Federal Laws: State Courts' Jurisdiction Explored

The American legal system is a complex network of federal and state laws, with the majority of criminal prosecutions taking place in state courts. While federal crimes are offences that violate US federal laws and are prosecuted by federal agencies, state courts have their own penal codes that define crimes and penalties. This raises the question of whether federal laws can be prosecuted in state courts, and vice versa. In some cases, a crime may fall under the jurisdiction of both state and federal laws, leading to concurrent power and dual prosecution.

Dual sovereignty and double jeopardy

The "dual sovereignty doctrine" allows for the prosecution and punishment of a defendant for an identical offense in both state and federal court without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. This is because state and federal governments are considered separate sovereigns, each deriving power from different sources.

The Double Jeopardy Clause, as outlined in the Fifth Amendment, prevents multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same "offence" by the same sovereign. The clause was historically only binding on the federal government, but in 2019, the Supreme Court clarified that "where there are two sovereigns, there are two laws, and two 'offences.'" This means that a defendant can be charged with two separate crimes for the same action if it violates the laws of two separate sovereigns.

The "dual sovereignty doctrine" has been applied in several cases, including United States v. Lanza (1922), where a person was convicted in a federal court after being previously convicted in a state court for the same acts. The doctrine was also applied in Gamble v. United States (2019), where the Court upheld the dual sovereignty doctrine, stating that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prohibit dual prosecution for the same "offence."

However, in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle (2016), the Supreme Court held that separate prosecutions by the United States and Puerto Rico for the same underlying conduct violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because the two governments were not considered "separate sovereigns." The Court concluded that the "original source" of Puerto Rico's authority to prosecute crimes was Congress, specifically a federal statute authorizing the territory to draft its constitution.

While the "dual sovereignty doctrine" allows for concurrent jurisdiction between state and federal courts, there are still constitutional concerns regarding federal criminal prosecutions in state courts. For example, it is unclear whether state prosecutors can be compelled or authorized to exercise federal prosecutorial power without complying with the Constitution's Appointments and Take Care Clauses. Additionally, there may be questions about whether criminal defendants facing federal charges in state court would have access to the same constitutional protections as those in federal courts.

Federal and state jurisdiction

The American legal system is a complex network of federal and state laws, with jurisdiction often overlapping between the two. The majority of criminal prosecutions take place in state courts, with state prosecutors, or district, state, county, or city attorneys, handling violations of state and local law. Each state has its own penal or criminal code that defines crimes and their penalties, such as murder, assault, robbery, and DUI. Most crimes that occur within a state's borders or within three miles of its coastline are prosecuted in state court.

State law usually specifies which courts have jurisdiction over which types of cases, and a state has jurisdiction over defendants who violate the laws of that state. This includes the power to arrest, charge, try, and convict. However, the federal government has jurisdiction over criminal acts that occur on federal property, such as national parks, or when criminal acts cross state lines, such as kidnapping. Federal agencies, such as the FBI, prosecute federal offenses and can carry more severe penalties than state courts. Federal prosecutors are often regarded as some of the toughest in the nation due to their selection process and reputation for tenacity.

In some cases, a crime may fall under the jurisdiction of both state and federal laws, leading to concurrent power. For example, a crime may occur on both federal and non-federal land, or a defendant may murder a victim in one state and dispose of the body in another, committing a crime in two states and under federal law. In these cases, state and federal prosecutors must decide on a case-by-case basis whether to prosecute in state or federal court. While the dual sovereignty doctrine allows for prosecution in both courts without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause, it is rare for this to occur. The Petite Policy, an internal guideline of the Department of Justice, discourages federal prosecution after state prosecution unless there are compelling reasons.

Despite the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction, there are questions surrounding the constitutionality of state court prosecutions of federal crimes. For example, it is unclear whether state prosecutors could be compelled to exercise federal prosecutorial power, and whether criminal defendants facing federal charges in state court would have access to constitutional protections only applicable in federal courts. These concerns have led some to argue that proposals for state court prosecutions of federal crimes should be rejected.

Constitutionality of concurrent state court jurisdiction

The U.S. Constitution creates a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal government and state governments. Both federal and state governments have their own court systems. The federal government has power over defendants who commit criminal acts on federal property or whose criminal acts cross state lines. The federal government also has jurisdiction over a group of federally defined crimes, such as immigration fraud and customs violations.

State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear cases that raise issues under the Constitution or federal law. The Supreme Court has upheld state courts' refusal to hear federal claims, finding that state law provided a valid excuse to decline jurisdiction. For example, in Douglas v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., the Court upheld a state law that allowed state courts to decline jurisdiction over both state and federal law claims when neither party was a resident of the state.

The question of whether state courts can entertain federal criminal prosecutions is a matter of debate among scholars. Some argue that state courts should be allowed to entertain certain federal criminal prosecutions to alleviate pressures on federal courts caused by the federalization of local crimes. However, others raise concerns about the constitutionality of such proposals, citing issues such as the appointment and take care clauses, the operation of double jeopardy, and the location of the pardon power.

While the Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause prevents multiple prosecutions or punishments by the same "sovereign," successive state and federal prosecutions do not violate this clause as state and federal governments are separate sovereigns. In practice, when there are competing claims to jurisdiction, the prosecuting attorneys usually get together and decide which court will take the case.

Federal vs. state prosecutors

Federal and state prosecutors have different roles and responsibilities in the US criminal justice system. The majority of criminal prosecutions take place in state courts, which have jurisdiction over crimes committed within a state's borders or within three miles of its coastline. State prosecutors, also known as district, state, county, or city attorneys, are responsible for prosecuting violations of state and local laws. They work for the state and are responsible for enforcing and investigating violations of state law within their territorial jurisdiction, which can include municipalities, cities, counties, or states.

Federal prosecutors, on the other hand, handle federal criminal prosecutions and are appointed by and responsible to the US Attorney General. They are called US Attorneys or Assistant US Attorneys and work for the federal government. Federal prosecutors enforce and investigate federal crimes that fall within their agency's purview, such as crimes committed on federal property or those that cross state lines. Federal courts have jurisdiction over federal crimes, and state courts have jurisdiction over state crimes. However, there are instances where a crime may qualify as both a state and federal offense, giving both state and federal prosecutors concurrent power over the defendant.

The decision to prosecute a case in state or federal court depends on various factors. Prosecutors have discretion and flexibility in deciding where to bring charges. They may consider the investigating agency, the size and complexity of the case, and the resources available to the state and federal governments. In some cases, federal prosecutors may request that state courts dismiss their charges so that federal charges can be brought, particularly if the case involves a large criminal enterprise or a defendant, corporation, or government official of particular interest to the federal government.

While the majority of criminal prosecutions occur in state courts, federal courts play a significant role in addressing crimes that violate federal law or involve national or federal interests, such as federal tax fraud, immigration offenses, and interstate crimes. The dual sovereignty doctrine allows for separate prosecutions and punishments in state and federal courts for identical offenses without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. However, the question of whether state courts should be allowed to entertain federal criminal prosecutions remains a subject of debate among scholars and legal professionals.

Case-by-case decisions

In the American legal system, the "'dual sovereignty doctrine'" allows an individual to be prosecuted and punished for an identical offense in both state and federal court without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause. This is because state and federal courts are considered separate sovereigns, and successive state and federal prosecutions don't violate the clause as long as they are prosecuted by separate sovereigns.

Despite the legal ability to prosecute someone twice for the same offense, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has an internal guideline, known as the Petite Policy, that discourages federal prosecution after state prosecution unless there are compelling reasons.

In practice, state and federal prosecutors make case-by-case decisions about whether to prosecute a defendant in state or federal court. For example, in the case of Michael Vick, he was first prosecuted federally for running an interstate dogfighting business, and then separately prosecuted by the state of Virginia for the same dogfighting ring.

In cases where a crime is committed across state lines, or involves larger federal interests, like bank security or interstate commerce, both federal and state prosecutors will typically be interested in the case. For instance, if someone brings illegal drugs into the U.S. from abroad, federal laws covering international drug smuggling come into play. But if that person intends to distribute those drugs within a particular state, they’ve also violated state drug laws.

In cases where a crime occurs partly on federal land and partly on non-federal land, or where a crime violates state law but the defendant moves the body across state lines, both the state and federal governments may have jurisdiction. In these situations, the prosecuting attorneys usually get together and try to reach an agreement about who will "go" first, with the first court to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant typically keeping the case.

Frequently asked questions