. Appeals of its decisions can be taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and then to the Supreme Court. The judges of the Court of International Trade are sometimes assigned by the chief judge to preside over cases in other parts of the country and like other federal judges, they’re appointed for life.

United States Court of Federal Claims

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims calls itself “the People’s Court” and deals with most claims for money damages against the U.S. government, disputes over federal contracts, unlawful seizure of private property by the government and other similar claims. The Court began in 1855 as a body that advised Congress on claims against the United States, but in 1863, it became a forum for citizens to file claims against the government. Sixteen judges sit on the Court, and each serves a 15-year term.

Other Courts

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
  • U.S. Tax Court
  • U.S. Court of Military Appeals
  • Military Courts of Review

Although federal courts are the most powerful courts in the United States and play an essential role in shaping judicial policy and practice, state courts do much of the “grunt” work that keeps our judicial system running. They’re also the courts that Americans are most likely to have contact with in their lives.

There are two types of trial courts in most states: special jurisdiction and general jurisdiction.

Special jurisdiction courts, which also can be called county, district, justice, justice of the peace, magistrate or police courts, hear the following types of cases:

  • juvenile cases
  • lesser civil and criminal cases
  • traffic-related cases

General jurisdiction courts, which also can be called circuit courts, court of common pleas, superior courts or in the state of New York, the Supreme Court, hear serious civil and criminal cases. All states also have their own appellate courts and a state supreme court. (The 62 trial courts in New York are called Supreme Courts, and the state's highest court is the New York Court of Appeals.)Most states have two types of trial courts: special jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Special jurisdiction courts hear many traffic violation cases, minor civil disputes, juvenile cases and lesser criminal cases. They are sometimes called district, justice, county, justice of the peace, magistrate or police courts. General jurisdiction courts hear serious criminal and civil cases. General jurisdiction courts are also called circuit courts, court of common pleas, superior courts or in the state of New York, the Supreme Court. All states also have their own appellate courts and a state supreme court. (The 62 trial courts in New York are called Supreme Courts, and the state's highest court is the New York Court of Appeals.)

State courts have a variety of systems for how judges attain their positions -- some are appointed by governors, others are elected and have to periodically face reelection. For more information about your state court, check out the National Center for State Courts’ listing of state court Web sites.

Jury Duty

Jury duty: it’s been a bad Pauly Shore movie and a source of confusion for millions of Americans. But jury duty is also an essential part of our judicial system. If citizens didn’t give up some of their time to serve on juries, conducting fair trials would be almost impossible. Let’s look for a moment at how juries work.

As we learned earlier in the article, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals do not use juries. But Federal District Courts, the trial courts of the federal judiciary, do. State trial courts also depend on jurors, who are randomly selected from a pool of registered voters and people with driver’s licenses to ensure a cross-section of the population. Being selected in this way is known as being summoned. A summoned juror must complete a questionnaire to determine if there is any reason that he or she can be disqualified from serving.

Being summoned for jury duty does not mean you willA summoned juror won’t automatically have to serve on a jury. However, you he or she will likely have to go to the courthouse and undergo a process called voir dire, where judges and lawyers question potential jurors to determine if they’re fit to serve. People with past experience with the alleged crime, knowledge of either party or who have obvious prejudices may be prevented from serving. Lawyers can also exclude some jurors without giving a reason.

There are two types of juries on which private citizens may be called to serve. A trial jury, also known as a petit jury, is made up of six to 12 people for a civil trial and 12 people for a criminal trial. A grand jury, as discussed earlier in the article, is a panel of 16 to 23 people who determine whether there’s “probable cause” to charge someone with a crime.

For more information on juries, courts and the judicial system, please check out the links on the next page.

https://people.howstuffworks.com/judicial-system.htm


Excerpt reproduced from American Legal Systems: 

A Resource and Reference Guide (Anderson Publishing, a member of the LexisNexis Group 1997) by Toni M. Fine

CHAPTER I: BASIC CONCEPTS OF AMERICAN


JURISPRUDENCE

A. Summary of Basic American Legal Principles

What follows are some of the fundamental principles that comprise the American legal system. Each of these is discussed in greater detail in this and other chapters of this book. They are summarized below in order to give the reader an overview of some of the basics of American common law.

1. Impact of Precedent—The Principle of Stare Decisis

The defining principle of common law is the requirement that courts follow decisions of higher level courts within the same jurisdiction. It is from this legacy of stare decisis that a somewhat predictable, consistent body of law has emerged.

2. Court Hierarchy

Court level or hierarchy defines to a great degree the extent to which a decision by one court will have a binding effect on another court. The federal court system, for instance, is based on a three-tiered structure, in which the United States District Courts are the trial-level courts; the United States Court of Appeals is the first level court of appeal; and the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law.

3. Jurisdiction

The term “jurisdiction” has two important meanings in American law. One meaning of “jurisdiction” refers to the formal power of a court to exercise judicial authority over a particular matter. Although the term most often is used in connection with the jurisdiction of a court over particular matters, one may also speak of matters being within or beyond the jurisdiction of any other governmental entity.

Second, the federal court system is based on a system of “jurisdictions,” the geographic distribution of courts of particular levels. For instance, while there is only one Supreme Court, the court of appeals is divided into 13 circuits, and there are 94 district courts. In addition, each state court system comprises its own “jurisdiction.” As indicated above, the jurisdiction in which a case arose will determine which courts’ decisions will be binding precedents.

4. Mandatory / Binding versus Persuasive Authority

Some of the various sources of law that will be examined are considered to be “mandatory” or “binding,” while other sources are considered to be merely “persuasive.”

Indeed, a court may completely disregard precedent that is not binding (i.e., not even consider it to be persuasive). The issue of whether authority is mandatory or persuasive relates directly to the application of stare decisis principles.

5. Primary versus Secondary Authority

The various sources of law may also be broken down into primary and secondary sources of law. Primary sources of law may be mandatory on a particular court, or they may be merely persuasive. Whether they are binding or persuasive will depend on various factors. Secondary authority is not itself law, and is never mandatory authority. A court may, however, look towards secondary sources of law for guidance as to how to resolve a particular issue. Secondary authority is also useful as a case finding tool and for general information about a particular issue.

6. Dual Court Systems

The American legal system is based on a system of federalism, or decentralization. While the national or “federal” government itself possesses significant powers, the individual states retain powers not specifically enumerated as exclusively federal. Most states have court systems which mirror that of the federal court system.

7. Interrelationship Among Various Sources of Law

One of the more complex notions of American jurisprudence is the extent to which the various sources of law, from both the state and federal systems, interrelate with one another. There is a complex set of rules that defines the relative priority among various sources of law and between the state and federal systems.

B. What Is Common Law?

The term “common law” evokes confusion and uncertainty—which is no surprise given its duality of meaning. The term “common law” may refer to any of the following:

1. Common Law as Differentiated from Civil Law

The American system is a “common law” system, which relies heavily on court precedent in formal adjudications. In our common law system, even when a statute is at issue, judicial determinations in earlier court cases are extremely critical to the court’s resolution of the matter before it.

Civil law systems rely less on court precedent and more on codes, which explicitly provide rules of decision for many specific disputes. When a judge needs to go beyond the letter of a code in disposing of a dispute, the judge’s resolution will not become binding or perhaps even relevant in subsequent determinations involving other parties.

2. Case Law

Common law may refer to “judge-made” law, otherwise known as case law.

Cases are legal determinations based on a set of particular facts involving parties with a genuine interest in the controversy.

a. Case Law May Be of Several General Types:

(1) Pure decisional case law—Court called upon to decide cases on the basis of prior court decisions (precedent) and / or policy and a sense of inherent fairness. In cases of pure decisional law, there is no applicable statute or constitutional provision that applies. This type of decisional law is what is referred to as “judicially-created doctrine.” Historically, the term “case law” referred to certain areas of law (e.g., torts, property) that began as judge-made, or pure decisional law.

(2) Case law based on constitutional provisions—Court called upon to consider whether a particular statute or governmental action is consistent with the United States Constitution or a particular state constitution. Court interpretation may rely upon prior decisional law interpreting same or some other constitutional provision.

(3) Case law based on statutory provisions—Court called upon to interpret a statute. Court interpretation may rely upon prior decisional law interpreting the same or similar statute.

b. Subsequent Case History:

(1) Subsequent Case History defined—What a higher level court has done with respect to a lower-level court decision on appeal.

(2) Importance of Subsequent Case History—If a higher level court has taken action on a lower level case, it is the opinion and holding of the higher level court that will constitute the precedent in the case. A higher level court opinion will in effect abrogate the lower level court opinion in the same case.

c. Subsequent Case Treatment:

(1) Subsequent Case Treatment defined—What other cases have said about the initial case. Has it been followed? Reversed? Distinguished? Applied in a specific way?

(2) Importance of Subsequent Case Treatment—Will indicate how the same and other courts interpret the initial case.

C. The American Judicial System: A System Based on Advocacy and the Presence of Actual Controversy

The American legal system is adversarial and is based on the premise that a real, live dispute involving parties with a genuine interest in its outcome will allow for the most vigorous legal debate of the issues, and that courts should not have the power to issue decisions unless they are in response to a genuine controversy. Hence, federal courts are prohibited from issuing “advisory” opinions, or opinions that do not involve a live case or controversy. (These principles are based on Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which limits federal court jurisdiction to “cases and controversies.” Unlike the federal courts, some states do allow for the presentation of cases that are not based on live controversies, and hence do not share the federal court bias against advisory opinions.)

1. Threshold Issues Designed to Preclude Advisory Opinions

Given the prohibition against advisory opinions by the federal courts, there are certain threshold prerequisites which must be satisfied before a federal court will hear a case. Issues surrounding the applicability of these prerequisites may also arise in state courts and on petitions for review of agency orders. The principal prerequisites to court review are the following:

Standing—The parties must have an actual, cognizable, usually pecuniary or proprietary, interest in the litigation.

Finality—In the case of appeals or agency review, the action by the trial court or administrative body must be final and have a real impact on the parties.

Exhaustion—The parties must have exhausted any possible avenues for relief available in the trial court or administrative body.

Ripeness—The dispute must present a current controversy which has immediate rather than anticipated or hypothetical effects on the parties.

Mootness—The dispute must not have been resolved. Nor must the circumstances have changed in any way that renders the dispute no longer subject to controversy.

No Political Questions—Courts will not involve themselves in nonjusticiable disputes that are between the other two branches of the federal government and are of a political nature.

While these prerequisites are well-established, the courts tend to apply them in a pragmatic way and allow exceptions to these requirements when warranted by the facts.

2. Courts Generally Confine Themselves to the Dispute Presented for

Resolution

As a jurisdictional matter, courts are supposed to restrict their holdings to the narrowest terms possible in resolving a dispute. This limitation relates to the principle of dictum, under which portions of the opinion not required for the resolution of the precise issues before the court on the facts presented by the parties are of diminished precedential value.

3. Tendency to Avoid Constitutional Issues When Possible

Federal courts also tend to avoid deciding constitutional issues when they are able to decide a case on a procedural, statutory, or some other ground.

D. Institutional Roles in the American Legal System

1. Attorney

Depending upon the circumstances and the needs of the client, the lawyer may be a counselor, a negotiator, and / or a litigator. In each of these roles, the lawyer will need to engage in factual investigation. With respect to each of these roles, the lawyer will do the following:

Counselor: Attorney will help advise the client how to order the client’s affairs, how or whether to proceed with a proposed course of action, or how to proceed with respect to pending or potential litigation or settlement. Often, this is when the lawyer will prepare (or ask that someone prepare) an interoffice memorandum of law, which will examine the client’s legal position and help the lawyer counsel the client.

Negotiator: Lawyer will work with opposing counsel to try to get a favorable resolution for the client with respect to a pending dispute. The parties may already be in litigation when they negotiate, or the parties, through their attorneys, may be negotiating a resolution to a dispute not yet in court. The art of negotiating involves many techniques individual to particular attorneys and the circumstances. The client always retains the right to accept or reject a settlement negotiated or offered by the opposing party.

Litigator: In litigating, the attorney will help pick a jury and participate in pretrial motions. At trial, the attorney will present evidence through testimony of witnesses, documents and perhaps demonstrative evidence (e.g., charts, diagrams). The lawyer will also present an opening statement and closing argument, and will make and respond to evidentiary objections lodged by the opposing party. The lawyer may also make motions, sometimes supported by a memorandum in support thereof before the court, and propose to the court a set of jury instructions.

Fact Investigator: All of the lawyer’s roles require the investigation of relevant facts, including locating and interviewing witnesses.

A lawyer is to be a zealous advocate of his / her client. In this respect, the lawyer must advocate on the client’s behalf and avoid conflicts of interest. The lawyer is also an officer of the court and is required to deal fairly and honestly with the court and with its other officers, including the lawyer’s opponents.

There are specific ethical rules applicable to these issues, but in most circumstances, when the client’s interests and those of the lawyer as officer of the court conflict or otherwise interfere with each other, the lawyer is generally expected to favor his or her role as advocate of the client.

2. Judge

The judge is the final arbiter of the law. The judge is charged with the duty to state, as a positive matter, what the law is. At trial, the judge takes a passive, “umpire” role in connection with the presentation of evidence by counsel. The judge must also make evidentiary rulings, and charge the jury as to the law to be applied. In addition, the judge is to maintain order in the courtroom. Occasionally, when the parties agree, the judge may also act as trier of fact. This is known as a “bench trial.” Judges in federal courts are appointed by the President with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. Many state court judges are elected by popular vote.

3. Jury

The jury, a group of local citizens, is the fact-finder in most trials. The jury will receive instructions from the judge as to the law, and its members will assess the facts as they perceive them in light of the law as instructed, to return a verdict.

Have questions about law school? Check out our Facebook page, follow us on Twitter or start networking with law students and lawyers on LexTalk.

https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-american-legal-system.page

Autocracy, Inc - The Dictators Who Want to Run the World

Dictators are Less Interested in Ideological Alliances and More Interested in Helping Each Other Stay Powerful We think w...