Great American Court Cases

The most basic function of the American legal system is to maintain peace by resolving disputes. Federal and state courts, tribunals, and administrative bodies do this by applying laws to cases between specific individuals or organizations.

The primary sources of applicable law are federal and state constitutions, statutes, and administrative regulations. Constitutions establish the structure of government, define and limit its power, and seek to protect individuals from unreasonable or unlawful exercises of that power. Legislatures enact statutes—criminal laws, for example—that govern a wide variety of conduct. Administrative bodies promulgate regulations to govern specific areas of business, such as telecommunications and securities.

In theory, courts apply these existing laws rather than creating new law. The legislatures and administrative bodies, however, cannot always anticipate every possible set of circumstances, and the laws do not clearly dictate a result in every case. Frequently, too, the law is intentionally vague to give the courts flexibility to interpret it in ways which serve general public policies rather than to accomplish specific results. There are, however, constitutional limits on how vague a law may be. In general, it must fairly apprise individuals of behavior that it prohibits or compels.

In practice, then, American courts often make law when they decide cases. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts at the same or lower level in the judicial hierarchy must follow the first court's interpretation of the law in subsequent cases with similar facts. Higher courts in the judicial hierarchy may either accept the lower court's interpretation or reverse it by interpreting the law differently. Courts in other states may rely on the first court's interpretation as persuasive authority concerning the application of similar laws in their states. This tradition of binding and persuasive authority is a by-product of the American judicial system's origins in the common law system of England.

Origins of the American Judicial System: State Judicial Systems

When America declared its independence in 1776, the 13 original colonies had largely informal judicial systems based loosely on the English system of common law. Common law is the body of law that developed in English courts on a case-by-case basis. Under the common law, judges placed great reliance on decisions in prior cases with similar facts. Although state courts today apply laws enacted by legislatures and administrative bodies, they continue the common law tradition of case-by-case interpretation of these laws and reliance on prior judicial decisions.

As the United States expanded southward and westward, it acquired Mexican, Spanish, and French territories, which had legal systems based on the European civil law tradition. Under that tradition, courts in Europe applied detailed civil codes that the legislatures had designed to resolve all potential disputes. Civil codes reflected the natural law concept that there are unchanging, God-made laws that govern human behavior. Unlike in common law systems, civil law courts were not supposed to interpret the law beyond what was provided in the civil codes—they simply resolved disputes by applying the appropriate portion of the code. While the English common law tradition dominated the formation of American state legal systems, remnants of the civil law tradition exist even today, most notably in Louisiana, which based its legal system on the civil law of France.

Origins of the American Judicial System: Federal Judiciary

The federal judiciary was born in 1789 upon adoption of the U.S. Constitution, which vested the judicial power of the United States in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Constitution created a judicial system that contains elements of both the common and civil law traditions. The latter is evident in one of the purposes expressed in the Constitution's preamble—to "secure the Blessings of Liberty." The Constitution, however, is subject to case-by-case interpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court, which usually limits itself by the principle of stare decisis.

Origins of the American Judicial System: Federalism

The existence of separate federal and state judicial systems in the United States is a hallmark of federalism, which means these systems share authority to resolve legal disputes in their geographic boundaries. Federal and state courts sometimes have concurrent jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from the same set of circumstances. For instance, federal and state authorities both took judicial action following the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. Federal and state courts occasionally have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas of the law. State courts, for instance, typically have exclusive jurisdiction to handle child custody disputes, while federal courts exclusively handle bankruptcy cases. The U.S. Constitution determines whether state and federal courts have concurrent or exclusive jurisdiction over a particular issue.

Structure and Operation of the Courts: Judicial Hierarchy

American state court systems are hierarchical. Most states have trial courts of general jurisdiction where the judges preside over all types of cases, both civil and criminal. Most states also have special courts of limited jurisdiction that hear only certain kinds of cases—domestic relations and family court, juvenile court, and courts for the administration of wills are typical examples. There also are state courts of inferior jurisdiction, such as justices of the peace, small claims court, and traffic court, that handle petty matters. Appeals from all lower courts usually go first to an intermediate appellate court, often called the court of appeals, and then to the state's highest court, often called the supreme court. When a case involves application of the U.S. Constitution or federal law, the parties sometimes may appeal from the state's highest court to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The federal judiciary is similarly hierarchical. Federal district courts handle trials in civil and criminal cases, and appeals from some federal administrative agencies. The federal judiciary also has special courts of limited jurisdiction, such as the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of International Trade, and the Tax Court. Appeals from federal district courts go to one of 11 numbered circuit courts of appeals covering different geographical regions, or to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Appeals from the Court of Federal Claims and the Court of International Trade go to the Federal Court of Appeals. Parties may appeal a case from the appellate courts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Structure and Operation of the Courts: Criminal and Civil Procedure

The progress of a case through the court system is governed by rules of procedure. There are separate rules of civil and criminal procedure because criminal cases require special constitutional safeguards for the accused. The following illustration explains the procedure in a civil case, which generally is a dispute between private individuals. Some of the notable differences between civil and criminal procedures are noted in this discussion.

Rules of civil procedure define and limit the roles of the various persons in a case. The party who brings a case is called the plaintiff, and the person being sued is the defendant. (In criminal cases there is a prosecutor instead of a plaintiff.) As the American legal system is adversarial, the parties are represented by lawyers who must zealously protect their clients' interests. A jury typically hears the evidence and determines the outcome under the substantive law as instructed by the judge. The judge acts as a referee to enforce the rules and explain the applicable law.

While the federal and state courts each have their own rules of civil procedure, the federal process is fairly representative. A federal case begins when a plaintiff files a complaint and summons in a federal district court. The complaint explains the nature of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. The summons notifies the defendant to appear and to answer the complaint by either admitting or denying the plaintiff's allegations. If the defendant fails to appear and answer, the court may enter a default judgment against the defendant and order the relief sought by the plaintiff. If the defendant appears, he typically files an answer that denies the plaintiff's allegations. The plaintiff's complaint, the defendant's answer, and any reply by the plaintiff are called the pleadings.

The defendant next may file a motion to dismiss, which argues that even if the plaintiff proves everything in his pleadings, the law does not provide any relief. If the judge grants this motion, she dismisses the case. If not, the parties proceed to the discovery phase.

The purpose of discovery is to help the parties identify and narrow the issues for trial, and to require the parties to disclose all of their evidence. The parties begin discovery by making mandatory disclosures containing basic information, such as the identity of persons and documents with evidence related to the pleadings. The parties then answer interrogatories and take depositions. Interrogatories are written questions that a party must answer in writing under an oath that acknowledges a penalty for perjury. Depositions are oral, transcribed proceedings by which a prospective witness, who also is under oath, answers verbal questions posed by the lawyers. Interrogatory answers and deposition transcripts may be used at trial as evidence or to impeach a witness's testimony if she contradicts what she said during discovery.

After discovery, the defendant may make a motion for summary judgment, which argues that even with everything that discovery has revealed, the plaintiff is unable to prove a violation of law warranting relief. If the judge grants this motion, she dismisses the case. Otherwise the case proceeds to trial.

The trial begins when the judge and parties pick a jury. (In civil cases for which there was no right to a jury trial upon adoption of the U.S. Constitution, or when the parties do not want a jury trial, the parties have a bench trial before a judge without a jury.) In some cases a grand jury, consisting usually of 23 members, is called to determine whether grounds exist for a criminal proceeding to be initiated by the state. To pick the jury, the judge or lawyers pose questions to prospective jurors. After hearing the answers, the parties may dismiss a set number of prospective jurors for any reason, although they may not discriminate unlawfully. The parties further may dismiss an unlimited number of jurors for good cause, such as bias in the prospective juror's responses.

Once they have selected 12 jurors, the lawyers present opening statements, which give the jury a road-map of what the evidence will prove. The plaintiff then presents his case by the testimony of witnesses and the admission of documents into the record of evidence. The presentation is governed by rules of evidence, which the judge enforces to determine what the jury can and cannot hear. The rules of evidence are supposed to give the jury only the most reliable evidence. The defendant is allowed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses to challenge their accuracy, truthfulness, and bias. The defendant presents his evidence after the plaintiff, who then may cross-examine the defendant's witnesses.

At the close of the evidence, each party may ask the judge to enter judgment in his favor on the ground that a reasonable jury could only reach one verdict under the evidence presented. If the judge denies this motion, she instructs the jury about the applicable substantive law, the lawyers make closing arguments to explain the result their clients seek, and the jury retires to deliberate and reach a verdict. After the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) delivers its verdict, each party may ask the judge to reverse the verdict or order a new trial based upon errors the judge made applying the rules of procedure, rules of evidence, or substantive law. If these motions are denied, the parties may file a notice of appeal to the proper circuit court of appeals. Notably, if a person is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding that is not declared a mistrial, that person cannot be tried again for the same crime. This concept of double jeopardy has its origin in the Fifth Amendment, which prevents people from being placed at risk of conviction more than once for a single offense.

Cases in the courts of appeals are heard by a panel of three judges. The parties file briefs that explain the errors they think the trial judge made under the rules of procedure, rules of evidence, or substantive law. The court of appeals does not hear the evidence anew, but relies on the record—the trial testimony and documents entered into evidence before the district court. The court also might hear oral argument, during which the parties' lawyers may respond to questions posed by the judges on the panel. The judges then study the record, briefs, and oral argument, discuss the case among themselves, vote on the result, and issue a decision based on the majority vote.

Dissatisfied parties may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which is composed of nine justices. The procedure is similar to that in the courts of appeal, with one major exception: a party first must file a petition for a writ of certiorari to convince the Supreme Court that the case is important enough to warrant consideration. The Supreme Court grants the writ—by a vote of four or more justices—for only approximately five percent of the thousands of petitions it receives each year. These lucky few file briefs and engage in oral argument as they did before the court of appeals. After the justices vote, one of the justices voting in the majority writes an opinion explaining the Court's decision. Dissatisfied parties have no further avenue of appeal from this court of last resort.

Structure and Operation of the Courts: Alternative Dispute Resolution

The procedure for pursuing a case, especially a civil case, from trial through appeal is time-consuming. It can take one or more years to get a verdict in the trial court, and five or more years for an appeal to the court of appeals and the Supreme Court. The legal fees and other costs can amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. The vast majority of civil cases thus settle before going to trial, which means the parties resolve their dispute by agreement. Most criminal cases also settle, a process called plea-bargaining.

Efforts to reduce costs in civil cases have popularized an area of legal procedure called alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. Arbitration, the best known form of ADR, is an informal, abbreviated trial where one or more neutral arbitrators hears and decides the case like a judge and jury. Conciliation, a less common form of ADR, involves submission of the dispute to a neutral third party for her investigation and recommendation. With mediation the parties try to negotiate a resolution with the assistance and guidance of a neutral mediator.

Today many contracts include a clause that requires parties to use ADR to resolve their disagreements. Whether or not they have a contract, many parties voluntarily pursue ADR before going to court. State courts increasingly require parties in certain types of cases to try arbitration or mediation before proceeding to trial. The American Arbitration Association and other organizations support these efforts by designing ADR systems and procedures.

Types of Law

In the United States, where most courts hear cases concerning all areas of law, categorizing the laws is largely arbitrary. In An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States, Professor E. Allan Farnsworth suggested a useful distinction between public and private law. Public law generally concerns disputes between the government and individuals. Private law concerns disputes between private individuals.

Types of Law: Public Law

Public law, as described by Professor Farnsworth, includes constitutional, criminal, trade regulation, labor, and tax law. Constitutional law is embodied in the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court that interpret the federal Constitution. Many of these cases concern whether conduct by the legislative or executive branches of the federal government violate constitutional definitions or limitations on their powers. Under the "political question" doctrine, however, the Supreme Court will decline to decide such a case if the Constitution reserves the issue for the legislative or executive branch without judicial interference.

A large majority of constitutional law cases concern the protection of individual rights from unlawful federal conduct. The Bill of Rights, which comprises the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is the primary source of these rights. For example, the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, while the Fourth Amendment protects the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The Constitution also protects individual rights from unlawful state conduct. The most important source of this protection is the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. By interpretation of these clauses, the U.S. Supreme Court has applied the rights and protections found in the Bill of Rights to state conduct.

Criminal law mostly appears in state penal codes. These codes, while largely based on the common law of England, reflect an effort to arrive at uniform, reliable definitions of crimes. The codes define everything from felonies, such as murder and rape, to misdemeanors and petty offenses. There also are federal sources of criminal law, most notably relating to interstate conduct, such as drug trafficking and fraudulent use of the mails. Another important source of federal criminal law is the statute that protects civil rights, such as the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, or creed. Criminal law cases also can involve issues of constitutional law, such as the rights of the accused to remain silent and to be represented by an attorney.

Trade regulation includes antitrust law, which seeks to prevent monopolies and other restraints of trade under America's system of free enterprise. It also includes laws designed to prevent unfair competition among businesses. Labor law protects the well-being of employees and the rights and duties of labor unions. Tax law primarily concerns the federal income tax.

Types of Law: Private Law

Private law, often referred to as civil law, includes tort, contract, family, commercial, and property law. States are the primary source of private law. Tort law is a system of providing compensation between individuals for private wrongs, such as battery and defamation. The enforcement of promises or obligations between individuals is the subject of contract law. Family law deals with the relationships between husband and wife or parent and child: marriage and divorce; spousal abuse and support; and child custody, abuse, support, and adoption. Commercial law, derived primarily from the Uniform Commercial Code, governs the sale and lease of goods. Property law governs transactions in real estate.

The Appointment of Judges

The process for appointing state judges varies from state to state. Most state trial judges are elected by popular vote or by the state legislature. The supreme court judges in most states are appointed for a fixed term by the governor, and then periodically stand unopposed for reelection based on their records. In some states the judges of the highest court are elected by popular vote. State judges usually serve for a fixed term of years or for life, and can be removed only for gross misconduct by formal proceedings.

Federal judges are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. This process typically results in the appointment of judges who are members of the president's political party. If the Senate judiciary committee is controlled by the president's opposition party, the confirmation process can be hotly contested. Federal judges are appointed for life, and can be removed only by impeachment and conviction by Congress.

The Role of Judges

State and federal judges perform various important roles in the American legal system. Trial judges referee cases under the rules of procedure and evidence. The trial judge also instructs the jury concerning the substantive law that is applicable to the case. In bench trials, the judge determines the facts, law, and result without a jury. The role of appellate judges is to review the record of evidence before the trial court, decide the applicable substantive law, and either affirm or reverse the result below. In doing so, the appellate judge may announce principles of law for application by trial judges in future cases.

Limitations on Judicial Power

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court said "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Judicial power, however, is not unlimited. The U.S. Constitution is the primary source for limitations on federal judicial power. The Constitution constrains federal courts to hear only "cases and controversies," which means actual cases rather than hypothetical situations or stale disputes. Under the political question doctrine, federal courts will not address issues reserved to the legislative or executive branches of the federal government. Congressional authority under the Constitution also limits judicial power. Congress may impeach and convict federal judges for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If Congress is dissatisfied with a court's interpretation of a statute, it may pass legislation to correct the interpretation, as long as it acts within the constitutional limitations on its own power.

Similarly, state judicial power is restricted by state constitutions, the process for selection and removal of state judges, and the ultimate supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over both state and federal statutes and case law.