American Judicial Structure - Essay Example

Federalism and the American Judicial Structure: The Issue of Harmony This essay will examine the dual court structure that exists in the United States of America. The dualism refers to the separation of judicial systems into federal courts and state courts. The results can, at times, be overwhelming, given the fact that there is a federal judicial system and fifty state judicial systems in addition to a judicial system reserved to the District of Columbia. There are specific rules and limitations which attempt to harmonize these separate court structures, and these rules and regulations are most firmly rooted in the notions of geographical power, subject matter power, and hierarchal roles (Neubauer, 2005: 52-53). In order to illuminate how these courts are in fact harmonized, this essay will examine the role and the jurisdiction of the federal courts, the role and the jurisdiction of state courts, and some nagging problems such as double jeopardy. 1.1 Federal Courts As an initial matter, it is important to note that federal courts are limited in important ways. First, they are limited geographically. This means that there must be certain minimum contacts between a party or a defendant and a particular federal court in order for that federal court to have power to decide the case. Second, federal courts are limited in the types of cases in which they have power to make a decision. This is referred to as subject matter jurisdiction, and in America there is essentially a two-fold basis for exercising subject matter jurisdiction. The first basis is diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. This means that federal courts may hear and decide cases when the parties are residents or citizens of different states. A dispute between a partnership from Florida and a corporation from Oregon, for instance, would be a proper foundation for federal jurisdiction. The second basis is referred to as federal question jurisdiction. This is a legal dispute which arises from a federal law or the Constitution. This jurisdiction is limited because federal law does not cover every possible situation; in addition, the Constitution cannot be invoked as a basis for federal jurisdiction unless a party was aggrieved by state action (“Understanding the Federal Courts”, 2006: np). Finally, the federal courts are also limited by hierarchal considerations. There are trial courts, designated Federal District Courts, intermediate courts of appeal, and the United States Supreme Court. As one moves up the hierarchy, the federal courts have increasing discretion to hear or to reject cases and controversies. To be sure, the United States Supreme Court actually accepts very few of the cases submitted to it for resolution. The findings and holdings of the courts lower in the hierarchy thus become final and binding. In sum, although the federal courts are empowered to hear and to decide many types of cases there are very real limitations. These limitations, or gaps, are in large part filled by the separate state court systems. 1.2 State Courts State courts are vested with the responsibility of deciding conflicts and controversies under a state’s constitution and other laws. There are similarities with the federal system to the extant that state courts are also limited by geographical, subject matter, and hierarchal considerations. The trial courts tend to be divided into courts of limited jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Local governments tend to create and administer the trial courts of limited jurisdiction whereas states control and administer the trial courts of general jurisdiction. The limited jurisdiction courts are extraordinarily numerous, more than 13,500 in the United States (Neubauer, 2005: 82), and are excluded from the scope of this essay. From the strict point of view of the state, courts are divided into trial courts, appellate courts, and a supreme court. The laws may differ significantly from federal laws to the extant that states may set higher safeguards than those established in the Constitution or in federal laws. In addition, federal legislators are empowered to pass federal laws which, in effect, preempt contradictory state laws. This preemption, though sometimes controversial, functions to preserve harmony in the administration of the separate judicial systems. There is, nonetheless, the existence of conflict and it becomes extremely important to draw bright lines separating the two judicial systems. Otherwise, the potential for conflict and court shopping would become a big problem. For the most part, the judicial systems have been kept separate. An exception is an issue referred to as double jeopardy. 1.3 The Double Jeopardy Issue: A Lack of Harmony Most generally, double jeopardy is a legal principle incorporated into the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution which states that “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” The basic idea is that people may not be charged separately or multiple times for the same offense. The goal is to prevent abuse by prosecutorial authorities. O.J. Simpson, for example, was aquitted of murder and thereafter could not be tried for the same offense in the same court. He was, however, charged with a different offense, wrongful death, based on the same set of underlying facts. The important question is the coverage of double jeopardy and whether exceptions such as those found in the O.J. Simpson case damage important harmony interests between federal and state courts. It would appear that the exceptions do, in fact, cause overlaps which are damaging to the integrity of two separate systems. 1.4 Conclusions In the final analysis, given the complexity of administering so many different courts and sets of laws, it would appear that the dual judicial systems are fairly harmonious. Doctrines such as preemption require harmony, and detailed geographical, subject matter, and hierarchal rules reinforce the separate roles and functions to be assumed by federal and state courts. That, said, the harmony is not perfect; indeed, the issues raised by the coverage of the double jeopardy clause illustrate how the aforementioned rules can be avoided and their underlying principles subverted. The system is good, but it can be better, and avoiding the clever interpretations afforded to the double jeopardy clause would be a good start at firming up the separation of the systems in the name of harmony and integrity. References Fifth Amendment. United States Constitution. Neubauer, D.W. (2005). America's Courts and the Criminal Justice System. 8th Edition, Wadsworth. “Understanding the Federal Courts: The Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts.” United States Courts Homepage. Accessed October 27, 2006. http://www.uscourts.gov/understand02/content_4_0.html Read More