The American Judiciary: Understanding Federal and State Courts     1/24/2005
By Tanya L. Green, J.D.

The American judiciary is perhaps the finest in the world.

Under the separation of powers doctrine, the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative (Congress), the executive (the president) and the judicial (the courts). The American judiciary is perhaps the finest in the world. This paper will summarize the workings of the federal and state judiciaries.

While both systems are subject to the limitations of the U.S. Constitution, state (and local) courts, which are established under the authority of state governments, may decide nearly every type of case, both criminal and civil. In contrast, federal courts may decide only those cases over which the Constitution gives them power. Pursuant to its constitutional authority, Congress has established and abolished U.S. courts as national needs have changed over time.

The Constitution limits the judicial power of all courts to the interpretation and application of the law. Courts do not have the constitutional authority to make laws. That function is vested solely in the legislative branch.

FEDERAL JUDGES
At the federal level, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints judges for life. They can only be removed from office through "Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."¹ The Constitution further provides that Congress may not reduce the salary of federal judges.

FEDERAL COURTS
The federal court system is best viewed as a pyramid, with the U.S. Supreme Court at the peak. At the level below are the 13 appellate courts and the appeals court for the armed forces. At the next level are the 94 district courts and specialized courts. Federal courts hear both criminal and civil cases.

A person who files a lawsuit in federal court may proceed through all three levels. Generally, the persons involved in the suit are heard in the district court. If any party is dissatisfied with the decision rendered, he may appeal to the appellate court (or court of appeals) in his region. If dissatisfied with that court's decision, the party may then seek additional review in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has virtually complete authority to decide which cases it reviews. It accepts a small number of cases, through a writ of certiorari,² generally those of great national importance and interest.

The purpose of this three-tier structure of the courts is twofold. First, the structure enables appellate courts to correct certain errors in the decision made at the trial level. Second, it ensures the uniformity of decisions in cases involving constitutional issues and in those in which two or more lower courts have reached different results.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution identifies those cases that the federal courts may decide. These cases may:

• involve constitutional issues, federal law or treaties;
• affect "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls";
• involve admiralty and maritime law;
• occur between two or more states;
• occur between one state and citizens of another state;
• occur between citizens of different states;
• take place between citizens of the same state claiming "Lands under Grants of different States"; and
• occur between a state or its citizens and "foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

In cases "affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls," and those in which a state is a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means it is the only court authorized to hear the case. In all other cases, it has appellate jurisdiction.

In some areas, the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, that is, they can decide cases involving the same issues. For example, both the district courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims may hear cases involving tax refunds.

U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
Courts of appeals hear cases brought from the district courts by dissatisfied litigants. There are 13 courts of appeals: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which has national jurisdiction over specific cases) and 12 regional courts of appeals (which have jurisdiction over cases from certain geographic areas). The 1st through the 11th Circuits each include three or more states. They review decisions from the district courts of their geographical regions, the U.S. Tax Court, and from certain federal administrative agencies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia hears cases arising in Washington, D.C., and has appellate jurisdiction assigned by Congress in legislation concerning many departments of the federal government.

U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
Most federal cases are initially tried and decided in the district courts. There are 94 district courts in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands (called territorial courts). A district may be divided to hear cases in several places. The number of judges for each district is determined largely by caseloads.

Each district court also has a bankruptcy unit that hears and decides the petitions of individuals and businesses seeking relief from bankruptcy. Bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of appeals for a term of 14 years.

TERRITORIAL COURTS
Congress, under Article I of the Constitution, has created territorial courts (mentioned above). They are called legislative courts to differentiate them from constitutional courts. They have jurisdiction over local cases and those arising under federal law. In most instances, they function similarly to district, state and local courts.

Legislative court judges are appointed for a term of 10 years and are not protected under the Constitution against salary reduction during their tenure.

OTHER ARTICLE I COURTS
Article I courts also include the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. Tax Court.

U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces. Created in 1951, this court was initially named the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. The name was changed in 1994. This court has jurisdiction over cases that involve questions of law arising from court-martial trials in the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard in cases where a death sentence is imposed; where a case is certified for review by the Judge Advocate General of the accused's service; or where the accused petitions and shows good cause for further review. The Supreme Court may also further review such cases. The Supreme Court also has jurisdiction to review decisions of the military appellate courts in which the federal government is appealing a ruling by military judges during court-martial trials. The five judges of this court are civilians appointed for 15-year terms.

U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Created in 1988 to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over the decisions of the Board of Veterans' Appeals, this court hears cases involving veterans' and survivors' benefits, loan eligibility and educational benefits. Its decisions are subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It has seven appointed judgeships.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims (formerly the U.S. Claims Court). Established in 1982 as the successor to the trial division of the Court of Claims, this court has nationwide jurisdiction. Its cases include tax refunds, federal taking of private property for public use, constitutional and statutory rights of military personnel and their dependents, back-pay demands from civil servants claiming wrongful termination, injured victims of childhood vaccination, and breach of contract and other disputes by federal government contractors. Most suits against the government for money damages in excess of $10,000 must be tried here.

Further, it reviews decisions from the Indian Claims Commission. Decisions from this court are subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has 16 judges who are appointed for 15-year terms.

U.S. Tax Court. Established in 1924, this court hears disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service involving underpayment of federal income, gift and estate taxes. Its decisions are subject to review by the federal courts of review and the Supreme Court, upon writs of certiorari. It has 19 judges appointed for 15-year terms.

Court of International Trade (formerly the U.S. Customs Court). Congress created this court under the Customs Court Act of 1980 to hear cases involving international trade and customs duties. It functions the same as district courts. Its decisions are subject to review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Its nine judges are appointed for life.

STATE COURTS
As mentioned earlier, state governments establish state courts. They decide cases that involve state law. The only time such cases reach the Supreme Court is when there is a challenge to federal law or the Constitution.

Procedurally, state courts operate the same as federal courts. Cases may be appealed from the district court to the appeals court and, finally, the state's highest court. Generally, a dissatisfied litigant has no other recourse once the state supreme court hands down its decision. However, if a federal law or constitutional question is involved, the parties may, through a writ of certiorari, ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court rarely disturbs state courts' decisions.

JUDGES AND JUDICIAL SELECTION
Controversy has historically surrounded the selection of American judges. During the colonial era, the king selected judges. After the Revolution, states gradually began adopting popular elections as a method for choosing judges. Some elections were partisan (meaning judges had a party label affixed to their names on the ballot), others were nonpartisan. In the early 20th century, the appointment method was instituted. In 1913, the Missouri Plan, also known as the merit plan, was developed as a compromise, combining the best of the election and appointment methods.

Methods of judicial selection vary by state, by court level and court jurisdiction. Sometimes the initial and subsequent methods of judicial selection vary.³ The methods include: partisan or nonpartisan elections; appointment with or without a nominating commission; merit selection through a nominating commission; and merit selection combined with other methods.

Below are brief descriptions of the election and appointments methods, including strengths and weaknesses.

Appointments or Merit Selection. Under this method, a commission (which may include the governor, the attorney general, judges of the state's highest court, bar association officers, private citizens, and even the state senate) actively locates, recruits, investigates and evaluates judicial applicants. It then submits names of three to five qualified applicants to the appointing authority (usually the governor), who makes a final selection from the list. Proponents of this method argue that under this method, judges selected are chosen for their professional qualifications rather than political or social connections. Further, they contend merit selection reduces the negative influence of politics and money. They maintain that this method increases representation of women and minorities on the bench. Critics argue that appointment of judges does not necessarily remove politics. They also argue that judges under this method lack accountability. However, judges are indirectly accountable through either re-evaluation by a commission or a citizen vote for retention.

Elections. Under this method, voters choose from a list of judges named on the ballot. Advocates of this method say it is the right of citizens to elect judges and doing so is compatible with democracy. They argue that elected judges are accountable to the people and are entrusted to make rational decisions. Further, they contend this method increases representation of women and minorities on the bench. However, this method has the danger of compromising the independence of the judiciary. In many states, elected judgeships are viewed as political favors and, therefore, pose a threat to impartiality. For example, an attorney who contributed money to or otherwise supported a particular judge's campaign might represent a client before that very same judge. Also, ethical rules prohibit judicial candidates from making traditional promises, such as promising to decide particular cases in a particular way. Thus, during their campaign, judicial candidates can only offer tentative views on legal questions-which are subject to change based on the facts and application of the rule of law to a particular case-and not on campaign promises.

Whatever method or methods a state uses when choosing judges, impartiality, neutrality and objectivity are always paramount.

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Just a Thought with Mario Diaz: It’s a Small World After All

It’s a Small World After All

Just a Thought with Mario Diaz: The Trouble with Harry Knox and the White House

Obama-Biden Judicial Litmus Test Exposed, But Who Cares?

What Can Citizens Do About the Court-Initiated "Regulatory Malfunction"

Appeals Court Strikes Down Fine Against Janet Jackson's Super Bowl Show

Thank God for the Caucuses!

Boxer Decked by Own Left Jab

Virginia's Marriage Amendment Preserves Equal Rights

The Troubling Resurgence of The 'Heckler's Veto'