How is the U.S. judicial system organized to ensure justice?
When Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789, it was, in effect, creating a dual court system in the United States. The new federal judicial system was set up alongside already-existing state judicial systems. For the most part, the two systems operate independently of one another, but they can overlap. This diagram shows how that dual system looks today.
One way to sort out what gets tried where in this dual system is to look at each court’s jurisdiction, or its authority to enforce laws. For example, state courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under state law. Federal courts are generally limited to cases involving federal law or the Constitution. Within each system, jurisdiction is limited by three factors: level in the court hierarchy, geographic reach, and type of case.
Level in the court hierarchy. Each level within the hierarchy of the state or federal court system has a set of responsibilities. Trial courts, at the bottom of the hierarchy, generally have original jurisdiction. This means they have the authority to hear a case for the first time.
Moving up the hierarchy, appeals courts have appellate jurisdiction. This means they have the authority to review decisions made in lower courts. Appeals courts do not second-guess jury decisions by reviewing the facts in a case. Instead, their focus is on whether the trial in the lower court was carried out in a fair manner, with no errors of law. An error of law is a mistake made by a judge in applying the law to a specific case.
Geographic reach. With the exception of the Supreme Court, courts hear cases that arise within certain geographic boundaries. Within a state judicial system, the geographic jurisdiction of a trial court is usually limited to the city or county in which that court operates. In the federal system, trial court districts are larger.
The geographic reach of appellate courts is greater than that of trial courts. Most states have regional appeals courts and a state supreme court. The federal system has 13 appellate courts. The U.S. Supreme Court accepts cases from anywhere in the United States and its territories.
Type of case. A case’s subject matter also determines where it will be tried. At both the state and the federal levels, the typical trial court has general jurisdiction. This means the court can hear cases covering a variety of subjects.
Some courts, however, have limited jurisdiction. This means they specialize in certain kinds of cases. Traffic courts deal only with traffic violations. Bankruptcy courts only hear cases involving bankruptcy issues. Juvenile courts work only with young of fenders.
State courts are the workhorses of the judicial system, handling several million cases a year. In 2010, the combined caseload of the 50 states and Puerto Rico totaled around 100 million cases. This equals roughly one case for every three people. Nearly half of these cases were traffic related. In contrast, the entire federal system hears fewer cases each year than do the courts of a medium-size state.
State court systems vary in their structures. However, most states have four general levels of courts: trial courts of limited jurisdiction, trial courts of general jurisdiction, intermediate appellate courts, and courts of last resort.
Trial courts of limited jurisdiction. Local courts that specialize in relatively minor criminal offenses or civil disputes handle most of the cases filed each year. They are known as justice-of-the-peace courts, magistrate courts, municipal courts, city courts, county courts, traffic courts, or small-claims courts, depending on the state and the types of cases they hear. Their hearings are generally informal and do not involve jury trials. Cases heard in these courts may be appealed to trial courts.
Trial courts of general jurisdiction. General trial courts handle most serious criminal cases and major civil disputes. They are of ten called superior, district, or circuit courts. In rural areas, general trial court judges may have to travel within a large circuit to try cases. In urban areas, general trial court judges may specialize in criminal, family, juvenile, civil, or other types of cases.
Intermediate appellate courts. Intermediate courts of appeals hear appeals from general trial courts. Though the structure varies from state to state, most state appeals courts employ three-judge panels to hear and decide cases.
Courts of last resort. The name of the appeals court at the top of the state system varies from state to state. The most common name is state supreme court. Most of ten, these “courts of last resort” convene in the state’s capital. Their jurisdiction includes all matters of state law. Once a state supreme court decides a case, the only avenue of appeal left is the U.S. Supreme Court. Such appeals are limited, however, to cases that present a constitutional issue, which is a highly unlikely occurrence.
Each state has its own method of choosing the judges who preside over state courts. Nonetheless, there are three basic routes to a judgeship: election, appointment, or merit selection.
Judicial election. The oldest method of choosing state judges is through the election process. This method became popular during Andrew Jackson’s presidency in an effort to make U.S. politics more democratic. Supporters of this method argue that judicial elections provide a public forum for debating judicial issues. They also argue that elections allow voters to remove judges who have not upheld the public trust.
This method of choosing judges is not without its pitfalls, however. First, to fund their campaigns, judicial candidates must of ten seek contributions from lawyers and business that may eventually appear before them in court. This may interfere with their ability to be impartial. Second, voter turnout for judicial elections is notoriously low. Most voters simply do not know enough about judgeship candidates to cast a meaningful vote.
Judicial appointment. In a handful of states, judges are appointed by the governor or state legislature. This method relieves poorly informed voters of the responsibility of choosing judges. Nonetheless, it also has drawbacks. Governors of ten use their appointment power to award judgeships to those who have supported them politically. Similarly, state legislatures tend to appoint former lawmakers to be judges. Such appointees mayor may not be highly qualified to serve as judges.
Merit selection and retention elections. Finally, many judges are selected through a process that combines appointments and elections. Under this system, a committee nominates candidates for judgeships based on their merits, or qualifications. The governor then appoints judges from this list.
After a fixed period, usually a year, voters are asked to confirm or reject the appointment in a retention election. The ballot in such an election typically reads, “Shall Judge X be retained in office?” If a majority of voters answer yes, the judge remains in office for a longer term. If a majority says no, which rarely happens, the judge is removed from office.
Supporters of this process argue that it takes the politics out of judicial appointments by focusing on candidates’ qualifications rather than on their political connections or popularity with voters. At the same time, merit selection allows voters to review a judge’s performance on the bench from time to time. Opponents argue that this method gives the public too little control over judges.