Term Paper on "Federal Courts"

Term Paper 9 pages (2633 words) Sources: 0

[EXCERPT] . . . .

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… READ MORE

How to Reference "Federal Courts" Term Paper in a Bibliography

Related Term Papers:

Federal Court Has the Power Term Paper

federal court has the power to determine the legality of a challenged action as long as the government in question has not taken steps to make that type of action… read more

Term Paper 2 pages (512 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

U.S. Federal Court System Is Made Up Essay

U.S. federal court system is made up of three branches -- the Supreme Court, the district courts and the appeals courts. Each of these three branches of the federal court… read more

Essay 3 pages (969 words) Sources: 2 Style: MLA Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Judicial Process in the Federal Courts Essay

Judicial Process in the Federal Courts

Federal Judicial Process

Throughout the United States there are two courts of law, the state and the federal courts. The federal courts are broken… read more

Essay 2 pages (613 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Law / Legal / Jurisprudence

---

Courts What Is the Dual-Court System? Term Paper

Courts

What is the dual-court system? Why do we have a dual-court system in America? Could the drive toward court unification eventually lead to a monolithic court system? Would such… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (980 words) Sources: 3 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction Unlike Local and State Term Paper

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction

Unlike local and state laws, the United States Constitution, the U.S. Code, and the Federal Regulations are the source of federal law. However, there are certain distinct… read more

Term Paper 3 pages (1273 words) Sources: 0 Topic: Crime / Police / Criminal Justice

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>