CHAPTER 18:1: Jurisdiction and the Courts

CHAPTER 18:1: Jurisdiction and the Courts

Chapter 18:1 o We will examine the reasons why the national court system was established. o We will determine the two bases upon which federal courts hear and decides cases.

Deu_1:17 Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God's: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.

Creation of the National Judiciary: o The Judicial power of the United States shall be vested in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. o Article III, Section 1:

Dual Court System: o Two Separate Court Systems in the United States. o National Judiciary that spans the country with its more than 100 courts. o Each of the 50 States have their own system of courts. o Their numbers run well into the thousands, and most of the cases that are heard in court today are heard in those State, not the Federal Courts.

Two Kinds of Federal Courts: o Supreme Court o Congress can create inferior courts, the lower federal courts beneath the Supreme Court. o Congress created two distinct types of federal courts. o (1) Constitutional Courts o (2) Special Courts

Two Kinds of Federal Courts: o Constitutional Courts are those federal courts that congress has created under Article III to exercise judicial power. o Together with the Supreme Court, they now include the courts of appeal, district courts and the U.S. Court of International Trade. o They are also called regular courts.

Two Kinds of Federal Courts: o Special Courts do not exercise the broad judicial power of the U.S. o Rather were created to cases arising out of some expressed power given to Congress in Article I Section 8 that hear much narrow range of cases than Constitutional Courts. o Included are military courts in this category.

Federal Courts Jurisdiction: o The Constitutional courts hear most of the cases tried in the federal courts. o This is called Jurisdiction. o Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court to hear (to try and to decide) a case.

Federal Courts Jurisdiction: o Federal Courts may hear cases either because of: o Subject matter o The parties involved in the case.

Federal Courts Jurisdiction: o Subject Matter: May hear a case if it involves a federal question that is the interpretation and application of a provision in the Constitution or in any federal statute or treaty or question on maritime or admiralty law. o Framers gave the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction in all admiralty and maritime cases in order to ensure national supremacy in cases in waterborne commerce.

Federal Courts Jurisdiction: o A Case falls within the jurisdiction of the federal courts if one of the parties involved in the case is o (1) The United States or one of its officers or agencies o (2) An ambassador or consul or other official representative of a foreign government.

Federal Courts Jurisdiction: o (3) One of the 50 States suing another state or a resident of another State or a foreign government or one of its subjects. o (4) A citizen of one state suing a citizen of another state. o (5) An American citizen suing a foreign government or one of its subjects. o (6) A Citizen of a state suing another citizen of that same State where both claim title to land under grants from different States.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: o Federal Courts have exclusive jurisdiction. o That is, those cases can only be heard in federal courts. o For example, case involving a ambassador or some other official of a foreign government cannot be heard in a State court; it must be tried in a federal court.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: o A trial of a person charged with a federal crime, or a suit involving the infringement of a patent or a copy right, or an act of Congress also falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: o Many cases may be tried in either a federal or state court, in such instances, the federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction, they share the power to hear those cases. o Disputes involving citizens of different states are common examples of this type of case. o Such cases are known in the law as case in diverse citizenship.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: o Congress has provided that the federal district courts may hear cases in diverse citizenship only if the amount of money involved in case is at least $75,000. o In such cases the plaintiff the one who initiates the suit may bring the case in the proper state or federal court, as he or she chooses.

EXCLUSIVE AND CONCURRENT JURISDICTION: o If the case is brought before the state court, the defendant, the party who must defend against the complaint may have it moved to federal court. o Federal courts are used as neutral forums from juries that maybe prejudiced or more sympathetic to the home field advantage syndrome.

ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION: o A court in which a case is heard first is said to have original jurisdiction over that case. o A court that hears a case on appeal from a lower court has appellate jurisdiction over that case. o The higher court, the appellate court may uphold, overrule, or in some way modify the decision appealed from the lower court.

ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION: o In the federal court system, the district courts have only original jurisdiction and the courts of appeals have only appellate jurisdiction. o The Supreme Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction.

Discussion Questions o Find a partner and discuss if the following laws should be heard under state or federal courts and explain why you think so. o Rights for international students to attend public school. o If a student at a public university is unable to have a test scheduled on Saturday moved to another day because he/she is a Seventh-day Adventist. o When Chicken found in KFC is found to have cancer causing agents. o Internet issues. o The treatment of out of state tourists in a particular state. o If a K pop group cancels a show in the last minute when people all around the U.S. arranged tickets and hotels to attend the concert.

Federal Judges: o The Constitution declares that the President shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the supreme court Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.

Federal Judges: o The Senate has a major part in selection of every federal judge. o In effect, the Constitution says that the President can name to the federal bench anyone whom the Senate will confirm. o Senatorial Courtesy, the president almost always selects someone the senators from the State recommend.

Federal Judges: o Constitution sets no age, residence, or citizenship requirements for federal judges. o Nor does it require that a judge have professional background in the law. o President s closest legal and political aides including the attorney general take lead in selecting federal judges. o Senators from the nominees home state and members of the judiciary committee along with members of the president s home party also have say.

Impact of Judicial Philosophy: o Another major impact on the judicial selection process is judicial philosophy. o All Federal judges make decisions in which they must interpret and apply provisions in the Constitution and acts of Congress. o They often decide questions of public policy and shape public policy.

Judicial Restraint: o Judicial Restraint believes that judges should decide case on the basis of the original intent of the Framers or those who enacted statutes involved in a case. o Precedent. A judicial decision that serves as a guide for settling later cases of a similar nature.

Judicial Restraint: o They say that the court should defer policy judgments made in the legislative and executive branches of the government, and in so doing, honor the basic premise of self government. o The right of the majority to determine public policy. o In short, they argue that elected legislators not appointed judges make law.

Judicial Activism: o Take a much broader view of judicial power. o They argue that provisions in the Constitution and in statute law should be interpreted and applied in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values especially in cases involving civil rights and social welfare issues.

Judicial Activism: o They believe that the courts should not be overly deferential to existing legal principles or to the judgment of elected officials.

Terms and Pay of Judges: o Judges of constitutional courts are appointed for life. o They serve until they resign, retire or die in office. o This life tenure was to ensure the independence of the federal judiciary.

Terms and Pay of Judges: o Federal judges may be removed from office only through the impeachment process. o Judges of special courts are not appointed for life. o They are appointed to 8 to 15 years and seldom reappointed.

Court Officers: o Primary mission of judges is to hear cases. o U.S. Magistrates are appointed to eight year terms who issue arrest warrants, often hear evidence to decide whether if person arrested on federal charge should be held for action by grand jury, and set bail in federal cases. o Federal judicial district has at least one bankruptcy judge that handles bankruptcy cases.

Court Officers: o The President and the Senate appoint a U.S. Attorney in federal judicial districts and serves as government prosecutors. o They represent the U.S. in all civil actions brought by or against the Federal Government in their districts.

Court Officers: o President and Senate also select U.S. Marshalls to serve at each district court. o They make arrests in federal criminal cases, hold accused persons in custody, secure jurors, serve legal papers, keep order in court rooms and execute court orders and decisions. o They also maintain security. o Marshalls and attorneys are appointed four year terms.

Discussion Questions Do you think the Supreme Court should exercise judicial restraint or judicial activism in their court cases? Do you think judges should serve for life?