U.S. judicial system

SIGNIFICANCE: The American court system embodies the adversary system of justice, in which it is the role of all parties in cases to take the lead in investigating the facts, presenting evidence, and formulating legal arguments to demonstrate why they, and not their adversaries, should prevail, within the settings of neutral forums.

The U.S. judicial system is actually made up of fifty-two distinct and separate judicial systems: the federal court system and fifty-one autonomous systems for each of the U.S. states and the federal District of Columbia. Moreover, the military forces and U.S. territories also have their own separate systems. However, the federal and state court systems share the same basic structures and follow similar procedures in their proceedings. Also, both types of court systems contain trial and appellate courts, though the individual courts may function somewhat differently.

Trial and Appellate Courts

Trial courts are courts of the first instance; they hear evidence, determine the facts, and make initial decisions in cases. In addition, trial court proceedings are conducted by judges who sit alone, without other judges, and decide the applicable legal principles and make initial rulings as to issues of procedure and admission of evidence. When cases are being tried by juries, the presiding judges’ roles are usually limited to those functions, and the trial juries have responsibility for deciding the facts and reaching verdicts.

In bench trials, which have no juries, the judges alone make findings on the facts and pronounce verdicts. Although trial courts are situated at the base of the judicial system, the fact-finding roles of these courts often have greater importance than the courts’ ultimate decisions because determinations as to the facts cannot be re-argued when cases are appealed.

On the level above trial courts are appellate courts, which hear and decide appeals of decisions made below by the trial courts. Depending on the courts and their jurisdictions, the losing parties’ ability to bring appeals may be automatic or may be solely at the discretion of the appellate courts. The main function of appellate courts is to review decisions of the trial courts below them and to resolve questions of law, regardless of whether the original cases were decided by judges or juries.

The facts of cases that are found by the trial courts are accepted as “given” on appeal, and panels of judges instead hear arguments about whether the trial courts have made errors in applying the law. For example, a losing party at trial may argue on appeal that the factual evidence does not support an ultimate judgment of liability in a civil case, that a judge was mistaken in admitting certain witness testimony into evidence in a criminal case, or that a judge or jury misinterpreted the law. These examples demonstrate that the main benefit of appellate review is to create opportunities to have second looks at disputed aspects of cases in order to correct errors that may have affected their outcomes.

Procedures in trial and appellate courts differ significantly. In trial courts, in which evidence of facts is admitted, the trial judges preside over processes in which attorneys representing opposing sides call witnesses to testify and answer questions. The judges resolve issues as to the admissibility of the evidence, ensure that both sides in cases have fair opportunities to argue their sides, and then instruct the juries on the laws that should guide their decisions when they consider the evidence and endeavor to reach verdicts.

Proceedings in appellate courts are less complex. No testimony is accepted. Rather, panels of appellate judges allot each attorney certain amounts of time to argue the legal issues orally on behalf of their clients and to answer questions posed by the judges. Additionally, the attorneys submit written arguments or “briefs” to elaborate their arguments further. Afterward, the appellate judges consider the cases and decided either to affirm (agree with) or reverse (disagree with) the trial court decisions, based on applicable laws. On occasion, appellate courts reverse and remand cases back to the trial courts for reconsideration of specified aspects of the cases.

State Courts

Judges in state courts are usually elected or appointed. At the base of state court systems are courts that possess special or limited authority. For example, suits involving small amounts of money or highly particular legal matters may be resolved in small-claims courts or traffic courts or before magistrates or justices of the peace. Some states require that small claims be submitted first to arbitration before panels of lawyers. In most of these courts, the litigating parties represent themselves, without professional counsel, and the proceedings are less formal than in trial courts. Losing parties in these proceedings usually have the right to bring their cases before trial courts for new hearings.

State court systems are geographically divided into subdivisions or judicial districts. Most state trial courts have general authority to hear wide ranges of civil and criminal cases. Some trial courts may be large enough to be subdivided into sections based on the types of cases they hear, such as civil, criminal, and domestic-relations divisions.

Whether general or specific, a court’s authority to hear a particular type of case is referred to as its subject-matter jurisdiction. Trial courts have authority to decide criminal prosecutions against defendants who commit crimes within their states. In addition, trial courts in civil cases must have jurisdiction over either the persons or the property involved in disputes. For example, when a dispute is about title to, or rights in, property located within the state, the court has in rem jurisdiction to decide the case.

By contrast, personal jurisdiction is based on the locations, residences, or activities of the parties within the state. Even defendants who do not reside with a state may be subject to the jurisdiction of its courts if they have been doing business in the state or have established other significant connections to the state. Cases that are filed in trial courts, or that are brought to trial courts from small-claims courts or magistrates, are decided in the manner described earlier. Once final decisions are reached in the trial courts, the losing parties may appeal.

Most state court systems have intermediate appellate courts, in which losing parties have a guaranteed right to bring appeals, and supreme court, in which the ability to bring appeals rests at the discretion of the courts’ judges. A few states have no intermediate appeals courts. In such states, appeals from trial courts go directly to their supreme courts. Unless a case involves only state-law issues, the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes agrees to hear appeals from decisions of state supreme courts, particularly when aspects of federal law are at issue or when a party’s U.S. constitutional rights are involved. For example, defendants who are found guilty of crimes in state courts but who believe that their federal constitutional right to due process was violated by police during their arrests may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review their cases.

Federal Courts

Judges in the federal system are appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In the federal court system, lawsuits begin in district courts, which are the federal equivalents of state trial courts. Every state has at least one federal district court within its boundaries that operates separately, but alongside the state’s trial courts. As in state trial courts, proceedings in federal district courts are presided over by judges who decide questions of applicable law. Determinations of facts may be made by either jurors or judges. As in state trial courts, federal district courts must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cases they try.

The nintey-four federal district courts have jurisdiction over defendants charged with federal crimes. The courts have authority to hear civil cases as matters of either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction exists when the opposing parties in a case are citizens of different states, or when at least one party is a citizen of a foreign nation, and when the amounts in dispute exceed $75,000. Federal question jurisdiction exists when the claims arise under issues pertaining to the U.S. Constitution or federal statutes or treaties of the United States. There is no required amount in controversy for federal question jurisdiction.

There are also a few more specialized types of federal courts. Bankruptcy courts hear petitions under the federal bankruptcy law. The Court of International Trade hears cases involving customs and import or export of goods. The Court of Federal Claims decides cases brought against the U.S. government.

As in many state court systems, losing parties in federal district courts have an automatic right to appeal. Thus, defendants who have been convicted of crimes in federal district courts may file appeals as a matter of right in order to challenge their convictions. The U.S. courts of appeal operate as all appellate courts do, typically with panels of three judges reviewing cases for errors of law and accepting the facts as decided in the district courts.

The United States is divided into thirteen circuits, each with its own court of appeals. Eleven circuits cover several states and hear appeals from criminal and civil cases decided by federal district courts sitting within those states. The District of Columbia has its own circuit court of appeals, and a federal circuit court of appeals exists to hear specific appeals involving patents, claims against the federal government, and customs and international trade matters.

U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court for both federal and state court systems. Except in rare circumstances, the Supreme Court functions as an appellate court, hearing appeals from the federal courts of appeal and state supreme courts. The Court comprises eight associate justices and a chief justice, whose official title is “chief justice of the United States.” All the Supreme Court justices are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

In almost all cases, the Supreme Court has discretion as to whether to hear specific appeals and agrees to hear only a small fraction of the cases submitted for its consideration. The Court usually defers to state supreme courts on matters of state law or in interpreting a state’s constitution. Most appeals heard by the Supreme Court involve significant questions of federal law or constitutional rights or issues of national importance that are subjects of disagreement among various circuit courts of appeal.

Bibliography

Abraham, Henry J. The Judicial Process. New York: Oxford UP, 1998. Print.

Corley, Pamela C., Artemus Ward, and Wendy L. Martinek. American Judicial Process: Myth and Reality in Law and Courts. New York: Routledge, 2016. Print.

Hall, Timothy L., ed. The U.S. Legal System. 2 vols. Pasadena: Salem Press, 2004. Print.

"Introduction to the Federal Court System." Office of the United States Attorneys, www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/federal-courts. Accessed 5 July 2024.

Kelly, Zachary A. Judges and Lawyers. Vero Beach: Rourke, 1999. Print.

Meador, Daniel J. American Courts, 2nd ed. St. Paul: West, 2000. Print.

Meador, Daniel J., and Jordana S. Bernstein. Appellate Courts in the United States. St. Paul: West, 1994. Print.

Pacelle, Richard L. The Supreme Court in a Separation of Powers System: The Nation's Balance Wheel. New York: Routledge, 2015. Print.

Smith, Christopher E. Courts and Trials: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio, 2003. Print.