U.S. Supreme Court Was Created

¶ … U.S. Supreme Court was created and the authority to create inferior federal courts was left to the discretion of Congress. Congress exercised this discretion by creating a system of district courts and circuit courts of appeal. When originally created the federal courts of appeal were manned by members of the Supreme Court riding the circuit. Over time this was changed so that permanent judges were appointed to sit on the Courts of Appeal.

The concept of diversity, which is an essential element of federal court jurisdiction, was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which was enacted shortly after the ratification of the Constitution. In addition to the courts permitted under Article III, the Constitution also authorized the creation of special courts under Article I. These Article I courts include the territorial courts, the United States Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Customs.

"Case or Controversy" and Justiciability The range of cases heard by the federal courts is much narrower than those allowed in the state courts. Through a series of cases dating back to the original formation of the federal court system, the requirement that all cases brought into the federal courts must comply with the case and controversy requirement and must also comply with at least one the justiciability doctrines which include advisory opinions, feigned cases, ripeness, mootness, standing, and political question.

The importance of these doctrines is that they limit the number and type of cases that can be brought in the federal courts. These named factors serve to limit the number and type of cases that can be brought before the federal courts for determination the Supreme Court also reserved the right to review cases of special interest through its implied power of judicial reiew first set out in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madision.

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows it declare acts of Congress and legislation passed by the individual states as being unconstitutional. III. Congressional Power over Federal Court Jurisdiction Because the Constitution did not directly authorize the establishment of any courts beyond the Supreme Court, the power to establish lesser courts was vested with Congress. Congress also was granted the power to determine the jurisdictional authority of both the district courts and the court of appeals.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 delegated Congress' power to determine court jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. Congress retained this power as well but it hs rarely done so. IV. Supreme Court Jurisdiction The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdictions over all decisions of the lower federal courts and the state courts. This appellate jurisdiction is almost exclusively discretion is granted through the filing of a request for a writ of certiorari. This jurisdictional authority, however, is not unlimited.

In order for the Supreme Court to hear a case arising from a state court the case must involve a federal question. Cases that are based entirely on a state statute or issue related to a specific state issue will not be fall within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or the other federal courts. Even when a case involves a federal question, litigants must exhaust all potential state remedies before bringing the action before a federal court.

The purpose of this requirement is to maintain judicial efficiency and to avoid the federal courts interfering too heavily into state legal affairs. There are four types of cases where this requirement of exhaustion is relaxed: practical finality; survival of federal issue; federal issue will not survive; and, erosion of federal policy. Cases arising through the federal court system must have involved a federal question in order to have been filed therein so all cases heard in such courts are reviewable by the Supreme Court.

Some cases arising in the district courts are directly reviewable by the Supreme Court but most must first be appealed to the Court of Appeals. V. District Court Subject Matter Jurisdiction The lowest level of the federal court system is the district courts. The district courts are the trial level and jurisdiction of such courts is determined under the concept of subject matter jurisdiction.

As the power of the federal courts to hear cases is limited as opposed to the general authority of the state courts, the lack of subject matter jurisdiction can defeat the filing of a case and can be raised by any of the parties at any point in the litigation. Subject matter jurisdiction is imposed on the federal courts through the demonstration of a federal question and diversity. Without both elements, subject matter jurisdiction is defeated and the case will be dismissed.

Federal questions can be raised under any federally enacted statute, state statutes that violate federal concerns or policy; or any issue that involves a violation of any provision of the U.S. Constitution. Diversity is required in all cases filed in the district courts. The purpose of requiring diversity is to provide litigants with an alternative course of action in seeking relief.

The state courts are generally more familiar and better situated to handle cases involving local litigants and requiring diversity keeps all but the most complicated of cases out of the federal system and those involving litigants who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state courts. VI.

Special Problems of District Court Jurisdiction In determining whether jurisdiction is proper a federal district court must also consider whether there is supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims or parties; whether removal to the state court is proper and whether venue is proper; and, occasionally, determining whether the chosen court is a convenient location for all the parties or should be removed under the doctrine of forum non-conveniens.

Supplemental jurisdiction allows a court to hear other claims between the parties and the provisions for the granting of supplemental jurisdiction are governed by statute. Removal jurisdiction, like supplemental jurisdiction is determined by statute and involves specialized situations. Venue is also created by statute and it determines the proper place for the filing of an action. It is designed to protect the interests of defendants and to keep defendants from being sued in an unfair or inconvenient location. Venue may be waived by the litigants.

The doctrine of forum non-conveniens is intended to avoid litigants being forced to try suits in inconvenient locations when an alternative location is more closely related to the issues. VII. Law Applied in the Federal Courts The law that is to be applied in the federal courts was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Basically, the law is to be the same in both the federal and state courts.

Further, the applied law is to be the state law unless such state law conflicts with either the Constitution or the common law. On the occasions where the issues presented cannot be clearly identified as involving either substantive or procedural law the rule is that procedural issues will be governed by federal procedural law while substantive issues are governed by state law.

Aside from the written statutes and regulations of both the federal and state governments the common law that has developed from the decisions of its judges must also be considered. In cases involving conflicts with state court decisions, the federal common law will control the outcome of the case. VIII. Federal Law in the State Courts The state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal courts over nearly all cases involving federal law questions. In hearing such cases the state courts must faithfully and completely adhere to federal law.

The reason for such position is that it guarantees the uniform application of federal law throughout all fifty states. State courts, however, have the option of applying their own procedural rules when hearing cases involving federal questions. IX. Collateral Relations between Federal and State Courts-Abstention and Equitable Abstention Two of the three important doctrines used to reconcile the competing needs of the two systems are abstention and federal injunctions against state proceedings.

As the jurisdictions of the two systems often overlap strict rules must exist to clarify any inconsistencies that develop as a result of this overlap. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on all issues involving federal law while each individual state highest court rules exclusively on state law issues. Abstention is the process by which the federal courts abstain from hearing cases that otherwise fall within their jurisdiction. The general reason for such abstention is to avoid interfering with an important state issue.

The federal court possesses considerable discretion in determining whether or not to exercise abstention. The federal courts have the power to enjoin actions by state officials but only if there is no statutory bar to such injunction being granted. X. Collateral Relations between Federal and State Courts- Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners The area of habeas corpus has been, in recent years, one of the most contentious between the federal and state courts.

As a result of a series of cases decided by the Warren Court in the 1960's habeas corpus was made more available for prisoners arguing that they had been unjustifiably deprived of their liberty. During the 70's and 80's some of these opportunities were eliminated by the actions of the Burger and Rehnquist courts but habeas corpus actions remain a major problem for both systems and our a source of much acrimony.

In 1996, Congress amended the federal habeas corpus statute in order to provide some clarification as to how habeas corpus was to be applied and interpreted nationwide. XI. The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity Litigation occurring under the 11th Amendment attempts to reconcile two competing ideas: 1) state sovereign immunity which assumes that a state is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued, and 2) the power of the federal government that assumes that the states are subsidiary sovereigns to the federal system.

Interpretations of the 11th Amendment have varied throughout the history of decisions on said issue but, presently, are a bar to unconsented suits by private citizens against the states. The Supreme Court, however, has fashioned out a number of exceptions to this bar. The Federal Courts The federal court system was established through the enactment of the U.S. Constitution. Under the Constitution only one court was officially authorized, the U.

S Supreme Court, but in subsequent legislation Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789 which set up the full system of federal courts which included district and circuit courts of appeal. Because the Constitution set up a republic, the individual states maintain considerable sovereignty and authority. This dual system of power between the states and the federal government causes some problems in the area of the proper application of the law. The federal judiciary is a totally separate and self-governing branch of the U.S. Government.

It has the responsibility of protecting the rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It performs this function by interpreting and deciding the constitutionality of federal laws and resolving disputes that arise as a result of federal legislation. The original framers of the Constitution believed strongly that an independent judiciary was essential to ensuring that the laws of the nation were enforced fairly and equally to all citizens of the United States.

Toward this end it was decided that all federal judges would serve for life once appointed unless removed through the process of impeachment. Secondly, the Constitution requires that the compensation of federal judges cannot be diminished during their term in office. This requirement was intended to remove judges from the effects of popular passion and political influence. Congress' power over the judiciary is limited but still important.

First, Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of all courts beneath the Supreme Court and how many judges will sit in each district. Second, Congress has, through the confirmation process the power to determine who sits on each bench. The President appoints members to the Court but Congress must affirm each appointment. Finally, Congress also controls the budget of each federal court. Although the federal judiciary's budget is minimal when compared with the entire budget, Congress still remains in control of what is allocated.

Under the Constitution there are two types of Courts. The first type was created under Article III of the Constitution and is the type that most citizens recognize. It is in this type of court that most legal decisions that affect ordinary citizens are determined. There is another type of court created under Article I of the Constitution that are created for specialized purposes such as taxes, customs, and military affairs. Appeals from this type of courts, however, can ordinarily be taken to Article III courts. The federal.