Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of the supreme court
Similarities between the federal and state high courts
Role of the supreme court
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of the supreme court
The lower courts within their particular state or circuit are bound by, the higher courts. But there is the exception which are the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals and state courts. On all lower federal courts, a federal Supreme Court decision is mandatory in both the courts of appeals and district courts. However, only a state supreme court decision is mandatory on all appeals courts and trial courts in that particular state. Only when federal courts interpret and apply the federal law, the federal courts will bind other federal courts. Also, only when states interpret and apply state law the state courts will bind other state courts. There are times when a federal court must apply state law. When this is the case, then the state’s
interpretation of that law is mandatory in the federal court. Also, the federal court will still make a decision based on whether or not the state’s argument is consistent with the federal law. There are times when the state courts must sometimes decide issues of federal law. The federal courts do not bind them, except when it comes to the U.S. Supreme Court as in the case of Roe v Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973), The U.S. Supreme Court is mandatory on state courts when it decides an issue of federal law, such as Constitutional interpretation. The highest court in the land is the Supreme Court which the lower state court cannot overturn the case the supreme court case Roe v Wade. Although the states will attempt to change or overturn the findings at the state level, it will not be valid because the United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
United States v. Leon was a U.S. Supreme Court case about drug trafficking, where the Supreme Court created the exception of ?good faith? to the exclusionary rule. In August 1981, in Burbank, California, the California Police Department received an anonymous tip, accusing Armando Sanchez and Patsy Stewart as drug dealers. Police began watching their homes and followed leads based on the cars that were regularly seen at the homes. The police identified Alberto Leon and Ricardo Del Castillo as also being involved in the trafficking operation. Based on this surveillance and information
among the nation's founders about the need for individual states to retain significant legislative authority and judicial autonomy separate from federal control. The reason why we have a dual-court system is, back then; new states joining the union were assured of limited federal intervention into local affairs. The state legislatures were free to create laws, and state court systems were needed to hear cases in which violations of those laws occurred. Today, however, state courts do not hear cases involving alleged violations of federal law, nor do federal courts involve themselves in deciding issues of state law unless there is a conflict between local or state statues and federal constitutional guarantees. When that happens, claimed violations of federal due process guarantees especially those found in the Bill of Rights.
Texas politics is an interesting ecosystem of power, rules and regulations. Of course, in typical Texas fashion, most of the politics we engage in we do our own way. From governors who stay in office for a decade to our extremely diverse demographics, Texas is extremely unique. This uniqueness of course comes with its critics, benefits, and downsides. This is particularly true with the Texas Court system compared to both the federal courts and many other states.
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
First, according to justice.gov, “The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States.” The courts all have a different role to play in the judicial system. Court systems exist to provide justice for all. Now, the district court system is the beginning of the judicial system. A good amount of the cases handled by the district court system are either criminal or civil trial cases.
Felonious trials concerning federal laws may only be heard by federal courts; however, most illegal trials contain infractions of state laws, and the state court is the court that tries those violations. Trials against the United States and cases including precise federal acts are some claims state courts are not authorized to hear. In numerous circumstances, state courts and federal courts have “jurisdiction.” This authorizes parties to decide either state court or federal court to trial their case ("What the Federal Courts
The Public Justice’s amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court explains that, even when federal guideline preempts state legislation and that the Court has
The US court system consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The trial court is the first to hear the facts of a case and has original jurisdiction. The appellate court hears cases whose resolution is disputed by the losing party in the trial court. The supreme or high court hears cases whose outcome is disputed by the losing party in the appellate court. The supreme or high court chooses which cases warrant a hearing. The federal and the state court system have the same basic structure. Each consists of a trial court, an appellate court, and a supreme or high court. The Federal Court of Appeals has thirteen (13) circuits which cover most states except the District of Columbia. The federal system also has specialty courts such as the Court of Federal Claims and the United States Tax Court.
Each state has a supreme court. The federal U.S. Supreme Court is the highest level of the court systems. This is an individual’s last resort when trying to appeal their case. “Similar to appellate courts, they examine legal issues involved in specific criminal cases, and they have the power to order new trials in situations where the errors of the lower courts were so significant that the defendant may not have received a fair trial” (Wright, 2012). The state supreme courts can handle cases that deal with the constitutionality of state laws. The state supreme court has the authority to overturn these cases if they are found to violate the constitution. Unlike the state supreme courts, “the federal U.S. Supreme Court can overturn laws that were created by Congress or by any state” (Wright,
Then there is the state government which are responsible for governing affairs within their borders, and carrying out federal laws and programs at the state level. They are governed by their own constitutions and retain any rights that the U.S. Constitution does not exclusively grant to the federal government. The state government is limited as they cannot form alliances with other states and must honor and respect the laws and institutions of the other states. And finally there is the federal government which is the central and highest level of government in the U.S. It is divided into three branches and each branch has its own rights and power to check and balance the powers of each branch. The federal government has the power to regulate taxes, establish federal welfare programs and make laws in the interest of the nation as a whole. There are also limitations set to the federal government’s authority, as they cannot ask local law enforcements agencies to do minor administrative jobs. Although all levels of government have their own responsibilities there are limits to interfering with other governments
Whether a judge should be elected or appointed has been a topic for discussion since the creation of a judicial system. Depending on what side of the decision one may be on, there are some challenges that arise from each side. If a judge is elected, will he be judicious in his decision based on the law or based on his constituents? If the judge is appointed, will he be subject to the authority that appointed him, thereby slanting his decision to keep favor of the executive or legislator that appointed him? Mandatory retirement is also a question that brings about challenges. How old is too old? When does a judge become ineffective based on their age?
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
1 – There are five main methods of judicial selection that are used in the United States. These methods include: partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, legislative elections, gubernatorial appointment, and merit selection. Partisan election is where the judges are put on a ballot with the information of their political party being disclosed. Nonpartisan elections do not distinguish between political party affiliation. Legislative elections are where instead of the public or governor voting, the state legislators vote and choose the judges they want to serve. Gubernatorial appointment is, in essence, where the Governor of a state either A. Chooses a judge for an initial term. B. Selects a judge to fill a vacancy. or C. To retain a judge to serve an additional term. Finally, merit
In California, the courts are split up in two systems: federal and state. The federal court system, which coerce federal laws, rules and management, applies and interprets the Constitution of the U.S. The state court systems enforce laws, rules, and regulations of a given state, and applies and interprets the state’s own Constitution. California has two state courts, Trial and Appellate. In each county, there is one trial court. The judge, and occasionally the jury, “hears testimony and evidence and decides a case by applying the law to the facts of the case.” The court deals with all criminal and civil cases as well as appeals of small claims and misdemeanor cases.