The U.S. court system is founded on the principle of federalism, which seeks to find a delicate equilibrium between a robust central authority and the autonomy of individual states, thereby accommodating the flexibility and adaptation required for diverse regional needs and preferences. In a federalism system, power is distributed between a central, national government and regional, state governments. Each level of government possesses its own distinct set of powers and responsibilities, typically delineated in their respective constitutions, thereby establishing a framework for the relationship between the national and state governments. Operative within their designated spheres, both levels of government function independently. In the U.S., this translates into the establishment of a federal court system by Congress, while each individual state retains the authority to formulate its own judicial structure. This dual court system is meticulously designed to balance the power between the federal and state governments, concurrently facilitating the resolution of disputes on various levels. Such a structure not only upholds the independence of federal and state courts within their respective jurisdictions but also ensures a nuanced and effective legal framework.

Jurisdiction and Venue

In the early years of our nation’s development, federal courts wielded minimal authority. It wasn’t until the mid-nineteenth century that Congress initiated the passage of laws aimed at expanding the scope of the federal court system. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court occupies a crucial position in our country, issuing rulings on a wide array of issues that have a profound impact on every U.S. citizen.

Jurisdiction is the authority of power vested in a court to hear and decide a particular case. This fundamental concept determines the exact court authorized to adjudicate a specific legal matter, which serves as a critical foundation for the fair and effective administration of justice, preventing arbitrary legal actions and promoting the proper application of laws. The U.S. court system encompasses four primary types of jurisdiction: personal, subject matter, geographical, and hierarchical (Hemmens et al., 2010).

Personal jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in the legal realm, encompassing a court’s authority over the parties, individuals, or entities embroiled in a legal dispute. This jurisdiction hinges on several key factors, primarily whether the involved parties are citizens of the state in which the court operates. Additionally, personal jurisdiction extends to cases where individuals or entities commit acts within the state, irrespective of whether the nature of these actions is criminal or noncriminal. In essence, this legal principle ensures that a court has the necessary authority to intervene and preside over cases involving specific individuals or entities based on their connection to the geographical jurisdiction of the court. This nuanced understanding of personal jurisdiction serves as a cornerstone in the legal framework, providing a structured approach to adjudicating cases and delineating the court’s authority over the parties involved.

Subject matter jurisdiction is a crucial aspect of a court’s authority, dictating its ability to adjudicate specific types of cases. This form of jurisdiction ensures that different courts are designated to handle distinct categories of legal matters, aligning with their expertise and focus. For instance, family courts specialize in cases related to familial disputes, while bankruptcy courts exclusively address matters pertaining to bankruptcy proceedings. Moreover, specialized courts, such as those dedicated to juvenile, drug, or alcohol cases, fall under the purview of subject matter jurisdiction, ensuring that cases are heard by judges with expertise in the relevant legal field. This delineation of authority not only streamlines legal proceedings but also ensures that cases are adjudicated by judges well-versed in the nuances of the specific legal area, fostering a more informed and effective justice system.

Geographical jurisdiction, often referred to as venue, plays a pivotal role in determining the location where a case will be heard within the legal system. It essentially defines the geographical boundaries within which a court is authorized to adjudicate cases, spanning areas such as cities, districts, counties, or states. In simpler terms, for a court to entertain a case, the occurrence of the crime must align with the specific geographic jurisdiction of that court. For example, if an assault takes place in Washington State, the jurisdiction to prosecute the perpetrator resides with Washington State and the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted by another state, such as California; however, there are certain exceptions. Under certain circumstances, either the prosecutor or defendant can petition for a change of venue if they can demonstrate that the current venue is unsuitable for ensuring a fair trial. Such requests often arise in high-profile cases where prejudice against the victim or the defendant, or pre-existing opinions and bias relating to the trial are present within the community, potentially compromising the impartiality of the proceedings.

Another challenge related to venues is that not all crimes are confined to a single jurisdiction. For example, if an individual commits the same crime in two different counties within the same state, it is the responsibility of the respective counties to determine which court holds jurisdiction. However, in cases where a crime, such as kidnapping, unfolds in two distinct states, both states can retain jurisdiction. Consequently, in this particular instance, the defendant could face kidnapping charges in both states without contravening the prohibition of double jeopardy.

Hierarchical jurisdiction represents the authority levels of courts within a tiered organizational structure, where each level possesses specific jurisdiction and responsibilities for certain types of cases. This hierarchical arrangement ensures a systematic approach to legal proceedings, appeals, and the interpretation of laws, with higher courts having the authority to review and overturn decisions made by lower courts within their respective jurisdictions. This tiered structure contributes to maintaining consistency in legal interpretation and provides an effective mechanism for resolving disputes at varying levels of complexity.

The concept of hierarchical jurisdiction is observable in both state and federal court systems. At the state level, there are trial courts of limited jurisdiction, handling specific case types like traffic, juvenile, or misdemeanors, and trial courts of general jurisdiction that address a wide range of criminal and civil cases without limitations. Many states also have intermediate courts of appeals, which have the power to overrule or affirm decisions from trial courts, and state supreme court, that act as the ultimate authority on state legal matters. In the federal system, district courts serve as trial courts, courts of appeals function as intermediate appellate courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court stands as the highest court in the U.S.

Federal Courts

The U.S. federal court system is organized in a three-tiered pyramid. The foundational tier comprises trial courts, strategically located across ninety-four judicial districts. Above this tier, there are thirteen courts of appeals, organized into twelve regional circuit courts of appeals and one federal circuit court of appeals. At the pinnacle of the system stands the U.S. Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate appellate court. Typically, cases progress through the hierarchy from trial courts to courts of appeals, and in exceptional circumstances, they may reach the U.S. Supreme Court for final adjudication. This hierarchical structure ensures a systematic approach to legal proceedings, appeals, and the interpretation of laws. Higher courts have the authority to review and overturn decisions made by lower courts within their jurisdiction, maintaining consistency in legal interpretation and providing a mechanism for resolving disputes at different levels of complexity.

Federal District Courts

In 1789, Congress enacted the Judiciary Act, marking a significant milestone in the establishment of U.S. district courts. These federal district courts have evolved since their inception to become the backbone of the federal court system, serving as the primary trial courts. The strategic distribution of the ninety-four federal district courts across the U.S. ensures that every state, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, has access to at least one district court. These district courts are commonly recognized as the “workhorses” of the federal court system, managing substantial caseloads with efficiency. In 2021 alone, these courts processed a staggering 526,477 cases, encompassing 461,478 civil cases and 64,999 criminal cases (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2021). As of 2023, there were 677 active federal district judges, according to Federal Courts Management Statistics for that year (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 2023).

Federal district court judges presiding over criminal trials hold lifetime appointments, a selection made by the President and subject to approval from the Senate. This lifetime tenure ensures judicial independence and stability. Additionally, these courts employ both full-time and part-time magistrate judges, who play a crucial role in the legal process. Magistrate judges are responsible for conducting preliminary hearings and issuing warrants, contributing to the effective functioning of the federal district court system. This comprehensive framework ensures the fair and efficient administration of justice in the federal courts, upholding the principles of the U.S. legal system.

U.S. Court of Appeals: Circuit Courts

The U.S. Courts of Appeals, commonly known as federal circuit courts, function as intermediate appellate courts. Their primary responsibility is to review decisions made by the U.S. district courts, ensuring adherence to legal procedures and accurate interpretations of the law. The U.S. is separated into 13 geographical circuits, each encompassing one U.S. Federal Courts of Appeals. Figure 8.9 illustrates the distribution of all 50 states across 11 circuits, with the District of Columbia and the federal government each having one dedicated circuit. This structural arrangement facilitates a systematic and efficient appellate process within the federal court system.

The U.S. Court of Appeals only hears appeals cases within their designated circuit. For example, if a defendant opts to appeal their conviction for a federal crime committed in Idaho, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, their appeal would be adjudicated by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This principle applies uniformly to all nine states, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, collectively residing within the 9th circuit’s jurisdiction.

In the appellate process, when a case is presented before an appeals court, a three-judge panel convenes to deliberate on both oral and written arguments. Subsequently, the panel casts votes to determine whether to uphold, overturn, or modify the ruling of the lower court. In this decision-making process, a majority vote, such as 2-1 or 3-0, serves as the conclusive outcome for the three-judge panel. This mechanism ensures that a clear majority perspective shapes the ultimate decision regarding the disposition of the case.

The interpretation of laws has occasionally diverged among different circuit courts of appeals. For instance, the case of Whren v. United States in 1996 marked a pivotal moment in addressing the constitutionality of employing race as the sole factor for law enforcement stops. However, subsequent rulings by various circuit courts introduced nuanced perspectives on this matter. In 1999, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in United States v. Montero-Camargo, declared that it is unconstitutional for police officers to consider race as any factor when deciding to stop an individual. This decision took a more restrictive stance against the use of race in law enforcement stops. Conversely, in the year 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in Brown v. City of Oneonta, presented a contrasting viewpoint by ruling that race can be a legitimate factor for a law enforcement stop, as long as it is not the sole determining factor. This decision allowed for a more flexible approach in considering race within a broader context of factors influencing a police stop. These varied interpretations underscore the ongoing legal debates surrounding the use of race in law enforcement practices, with different circuit courts adopting divergent perspectives on the constitutional boundaries of such practices.

Similarly, legal interpretations diverged when it came to the provision of sex reassignment surgery for transgender inmates. In the case of Gibson v. Collier (2019), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is constitutional for prisons to decline offering sex reassignment surgery to transgender inmates. This decision upheld the discretion of prisons in determining the medical procedures provided to inmates undergoing gender transition. Contrastingly, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took a different stance in Edmo v. Corizon (2019), asserting that prisons are obligated to provide sex reassignment surgery for transgender inmates. This ruling established a legal precedent that emphasizes the necessity of ensuring access to gender-affirming medical procedures for transgender individuals within the prison system. These divergent decisions highlight the ongoing legal debates and varying perspectives surrounding the rights and medical care of transgender inmates, with different circuit courts adopting contrasting positions on the constitutional obligations of prisons in providing sex reassignment surgery.

U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court, often hailed as the apex of the federal judiciary and deemed the “court of last resort,” holds the pivotal role of the ultimate interpreter of federal law. Endowed with the authority to scrutinize decisions originating from lower courts, the U.S. Supreme Court boasts nationwide jurisdiction, enabling it to adjudicate cases from any corner of the country.

In contrast to federal circuit courts, which are compelled to hear all federal criminal cases on appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court operates with a notable distinction. The U.S. Supreme Court possesses discretionary power, with very few exceptions, to choose whether to accept or decline appellate cases. Its docket is carefully curated, and the Court exercises selectivity in determining which cases it will review. When a party seeks review by the U.S. Supreme Court, they must first file a petition for a writ of certiorari. The decision to accept a case is guided by “the rule of four,” requiring at least four justices to vote in favor of hearing the appeal. While the majority of Supreme Court cases involve writs of certiorari (constituting 85-90% of the docket), there are alternative avenues for case acceptance, such as interstate disputes or when lower courts seek certification from the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify or rule on a specific legal matter (Hemmens et al., 2010).

The U.S. Supreme Court routinely grapples with constitutional issues, legal conflicts between circuit courts, and cases of paramount national significance. Annually, the Court faces a considerable caseload, with approximately 7,000 cases seeking its review, and it ultimately accepts only around 100 to 150 cases for adjudication per year (Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, n.d.). Presently, the U.S. Supreme Court is composed of nine justices, including a chief justice; although, it is crucial to note that Congress holds the authority to adjust the number of justices. Justices, appointed for life, are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, underscoring the enduring and influential nature of their roles on the nation’s highest court.

State Courts

Court structures across the U.S. exhibit considerable diversity, typically with significant variations observed from state to state. Each state’s court system is shaped by its unique legal history, jurisdictional requirements, and legislative framework. As a result, state court structures encompass a spectrum of complexity, ranging from relatively straightforward arrangements, as depicted in Figures 8.12 and 8.13, to more intricate systems, as illustrated in Figures 8.14 and 8.15 below. While some states may have a centralized court system with a hierarchical structure, others may feature a multifaceted system characterized by numerous tiers and specialized courts that preside over different types of cases. Additionally, the complexity of court structures often reflects the diversity and volume of legal matters within a state, as well as historical and cultural factors influencing the development of its legal system. These differences in court organization reflect the unique legal traditions, historical developments, and legislative mandates within each state, contributing to a rich tapestry of judicial administration across the nation. Understanding these variations is crucial for legal practitioners, policymakers, and citizens alike in navigating the judicial landscape and ensuring fair and effective administration of justice.

Courts of Limited jurisdiction

Trial courts of limited jurisdiction serve as vital components of the legal system. Encompassing various names such as magistrate’s courts, municipal courts, and county courts, these courts preside over the most common legal matters, primarily addressing minor criminal and civil offenses, traffic violations, and breaches of local ordinances. Beyond these responsibilities, these courts may also be tasked with setting bail, conducting preliminary hearings in more serious cases, and issuing warrants. While not universally present in every state, courts of limited jurisdiction are common; although, it is important to note that the majority of these courts function independently from the state court system, being both funded and operated by city or county governments (Hemmens et al., 2010).

Since trial courts of limited jurisdiction typically operate independently from the state court system and decide cases regarding relatively minor offenses and punishments, defendants are not granted a traditional trial and instead, their cases are heard only by a judge. Furthermore, if a defendant is unsatisfied with the court’s decision, rather than proceeding to an appellate court, they may request a trial de novo, which constitutes an entirely new trial. Depending on the state, these new trials are heard at the same court of limited jurisdiction or escalate to a court of general jurisdiction.

While rarely making headlines in the news and media, courts of limited jurisdiction bear the majority of the caseload. Despite their lesser visibility, these courts play a crucial role in addressing the most common legal matters, often representing the only direct interaction with the legal system for many individuals. For instance, in 2022, Florida’s courts of limited jurisdiction presided over a substantial 78.4% of all incoming trial cases, according to the Court Statistics Project (Gibson et al., 2023). Similarly, during this same year, in North Carolina, a significant 87.7% of all incoming trial cases were adjudicated by the courts of limited jurisdiction.

Courts of General jurisdiction

Courts of general jurisdiction, known by various names such as superior courts, circuit courts, district courts, or courts of common pleas, conduct trials for most felony cases and more serious misdemeanors, and civil cases. Additionally, they preside over all criminal and civil trial cases not designated for the courts of limited jurisdiction.

In instances where the potential punishment is substantial, the accused may opt for a jury trial, allowing them to present their case before a group of their peers. Alternatively, if there is no possibility of imprisonment or if the accused waives their right to a jury, a bench trial takes place, where the determination of guilt or innocence resides with a judge.

While courts of general jurisdiction typically manage fewer cases than their limited jurisdiction counterparts, their workload is contingent on the specific needs of the population they serve. For instance, expounding on the previous example, Florida’s courts of general jurisdiction received 21.6% of incoming trial cases in 2022, while North Carolina’s received only 12.3% during that same year (Gibson et al., 2023). In more densely populated regions, the courts of limited jurisdiction might be more prevalent, allowing general jurisdiction courts to focus exclusively on felony cases. Conversely, in less populated areas, the court of general jurisdiction may assume responsibility for adjudicating all criminal cases, spanning from more serious felonies to very minor offenses.

State Intermediate Appellate Courts

Intermediate appellate courts constitute the subsequent tier in the judicial system, with 40 states incorporating some form of these courts (Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System, 2014). Designated by various names such as the court of appeals, appellate division, appellate court, or appeals courts, depending on the state, these institutions are central to the legal structure. Notably, in states such as Nebraska, a singular appellate court serves the entire state, while other states with more extensive judicial infrastructures may boast multiple appellate courts divided into judicial districts. Washington State, for example, strategically places their appellate courts into three judicial districts located in Seattle, Tacoma, and Spokane. By contrast, ten states, such as Wyoming, lack an intermediate appellate court, therefore directing all appeals in these states straight to the state supreme court. Details about each state’s court structures, including appellate courts, can be found on the National Center for State Courts’ “State Court Structures” interactive map.

Unlike courts of general or limited jurisdiction, appellate courts do not conduct trials. In most states, a single intermediate appellate court case is typically adjudicated by three-judge panels simultaneously, as depicted in Figure 8.16 below. However, the exact number of judges on a panel can vary by state. During the intermediate appellate court process, the panel of judges review records from trial courts, including testimonies, evidence, and overall procedures, without the inclusion of new evidence or information. One crucial responsibility they bear is ensuring procedural fairness for the appellant throughout the trial court proceedings. However, rulings of appellate courts significantly influence the legal landscape, shaping legal precedent, guiding lower courts, and contributing to the overall fairness of the judicial system.

State Supreme Courts

The state supreme court, also known as the court of last resort, handles appellate cases and plays a pivotal role in the legal hierarchy. Most appeals cases are heard on a discretionary basis, granting the court the option to either accept or decline a case. If the court opts to decline, it signifies the court’s lack of position on the case, and the decision of the intermediate appellate court stands unaltered.

The composition of state supreme courts varies, with states having five, seven, or nine justices serving on the bench. In forty-seven states and the District of Columbia, there are term limits for supreme court justices. By contrast, in states such as Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, justices are given a lifetime appointment, although New Hampshire imposes an age limit of 70 (New Hampshire Judicial Branch, n.d.).

State supreme courts often serve as the final recourse for most cases, unless the losing party can demonstrate that the case has involvement of a federal law or the U.S. Constitution. In such instances, the losing party can directly appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Similar to the intermediate courts of appeals, state supreme courts do not entertain new evidence or retry cases. Instead, their role is to ensure the constitutional adherence of the process, scrutinize the interpretation of laws by lower courts, and uphold the principles of justice.

Attributions

1. Figure 8.7: The present state of our country by William Charles in the Public Domain; This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929.
2. Figure 8.8: Albert V Bryan Federal District Courthouse – Alexandria Va – 0006 – 2012-03-10 by Tim Evanson is released under CC BY-SA 2.0
3. Figure 8.9: U.S. Federal Courts Circuit Map PD by U.S. Department of Justice in the Public Domain; This image is a work of a United States Department of Justice employee, taken or made as part of that person’s official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain (17 U.S.C. § 101 and 105).
4. Figure 8.10: Supreme Court Of The United States (193413861) by Jesse Collins is released under CC BY 3.0
5. Figure 8.11: Washington State Court Structures by Wesley B. Maier and Kadence C. Maier is released under CC BY 4.0
6. Figure 8.12: Illinois State Court Structures by Wesley B. Maier and Kadence C. Maier is released under CC BY 4.0
7. Figure 8.13: Texas State Court Structure by Wesley B. Maier and Kadence C. Maier is released under CC BY 4.0
8. Figure 8.14: New York State Court Structure by Wesley B. Maier and Kadence C. Maier is released under CC BY 4.0
9. Figure 8.15: Municipal Building from Court Square, Springfield, Mass. by Detroit Publishing Co. in the Public Domain; This work is from the Library of Congress. According to the LOC, there are no known copyright restrictions on the use of this work.
10. Figure 8.16: Historic 9th District Court of Appeals by Catherine Read is released under CC BY-ND 2.0
11. Figure 8.17: King Kamehameha Statue by Daniel Ramirez is released under CC BY 2.0