This document discusses jurisdiction and policymaking boundaries of federal and state courts in the United States. It covers the jurisdiction of federal district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court over both criminal and civil cases. It also discusses how state courts have jurisdiction established similarly to the national court system. Finally, it outlines several principles of judicial self-restraint that courts follow, such as only ruling on actual cases and controversies, requiring specific pleas citing the Constitution, and overturning laws only on narrow constitutional grounds.
This document discusses jurisdiction and policymaking boundaries of federal and state courts in the United States. It covers the jurisdiction of federal district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court over both criminal and civil cases. It also discusses how state courts have jurisdiction established similarly to the national court system. Finally, it outlines several principles of judicial self-restraint that courts follow, such as only ruling on actual cases and controversies, requiring specific pleas citing the Constitution, and overturning laws only on narrow constitutional grounds.
This document discusses jurisdiction and policymaking boundaries of federal and state courts in the United States. It covers the jurisdiction of federal district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court over both criminal and civil cases. It also discusses how state courts have jurisdiction established similarly to the national court system. Finally, it outlines several principles of judicial self-restraint that courts follow, such as only ruling on actual cases and controversies, requiring specific pleas citing the Constitution, and overturning laws only on narrow constitutional grounds.
This document discusses jurisdiction and policymaking boundaries of federal and state courts in the United States. It covers the jurisdiction of federal district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court over both criminal and civil cases. It also discusses how state courts have jurisdiction established similarly to the national court system. Finally, it outlines several principles of judicial self-restraint that courts follow, such as only ruling on actual cases and controversies, requiring specific pleas citing the Constitution, and overturning laws only on narrow constitutional grounds.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
Carp Chapter 4: Jurisdiction and Policymaking Boundaries
1) Federal Courts Jurisdiction
a) U.S. District Courts i) Have original jurisdiction in federal criminal and civil cases ii) Criminal Cases (1) Covers a wide range of cases, most popular are embezzlement, theft, drunk driving, drug-related offenses, terrorist offenses, etc. (2) If no plea bargain is reached, the case goes to trial, and a federal appellate court can reverse the prison sentence (if the person is found guilty) if its found to be unreasonable. Government cant appeal a non guilty verdict (3) Bush passed laws after 9/11 that for the most part were reversed by the SC, which restored the Guantanamo prisoners the right of habeas corpus (4) In 2012 Obama passed an act that subjected Americans to detention under military instead of the legal system, but the wording makes things pretty unclear iii) Civil Cases (1) Usually involve the application of the Constitution, act of Congress, or U.S. treaties (2) Federal question must be raised in order for there to be jurisdiction (3) Patent and copyright claims, citizen disputes involving parties from different states or people outside of the country (4) Convicted prisoners who contend their incarceration is in violation of their federally protected rights b) U.S. Court of Appeals i) No original jurisdiction; everythings been first argued in some other forum ii) Has appellate jurisdiction in 2 main areas (1) Ordinary civil and criminal appeals from the trial courts (2) Appeals from certain federal administrative agencies and departments and also from important independent regulatory commissions c) U.S. Supreme Court i) Has some original jurisdiction (1) Suit between two or more states (2) US vs. a state (3) Issues with foreign ambassadors (4) Cases commenced by a state against citizens of another state or country ii) When jurisdiction is sharedconcurrent jurisdiction iii) Appellate jurisdiction (1) Appeals can be heard from all lower federal and territorial courts, and from most of federal legislative courts (2) May hear appeals from the highest court in a state iv) Most of the docket consists of cases the judges have issued a writ of certiorari, but another is way is certification (when an appeal court asks the SC for instructions and the SC takes the case for itself) 2) Jurisdiction of State Courts a) Established in basically the same way as those within the national court system
b) States have varying jurisdictions because of their differing state constitutions
3) Jurisdiction and Legislative Politics a) Justices more likely to exercise self-restraint and were less likely to use judicial review to invalidate acts of Congress when the Court perceived the congressional mood toward it to be hostile b) Congress tried to dissuade judges in other state from delivering same-sex marriage decisions via the Defense of Marriage act passed in 1996 under Clinton 4) Judicial Self-Restraint a) A Definite Controversy Must Exist i) Federal courts do not render advisory opinions (rulings about situations that are hypothetical or that have not caused an authentic clash between adversaries) (1) Cherokee Indian case people couldnt go to the court with hypothetical questions ii) Parties to the suit must have proper standingsthe person bring the suit must have suffered a direct and significant injury (1) Line-item veto from Clinton couldnt be declared unconstitutional until someone was actually injured as a result of the passing of the law iii) Courts will not hear a case that has become moot (1) Death of a litigant (2) Marco Defunis case, sued a law school because of unfair admissions even though he was admitted and in his final semester when it got the SC it was declared moot b) A Plea Must Be Specific i) Petitioner must be able to cite a specific part of the Constitution as the basis of the plea ii) Cant just say that the action violated the spirit of the Bill of Rights c) Beneficiaries May Not Sue i) The case will be rejected if the petitioner has been the beneficiary of the law (1) Farmer who benefits financially from a soil program cant sue after he finds out his neighbor is benefitting for free d) Appellate Courts Rule on LegalNot FactualQuestions i) AC wont hear cases if the grounds for appeal are that the grail judge or jury wrongly amassed and identified the basic factual elements of the case ii) Only legal matters are appropriate for appellate review iii) AC might review based on facts if the trial courts determination was clearly utterly wrong (the clearly erroneous rule) e) The SC Is Not Bound (Technically) By Precedents i) If the SC were inescapably bound by the dictates of its prior rulings, itd have very little flexibility ii) This gives the SC a corner of safety to which it can retreat to if necessary f) Other Remedies Must Be Exhausted i) Courts wont accept a case unless the case has gone through the lengthy legal process; SC cant just immediately take a case of magnitude ii) Exhaustion of remedies refers to possible administrative relief as well as adherence to the principle of a 3-tiered judicial hierarchy (i.e. appeal to an
g)
h)
i)
j)
administrative officer, a hearing before a committee, or consideration by a
legislative body) Courts Dont Answer Political Questions i) A political question is one that ought to be resolved by one of the two other branches of governmentin the ballot box, legislative halls, chambers of the executive ii) Ex When President Jimmy Carter acted on his own initiative to end the Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and Taiwan, the action was challenged by the courts by a number of Congressmen, but the high court refused to involve itself in this political question The Burden of Proof Is on the Petitioner i) Laws and official deeds are all presumed to be legal unless and until proven otherwise by a preponderance of evidence ii) Exception of this burden of proof principle is when civil rights and liberties issues are brought up Laws Are Overturned on the Narrowest Grounds Only i) A judge may have the option of invalidating an official action on statutory grounds rather than constitutional ones ii) Judges may invalidate only that portion of a law they find constitutionally defective instead of overturning the entire statute (1) Religious lawcongress only changed a detail of the law, changed the part of the law stating that for a 20 year period, no part of newly built college structures could be used for religious worship. Congress changed the law from 20 years to never No Rulings Are Made on the Wisdom of Legislation i) The only basis for declaring a law unconstitutional is that it violates the Constitution on its face ii) The law cant just be unfair or bad, it has to explicitly violate the Constitution