Federal and State Courts
The federal and state courts acquire their authority from the constitution of United States. This authority is however acquired through several ways. The federal court system is headed by the US Supreme Court. This court gets its authority directly from the constitution. The authority and jurisdiction of federal courts under the Supreme Court is acquired through precedents that have been set by the Supreme Court usually through the doctrine of Stare Decisis and also through Congress (Meinhold & Neubaeur, 2012, p. 54). This also indicates that federal courts are governed by constitutional and federal law. The structure and rules of federal court proceedings also come from the Supreme Court and they have backing of the law.
The State court system got its authority and exercised it autonomously during the colonial period before the establishment of the US constitution. Every state therefore managed its judicial and legislative duties independently.
When the US constitution was established, a federal government was formed and its authority only affected the states as one unified body and not as before when they were single autonomous states. The tenth amendment gave all the powers that had not been given to the federal government to the state (Redish, Sherry & Pfander, 2011, p. 17). The constitution therefore did not rob the states of authority over their internal matters; the states retained judicial authority over these matters.
Federal judicial authority has precedence over the state authority on issues that merit national concern but that being so; it does not conflict with state authority intact. The state judiciary system therefore deals with issues that arise under the state law as having allowed the states to maintain their previous authority; the constitution conclusively gave authority to the state courts.
Structure of the Federal Court System and the Cases addressed in this System
The federal court system is divided into three main levels which include; the supreme, the appellate and the trial courts. The Supreme Court is at the top of the chain of the federal court system. It has an appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the US circuit court of appeal, though it rarely hears appeals from the US district court. A state supreme court however can put a petition to the US supreme court to hear its case. A petition for a Writ of Certiorari otherwise known as a cert is given by the state court in such petition and four justices must sit and agree to hear the case. This is also called grant cert. The Supreme Court is led by the chief justice who is assisted by nine other justices. This court has original jurisdiction over those cases that involve ambassadors and also disputes between two or more states. Most cases heard in the US Supreme Court are mainly oral arguments.
Appellate courts are courts of appeal for cases coming from the US district courts and also findings made by various administrative agencies. These cases have to be on the geographical region or district that the appellate court has jurisdiction over. Appellate courts do not accept any additional evidence and they also do not examine findings of facts since those have been already examined by the district courts.
They however determine mistakes of law. The appellate courts include twelve US circuit courts of appeal which seat in various cities in the country and one court of appeal for the federal circuit. A panel of three judges usually sits to hear cases in these courts.
Trial courts are in the third level of the federal court system. They consist of the; US district courts, bankruptcy courts, the US court of federal claims and the US court of international trade. The US district courts have original jurisdiction which means they get to hear federal cases for the first time. They also hear cases of civil and criminal nature. Judges here are tasked with the determination of the issues of law while the jury usually deals with the findings of fact. There are ninety four of these courts distributed throughout the country.
The US court of federal claims is situated in Washington DC and it mainly addresses those cases that have been brought against the US government. Bankruptcy courts on the other hand handle cases that involve bankruptcy of legal persons in accordance to the bankruptcy code (Meinhold & Neubaeur, 2012, p. 82). The US court of international trade is located in New York City. It handles cases that include tariffs, trade embargos and international trade disputes.
There are other federal courts set up by Congress outside the judicial branch. These courts include, the US court of military appeals which hears appeals for cases that are contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the US court of veterans’ appeals which handles those cases arising when veterans have been denied their benefits and last but not least there is the US tax court which handles litigations that arise from tax deficiencies.
Similarities and Differences in the Functions of Federal versus State Courts
There are several similarities between federal and state courts. For example, federal and state courts both acquire their authority from the US constitution. However the differences between the two court systems are more than the similarities. Federal courts hear those cases that require the interpretation of the constitution or that challenge the consistency of a law with the constitution. They also hear cases that involve admiralty law and bankruptcy of legal persons. Litigations that come from the laws and treaties that the US government has entered into with other nations and cases that involve ambassadors and public officials also fall within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. These courts also settle or judge between disputes that arise from two or more states. The president usually appoints the judges to serve in federal courts and they are then confirmed by the Senate in accordance with the constitution. These appointments are usually for life but Congress may impeach a federal judge through congressional proceedings on grounds of misbehavior.
Similarities and Differences in the Role and Function of Court Administrators in Trial, Appellate, and Limited-Jurisdiction Courts
Court administrators within various courts have several similar duties. They perform human resource management duties which include recruiting of personnel, training, and also counseling and motivation of court employees. Court administrators also set and evaluate ethical standards. Judicial staff remuneration and also evaluation of their performance are responsibilities of court administrators. They are also involved in the preparations of budgets for the court, accounting, purchasing, setting of control accounts, and guiding the state through its court budget. The court administrator is also responsible for the development of new systems that improve the efficiency of calendar management; this also includes the management of how cash flows. They also monitor technological advancements that help improve the capacity of the court in its management.
However the duties of court administrators in different levels of the judicial system have some notable differences in their job description. Trial court administrators are under the authority of the chief judge, who directs their work. They are responsible for the recording of federal cases since the trial courts have original jurisdiction in such matters. Trial court administrators are responsible for the direction of trial court proceedings. They are also involved in strategic planning for easier operations, facilities and also capital projects.
The appellate court administrator is involved in slightly different activities which include matters involving the discipline of judicial staff and attorneys, petitions that come from the decisions made by commitees of the Supreme Court requesting reviews, admissions to the bar and the certification programme for attorneys. These administrators are also involved in the scheduling and management of the calendar for oral argument in the Supreme court, vote recording and the setting of the agendas for conferences.
Administrators in the courts of limited jurisdction usually supervise and administrate those functions that are not of a judicial nature due to their limited jurisdicton. They are usually under the supervision of the appointed legal administrator.
The State of Florida Court System
The state of Florida is a great example in which we can examine its court structure. Top of the structure is the state’s Supreme Court. This court attends to cases that involve constitutional questions, offences requiring capital punishment, validation of bonds and cases involving public utilities. The decisions made here have effect on constitutional or legal offices and officers; it also helps in the construction and modification of the constitution of the state of Florida. It handles certified questions and examines statutes and expresses their validity.
The district court of appeal closely follows and it deals with those matters that cannot be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. State agencies have their final actions dictated here.
Circuit court case can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Matters of family law, civil cases with a pecuniary value of over $15000, probate cases, appeals coming from the county court, those cases that include juvenile delinquency and dependency are also determined here.
The county court is at bottom of the chain, it determines cases that involve certified questions, it handles all misdemeanors that occur across the county, and claims that are small in nature (of a pecuniary value of $5000). The county court also handles all traffic offences and cases of a civil nature that are not greater than $15000 (Redish, Sherry & Pfander, 2011, p. 219).
Quasi-judicial Body
A quasi judicial body is a kind of organization or legal person that has been given authority similar to that of a court. This body has the powers of law to judge and operate judicial proceedings. It also has the authority to give a remedy and penalties of a legal nature on the person or organization seeking legal redress.
These bodies have administrative authority in matters that include the breach or violation of a set code of conduct or discipline, trust and trusteeship usually in the matters of money and property, and rules of conduct. The powers of these bodies are mainly limited or tied to a specific or particular area of specialization. Therefore most legal authorities that sit in these proceedings have specific expertise on the areas in question. These areas of expertise usually include areas such as immigration and the laws therein, employment law and workers rights, and financial law.
The decisions that are reached through these proceedings usually depend on the parent authority (doctrine of ultra vires), the rules and regulations and the set guidelines of punishment which these bodies have been established under. They mainly judge depending on the nature and extent of the offence, but the decisions made forthwith have the backing of the machinery of government. Such a ruling can also be challenged under a court of law.
Quasi judicial bodies usually give judgments of specific performance and restitution depending on the rule of operation and doctrine of ultra vires (Neubaeur, 2010, p. 226).
Redish, M., Sherry, S. & Pfander, J. (2011). Federal Courts, Cases, Comments and Questions,
7th. Chicago: Westlaw Academic Publishing
Neubauer, D. (2010). America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing
Meinhold, S. & Neubauer, D. (2012). Judicial Process: Law, Court, and Politics in the United
States. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
