Federal and State Courts: Structure and Interaction

"Federal and State Courts: Structure and Interaction

In the United States, the federal government and the states each have their own set of laws and their own court systems. Federal and state courts vary in structure, with significant differences between the federal and state judiciaries as well as variation among the different states. Federal and state courts generally operate separately, but there is not an absolute division between the federal and state judicial systems. Sometimes, state courts decide questions of state law and federal courts decide questions of federal law. However, state courts can also hear many types of federal law claims, and there are circumstances in which federal courts apply state law. Federal courts can also review state court decisions that may conflict with the U.S. Constitution or federal law. In addition, cases or legal issues can move between the two judicial systems. This report provides an overview of the different structures and functions of federal and state courts and the relationship between the two judicial systems.

The report first provides an overview of the federal judiciary. The federal judicial system includes courts established under Article III of the Constitution, with judges who are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Judges appointed to these courts hold office “during good Behaviour” (which has been interpreted to grant them tenure for life unless they resign or are impeached and removed) and are also protected from having their salaries diminished while in office. The federal judicial system also includes other tribunals, sometimes called Article I courts or legislative courts, whose judges do not have the same constitutional protections as Article III judges. The Constitution limits the matters Article I courts can decide, but these courts can hear cases in territorial courts and military courts, “public rights” cases involving disputes between private actors and the government, and cases where decisionmakers serve as “adjuncts” to Article III courts.

This report also surveys key features of state court systems, highlighting general trends and differences between the state and federal judicial systems. It then discusses legal issues concerning the relationship between federal and state courts, including the jurisdiction of federal and state courts, when state courts apply federal law and vice versa, federal review of state court decisions and other state actions, and how cases or legal issues may move between state and federal court. The report concludes with discussion of selected considerations for Congress, including whether to direct cases to federal or state court and federal funding for federal and state courts. An appendix to the report includes additional information about selection and retention of judges on each state’s highest court..."
Federal and State Courts 

Who Interprets Foreign Law in U.S. Federal Courts?

"Federal courts are frequently called upon to evaluate foreign law in a variety of contexts—from routine breach of contract and tort claims to complex cases implicating the judicial branch’s role in internationalaffairs. In Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., the Supreme Court announced the standard of deference for U.S. federal courts to apply when considering a foreign government’s interpretation of its own law. Prior to the Court’s ruling, federal courts took a range of approaches on the degree of deference given to a foreign government’s official explanation of its domestic law. Some courts viewed a foreign nation’s interpretation as effectively binding (at least as long as it was reasonable), but others were willing to deviate from the nation’s position if it was inconsistent with prior statements or not supported by affidavits and expert testimony. In Animal Science Products, Inc., the Supreme Court unanimously held that federal courts must give “respectful consideration” to a foreign government’s interpretation, but they are not “bound to defer” to that position..."
Foreign law

Anniversary Marks Creation of U.S. Federal Court System
"September 24 marks the anniversary of a groundbreaking American invention – a federal court system separate from the individual state courts.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 was one of the first pieces of legislation enacted by the newly formed U.S. Congress. The law created a dual court system – federal and state – that existed in no other country at the time. More than 220 years later, the system remains a vibrant protector of the rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution’s Article III was ratified in 1787, creating a Federal Judiciary that would feature the U.S. Supreme Court at its pinnacle. Left to Congress, however, was the job of fleshing out what the Constitution created.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established a three-tiered federal court system – the Supreme Court, three appellate courts, and 13 district courts. The Act also provided the courts and the justice system with needed staff..."

Comparison of Rights in Military Commission Trials and Trials in Federal Criminal Court
"Attorney General Holder’s decision to try certain detainees in federal criminal court, including
those accused of conspiring to commit the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and to try other detainees by
military commission, has focused attention on the procedural differences between trials in federal
court and those conducted under the Military Commissions Act, as recently amended. Some who
are opposed to the decision argue that bringing detainees to the United States for trial poses a
security threat and risks disclosing classified information, or could result in the acquittal of
persons who are guilty. Others have praised the decision as recognizing the efficacy and fairness
of the federal court system and have voiced confidence in the courts’ ability to protect national
security while achieving justice that will be perceived as such among U.S. allies abroad. Some
continue to object to the planned trials of detainees by military commission, despite the
amendments Congress enacted as Title XVIII of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2010, P.L. 111-84, because they say it demonstrates a less than full commitment to
justice or that it casts doubt on the strength of the government’s case against those detainees..."