Appellate Judges: Can They Nullify Laws?

The role of an appellate judge is to review the decisions of lower courts or tribunals to ensure that proceedings were fair and that the law was applied correctly. In the US federal system, 94 district courts are organised into 12 regional circuits, each with its own court of appeals. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialised cases, such as those involving patent laws. Appellate courts do not retry cases or hear new evidence, and they very rarely overturn a factual finding unless it is clearly wrong. However, in some cases, a law may be deemed unenforceable if the judge determines that it is unclear or would be improperly applied. In the US, the Supreme Court has the power to declare a legislative or executive action in violation of the Constitution, and to invalidate an act of Congress if it is deemed unconstitutional.

Unclear laws

Appellate judges, also known as circuit judges, play a crucial role in addressing unclear laws. They review decisions made by lower courts or administrative agencies to ensure that the law has been applied correctly and that the legal process has been fair. In doing so, they can provide clarity and consistency in the interpretation and application of the law. If an appellate judge determines that a law is unclear or vague, they may rule it unenforceable to ensure that individuals are not unfairly deprived of their rights.

In the United States, the federal court system is organised into 12 regional circuits, each with its own court of appeals. These appellate courts do not retry cases or hear new evidence or witness testimonies; instead, they focus on reviewing the procedures and decisions of the lower courts. Federal courts of appeals can also review decisions by federal administrative agencies and hear some original proceedings filed directly with the courts of appeals.

In certain situations, a federal court may certify or refer unsettled questions of state law to state courts. This is particularly relevant when dealing with novel issues of state law that require the exercise of judgment by the state courts or when a state law is being challenged as unconstitutional. The abstention doctrine guides federal courts to refrain from exercising jurisdiction when the applicable state law is unclear, and a state court's interpretation of the law could resolve the issue without reaching a federal constitutional question.

Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court serves as the court of last resort for all cases arising under the Constitution or federal laws. It has the power to declare a law unenforceable if it is deemed unconstitutional or in violation of previous Supreme Court decisions. This power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), allows the Supreme Court to act as a check on legislative and executive actions, ensuring that the laws enacted and implemented are clear, fair, and consistent with the Constitution.

Improper enforcement

In the United States, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is responsible for enforcing laws that address police misconduct. This includes criminal and civil statutes that cover the actions of state, county, and local law enforcement officers, as well as federal law enforcement officers. The DOJ investigates and prosecutes allegations of Constitutional violations by law enforcement officers, including the use of excessive force, sexual misconduct, theft, false arrest, and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or substantial risk of harm to a person in custody.

The DOJ's authority extends to all law enforcement conduct, regardless of whether an officer is on or off duty, as long as they are acting or claiming to act in their official capacity. Federal law prohibits law enforcement officers from engaging in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives individuals of their rights protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. This includes the use of excessive force, sexual assault, intentional false arrests, theft, and the intentional fabrication of evidence resulting in a loss of liberty.

The federal criminal statute that enforces Constitutional limits on law enforcement officers' conduct is 18 U.S.C. § 242. To prove a violation of this statute, the government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant deprived a victim of their Constitutional or legal rights, acted willfully, and was acting under the color of law.

In conclusion, improper enforcement of the law can have significant consequences, including Constitutional violations and misconduct by law enforcement officers. The DOJ plays a crucial role in investigating and prosecuting these cases, while appellate courts have the power to review and overturn lower court decisions if they find that a law is unenforceable or violates the Constitution.

Unconstitutionality

In the United States, appellate courts, also known as courts of appeals, do not retry cases or hear new evidence. Instead, they review decisions made by lower federal or state courts to ensure that the law was applied correctly and that proceedings were fair. In some cases, a law may be deemed unenforceable if a judge determines that it is unclear or would be improperly applied. This is known as judicial review, which is the power of the Supreme Court to declare a legislative or executive action in violation of the Constitution.

Appellate judges can rule on the unconstitutionality of a law. Unconstitutionality refers to something that is not according to or consistent with the constitution of a body politic, such as a nation. For example, a federal judge may rule that a law is unconstitutional due to intentional bias against a specific group, such as in the case of intentional bias against Black and Hispanic voters. The Supreme Court can also invalidate an act of Congress if it is deemed unconstitutional or violates a previous Supreme Court decision.

Additionally, the Supreme Court can overturn a law if it violates the Constitution's separation of powers. While the Supreme Court is the court of last resort for cases arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, it primarily exercises appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by lower federal and state courts.

In the federal system, 94 district courts are organised into 12 regional circuits, each with its own court of appeals. These courts of appeals, or appellate courts, typically consist of three judges who review cases decided in the district courts within their circuit. One example is the 13th Court of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has nationwide jurisdiction over specialised cases, such as those involving patent laws.

Separation of powers

The concept of separation of powers is a key principle in democratic societies, and it is enshrined in the US Constitution. The Constitution establishes three distinct but equal branches of government: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch, which enforces them; and the judicial branch, which interprets them. This structure is designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful and to create a system of checks and balances, where each branch has its own authority but also depends on the others for the government to function effectively.

The judiciary's power to review and invalidate laws, acts, or governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority, such as the Constitution, is known as judicial review. This power is one of the most important checks and balances in the separation of powers. It allows the judiciary to supervise and restrain the legislative and executive branches when they exceed their authority. In the United States, judicial review is considered a key check on the powers of the other two branches of government.

The US federal court system plays a crucial role in the separation of powers. The federal courts of appeals, also known as circuit courts, review cases decided in the district courts to ensure that the law was applied correctly and that the proceedings were fair. These appellate courts do not retry cases or hear new evidence, witnesses, or juries. Instead, they focus on evaluating the application of the law by the lower courts. The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, has the power of judicial review to declare a legislative or executive action unconstitutional, as established in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

In addition to the federal court system, the US Constitution also recognises the authority of state courts. The relationship between federal and state courts is complex, and it is governed by principles such as comity and abstention. Comity is a self-imposed rule of judicial restraint that helps independent tribunals of concurrent or coordinate jurisdiction avoid conflicts of authority. Meanwhile, the abstention doctrine instructs federal courts to refrain from exercising jurisdiction when a state law is unclear, and a state court's interpretation might eliminate the need to resolve a federal constitutional issue. These principles ensure that the federal and state courts respect each other's authority while also maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Factual findings

Appellate courts, also called courts of appeals, are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. They are responsible for reviewing decisions made by lower federal courts and state courts. These include district courts, also known as trial courts, and federal administrative agencies. The courts of appeals are organised into 12 regional circuits, each with its own court of appeals that reviews cases decided in U.S. district courts within the circuit.

Appellate courts do not retry cases, hear new evidence, or listen to witness testimonies. Instead, they review the procedures and decisions of lower courts to ensure that the proceedings were fair and that the law was applied correctly. In other words, they determine whether the law was applied correctly by a lower court or administrative agency. Both the plaintiff and the defendant can appeal, and the party doing so is called the appellant. Appeals can be made for various reasons, including improper procedure or asking the court to change its interpretation of the law.

Appellate courts have the power to invalidate an act of Congress if it is deemed unconstitutional or in violation of the Constitution or another Supreme Court decision. They can also overturn a law if it violates the Constitution's separation of powers. In some cases, a law may be deemed unenforceable if the appellate judge determines that it is unclear or would be improperly applied. This is known as judicial review, which is the ability of the Supreme Court to declare a legislative or executive action in violation of the Constitution. An example of this is Marbury v. Madison (1803), which established the doctrine of judicial review.

Appellate courts will generally not overturn a factual finding unless it is clearly wrong and the record leaves no question that the judge was incorrect. In most cases involving domestic violence and family law, the judge serves as the "fact-finder", considering the evidence and deciding whether a certain fact has been proven. Appellate courts rarely second-guess a judge's factual findings in these cases, as the trial judge has the advantage of directly observing the evidence through witness testimony, documents, photos, etc.

Frequently asked questions