Federal Judicial System in the U S

Federal Courts

The United States judicial system is based on the federal courts structure as established in Article III of the Constitution. This system has been the subject of numerous studies and publications that seek to explain how it works. William A. Fletcher and James E. Pfander wrote a book, Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts, which provides an outline of the federal court system in the U.S. The book provides an outline of Article III courts, the requirement of “case or controversy, advisory opinions, and justiciability. In addition, Fletcher & Pfander discuss congressional power over federal court jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of district courts, Supreme Court jurisdiction, and ancillary jurisdiction. Through this outline, the authors also discuss the law applied in federal courts. This paper provides an overview of the federal court system in the United States based on the book by Fletcher and Pfander.

History of the Federal Court System

Fletcher & Pfander begin the discussion regarding federal courts in the US by examining the history of the federal court system. The foundation of the federal court system in the U.S. is Article III of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the judicial power of the country. In addition to the Supreme Court, this article also gives inferior federal courts judicial power as may be established and ordained by Congress from time to time (Fletcher & Pfander, p.3). Based on this article, the federal court system in the US is based on the establishment of the Supreme Court, which differs from both the executive and the legislature. Congress has the discretion to determine what other federal courts can be established. Article III of the Constitution only established one court and granted Congress the discretion to decide on the creation of others. The Framers of the Constitution seemingly granted such discretion to Congress on grounds that the federal government could not be effective unless other courts are created to help in law enforcement. According to Frank, the creation of a federal lower court system in the U.S. was seemingly influenced by the necessity to resolve international admiralty disputes (p.28).

The history of federal courts in the country dates back to 1789 when Congress acted on its mandate to decide on the creation of other federal courts. In 1789, Congress established a federal judiciary comprising six justices, which was one of its first acts. Fletcher & Pfander postulate that the emergence of the modern federal judicial system was influenced by several regulations including the 1871 Civil Rights Act and Evarts Act of 1891 (p.7). These regulations introduced profound changes to the federal court system, which had remained stable until the Civil War period. The initial federal courts established by Congress had significantly unspecialized jurisdiction. Congress later established specialized courts with specialized jurisdiction including territorial courts, District of Columbia courts, Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Court of Federal Claims, and adjunct courts like bankruptcy courts and federal magistrates (Fletcher & Pfander, p.9).

Justiciability and “Case or Controversy”

Justiciability relates to restrictions on legal issues that courts can exercise their judicial authority (Fletcher & Pfander, p.15). In essence, justiciability addresses when a court has judicial authority and the ability to offer sufficient resolution to a dispute. Justiciability is one of the most important concepts of the U.S. federal court system as it deals with the limits of law and adjudication. The judicial authority of federal courts in the U.S. is stipulated in Article III of the Constitution. This Article creates several justiciability doctrines to determine when federal courts can adjudicate disputes (Cole, p.1). Justiciability doctrines emanating from Article III of the Constitution include ripeness, standing, feigned cases, advisory opinions, mootness, and political questions. Based on this Article, the jurisdiction of federal courts is restricted to adjudicating “cases” and “controversies.” The political question doctrine focuses on restrictions on adjudication on issues that are generally within the responsibility of other governmental authorities (Bendor, p.312). If a federal court finds that any of the four justiciability doctrines applies to a case, a controversy is deemed non-justiciable. Justiciability doctrines were developed by federal courts to help in determining whether disputes presenting federal questions can be adjudicated. However, these doctrines have been applied to all nine categories of cases and controversies (Hessick, p.75). Federal justiciability requirements are also applied to lawsuits brought under the provisions of diversity jurisdiction. The doctrines of justiciability usually overlap and can rarely be applied with absolute precision.

Congressional Authority over Federal Court Jurisdiction

Congressional power over the jurisdiction of federal courts is based on Article III, which is the Constitution’s legal article. The U.S. Constitution establishes a federal judiciary with significant autonomy in which federal judges have life tenure and diminutions of judges’ salaries are prohibited. To this extent, federal courts in the U.S. have significant independence to carry out their legal duties and responsibilities. However, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate these courts. Congressional power over federal courts is granted to help ensure that proper checks and balances exist for federal courts to carry out their legal work and responsibilities in line with the Constitution. In line with the Article, federal courts do not have general jurisdiction in comparison to state courts (Fletcher & Pfander, p.55). Federal courts are restricted to the subject matter jurisdiction specified in Section 2 of Article III. Therefore, if a case does not fall under one of the stipulated heads of jurisdiction in this section, it cannot be heard by a federal court (Fletcher, p.930).

Congress has some amount of unchallenged authority to limit federal courts’ jurisdiction (Fletcher & Pfander, p.58). Congressional power to grant and withhold the jurisdiction as well as to regulate the original and appellate jurisdiction of appellate lower federal courts is derived from the Madisonian Compromise. Congress uses its powers to allocate jurisdiction among federal courts by making regulations and exceptions on jurisdiction. In some cases, Congress strips federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear a category of cases. Congress sometimes exercises its authority to strip federal courts the jurisdiction to hear particular cases in the midst of litigation. This reflects Congressional authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. However, the restriction of the jurisdiction of federal courts is exercised by Congress when dealing with particular cases and even during litigation. With regards to allocating jurisdiction, Congress has power to assign whole cases, assign exclusive jurisdiction over some questions, and allocate jurisdiction between courts in Article I and Article III.

According to Fletcher, historical evidence shows that the word “all” in Section 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution applies to all four heads of jurisdiction (p.933). These four heads of jurisdiction are the federal question, admiralty jurisdiction in the first paragraph, ambassador, and the ambassador and state-as-a-party jurisdiction. While the term “all” is utilized in reference to these four heads of jurisdiction, it authorizes but does not require Congress to confer federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. This implies that Congress has the liberty to specify whether some or all cases brought under these four heads of jurisdiction are within the federal courts’ exclusive jurisdiction. Since Congress has the authority to specify exclusive jurisdiction in these cases, they are only brought in the federal courts. Therefore, federal courts rather than state courts must hear all cases under these heads of jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and District Court

The Supreme Court and district courts are part of the three-level federal court system in the U.S. These courts have specific jurisdiction as granted by the Constitution and Congress. Fletcher & Pfander state that Supreme Court jurisdiction is divided into two i.e. original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction (p.82).

Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is established in Section 2 of Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The second paragraph of this section states that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in two classes of cases. These two categories of cases that form the basis for the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction are ambassador cases and state-as-a-party cases (Fletcher & Pfander, p.104). Notably, the word “all” appears in these two heads of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This implies that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in all ambassador cases, cases of other Ministers and Consuls, and state-as-a-party cases. Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction is classified into exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction, which was influenced by Marbury v. Madison. Under exclusive jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over controversies between states. Under concurrent jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over Ambassadors, U.S. and a state, and state using out-of-state citizen or alien cases. The Supreme Court shares concurrent jurisdiction over these cases with state and lower federal courts.

The second paragraph of Section 2 of Article III also specifies the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which is usually the focus of federal courts courses. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is appellate in all other categories of cases other than the ambassador and state-as-a-party cases. These other cases where the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is appellate are stated in the first paragraph of this section. Therefore, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in the federal question, admiralty, and ambassador jurisdiction (Fletcher & Pfander, p.84). In addition, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in nearly any other case involving federal or constitutional law. As stated in Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is in relation to law and fact. However, there are exceptions to this appellate jurisdiction i.e. based on regulations enacted by Congress. This implies that Congress influences the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction through regulations it enacts. Regulations enacted by Congress influence the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by generating exceptions.

Federal district courts are courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. federal judiciary system. Since these courts have general jurisdiction, most cases are initially tried and determined in federal district courts. This implies that district courts have the power to hear and determine cases under federal law (federal question jurisdiction) or those that meet diversity jurisdiction requirements. As part of the federal judiciary system, federal district courts have subject matter jurisdiction, which means the power to hear the type of controversy or case initiated in the court. These courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving an issue or question of federal law (Fletcher & Pfander, 112). In addition, they have original subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving diverse citizenships of the parties. However, a person’s citizenship in diversity jurisdiction cases is determined by his/her domicile rather than residence. Moreover, for district courts to exercise diversity jurisdiction, parties to the case must be citizens of different states. The other subject matter jurisdiction of federal district courts is admiralty jurisdiction. Federal district courts have original admiralty jurisdiction over any admiralty or maritime jurisdiction case.

Despite having general jurisdiction, federal district courts have specific problems relating to their jurisdiction (Fletcher & Pfander, p.145). These special problems include supplemental jurisdiction, removal jurisdiction, venue, and forum non-conveniens. Under supplemental jurisdiction, district courts face challenges over additional claims or parties. Such claims are mostly attached to a case/claim that the district court has original subject matter jurisdiction. Under removal jurisdiction, lawsuits initially filed in a state court may be transferred to the federal district court by the defendant before trial. Under venue, federal district courts need to have proper venue, which refers to the proper place to bring the action, even if they already have the subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute and in personal jurisdiction over parties (Fletcher & Pfander, p.168). With regards to forum non-conveniens, federal district courts can dismiss cases where another forum or court is better suited to determine them.

Applicable Law in Federal Courts

Federal courts hear and determine cases involving the constitutionality of a law, treaties of U.S. ambassadors and public ministers, state-as-a-party, bankruptcy, and admiralty. When hearing these, federal courts make their judgments based on relevant laws. Laws applied in federal courts was a concern in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case. Federal courts apply federal procedural law and state substantive law when dealing with state law matters. Federal substantive common law, which is the supreme federal law under the Supremacy Clause, is applied in federal courts. Federal common law refers to common law developed by the federal courts in the U.S. judicial system. Federal substantive common law is a term also used to refer to legally binding federal rules adopted by these courts to govern issues that are not explicitly addressed by constitutional or statutory provisions. The rules are established as part of substantive law and may be developed to safeguard federal interests. State laws are not necessarily applied in federal courts. For example in Swift v. Tyson, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal court did not need to follow the New York law of negotiable instruments because it was established based upon local usage or statute from the general common law (Snepp, p.166).

While federal courts apply federal laws, there is a modern obligation for them to follow state law based on Erie Doctrine. As a fundamental legal principle in the U.S. judicial system, Erie Doctrine mandates federal courts to resolve disputes that do not necessarily involve a federal question (Fletcher & Pfander, p.185). Such instances commonly emerge in cases involving diversity jurisdiction or supplemental jurisdiction. When federal courts are called upon to resolve such cases, they have an obligation to follow state substantive law. Erie Doctrine primarily deals with civil procedure in the U.S. judicial system, which provides grounds for federal courts to follow state substantive law in resolving certain disputes (Snepp, p.171).

Federal Law in State Courts

State courts are courts with general jurisdiction within a particular territory of the state. These courts are the ultimate arbiters of issues to do with state constitutions and laws. States courts use state laws when hearing and determining cases. However, state laws need to be in line with federal laws, especially on matters relating to national security and international relations. The supremacy of federal laws implies that state courts have the obligation to follow federal law, particularly in cases involving a federal question. Based on Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, which is commonly known as the Supremacy Clause, state laws have the obligation to follow federal law to decide questions of federal law. In addition, state courts obligation to follow federal law is derived from concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts. In this regard, state courts have the obligation to faithfully comply with federal law when dealing with cases within their jurisdiction. Similarly, federal courts have the obligation to faithfully comply with state law when dealing with cases within the state jurisdiction.

Unlike federal courts which have limited jurisdiction, state courts are essentially courts of general jurisdiction. Therefore, state courts have the authority to hear and determine nearly any claim emerging under state or federal law. However, state courts have no jurisdiction over cases that fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Such cases are stipulated in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. The jurisdiction of state courts over cases involving questions of federal law is limited. These courts can hear any cases or claims relating to questions of federal law except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts as stipulated in constitutional provisions.