Federal Versus State Courts Authority

Federal and State Court Authority The federal court system was founded by the United States Constitution and derives its authority from that document. The establishment of the federal court system is specifically derived from Article II which created the institution of the Supreme Court, the highest law in the land, and also permitted Congress to establish a system of lower courts. At present, there are 94 district level trial courts and 13 courts of appeal (“Court Role,” 2018).

The state courts derive their power from the state constitutions directly, although state authority does not supersede that of federal authority. This was a major sticking-point between federalists and antifederalists and remained a point of contention during the early days of the republic. State courts possess what is referred to as general jurisdiction, which means that all cases not within the scope of the federal courts are within the jurisdiction of the state courts (“State Courts and Federal Courts,” 2018).

All state courts are bound by the US Constitution, of course, but their primary task is to interpret state laws and state constitutions. For example, some states have additional protections or restrictions on certain behaviors, and state courts enforce such laws and ensure compliance. Although the state courts lack national authority, 90% of cases in the United States are heard in the state courts.

These include crimes that are violations of state laws, including criminal laws, disputes about constitutionality, cases in which the states are a litigant, such as violations of tax policy, and real estate cases. State courts also often have special juvenile and traffic courts to hear those specific offenses (“State Courts and Federal Courts,” 2018). These cases often have unique features, such as the additional protections and restrictions offered to juveniles, which is why they are deemed to be more appropriately relegated to a separate system.

The critical difference between trial and appellate courts is that trial courts hear matters pertaining to questions of fact, while appellate courts hear cases pertaining to the law (“What is the Difference,” 2018). The appellate court does not retry the entire case. Instead, judges (rather than a jury) determine if there was a legal error in terms of the way the case was tried. No new evidence, such as witness testimony or physical artifacts, may be presented during an appellate court hearing (“What is the Difference,” 2018).

Limited jurisdiction courts, in contrast, have a very specific type of case over which they can preside, such as family court, bankruptcy court, or juvenile court. Many states have limited jurisdiction courts, but not all states do so, and it is not mandated in the Constitution that a state have all the different types of potential limited jurisdiction courts. There are also quasi-judicial bodies such as arbitration agreements, which can interpret the law, even if they do not officially possess the authority of the court system.

Decisions such as arbitrations can still be decided through these bodies, although there usually must be an agreement beforehand to ensure that an arbitration is binding. Each state has its own unique structure. For example, in South Carolina, there is the Supreme Court for the state, which decides appellate matters of state law, with the lower appeal courts directly beneath the supreme.