When Do Courts Apply Foreign Laws?

The US judicial system is based on the principle of federalism, with a dual system of state and federal courts. In the US, there are two types of courts: those of limited jurisdiction and those of general jurisdiction. The former hears and decides on specific legal issues, such as traffic tickets or setting bail, while the latter has the authority to hear and decide on all issues brought before them. In the US, federal courts were created by the US Constitution, while state courts had their origin in historical custom. Unless federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over a matter, state courts may hear cases over which federal courts would also have jurisdiction.

Federal and state courts may have concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes

In the United States, federal and state courts may have concurrent jurisdiction over specific crimes. This means that a person who commits a crime may be tried and convicted in both state and federal court. For example, a person who robs a bank may be tried and convicted in state court for robbery, and then tried and convicted in federal court for the federal offense of robbery of a federally-chartered savings institution.

The US court system is based on the principle of federalism, with the first Congress establishing a federal court system while allowing individual states to continue their own judicial structure. This concept of federalism allowed the US to develop as a loose confederation of semi-independent states with their own courts, with the federal court system acting in a very limited manner. Most cases were tried in state courts, with the federal government and judiciary later beginning to exercise jurisdiction over crimes and civil matters.

State courts are presumed to have concurrent jurisdiction in federal matters unless explicitly stated otherwise in the constitution or in a particular statutory provision. This presumption in favor of concurrent jurisdiction can be rebutted by an explicit statutory directive, unmistakable implication from legislative history, or a clear incompatibility between state court jurisdiction and federal interests.

Concurrent jurisdiction also exists to the extent that the US Constitution permits federal courts to hear actions that can also be heard by state courts. For instance, when a party from Alabama sues a party from Florida for breach of contract, the Alabama party can sue in an Alabama state court, a federal court (under federal diversity jurisdiction), or in the state court located in Florida (under its personal jurisdiction over the defendant).

State courts must hear federal law claims unless barred by a neutral rule of judicial administration

State courts are not obligated to hear federal law claims. However, they are generally required to hear such claims unless barred by a neutral rule of judicial administration that does not improperly burden claims arising under federal law.

In the 1876 case of Claflin v Houseman, the Supreme Court ruled that state courts could hear cases arising under federal bankruptcy law. The Court reasoned that the laws of the United States are binding on the citizens and courts of the several States and that the United States is a concurrent and paramount sovereignty. Thus, the State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever they are competent to take it.

In several cases, 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, 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.

By contrast, in Mondou v New York, a Connecticut court declined to hear a case arising under federal law because the policy manifested by it was not in accord with the policy of the state. The Supreme Court rejected that proposition and held that the state court must hear the case. The Court emphasised that the case did not involve any attempt by Congress to enlarge or regulate the jurisdiction of state courts or control their modes of procedure. Instead, it was a question of when state courts must hear federal claims that fall within their ordinary jurisdiction, as prescribed by local laws.

In summary, state courts must hear federal law claims unless barred by a neutral rule of judicial administration that does not improperly burden those claims. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in multiple cases, including Howlett v Rose, which summarised valid refusals by state courts to hear federal claims as involving neutral rules of judicial administration.

Federal courts are the highest in the land and have the capacity for judicial review of all lower court decisions

The US judicial system is based on the principle of federalism, with a dual system of state and federal courts. The US Constitution establishes the federal judiciary, vesting the judicial power of the US in the federal court system. Article III, Section 1 specifically creates the US Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create lower federal courts. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the capacity for judicial review of all lower court decisions, as well as state and federal statutes. By exercising this power, the Supreme Court determines which laws and lower court decisions conform to the mandates set forth in the US Constitution.

The concept of judicial review was first referred to by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, where he described the function of the Supreme Court as ensuring that the will of the people will be supreme over the will of the legislature. This concept was firmly and finally established in the US judicial system when the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in the constitutional system of government. As the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those seeking justice. Its power of judicial review ensures that each branch of government recognises the limits of its power. The Supreme Court also protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution and sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities.

The Supreme Court's caseload is almost entirely appellate in nature, and its decisions cannot be appealed to any authority as it is the final judicial arbiter in the US on matters of federal law. However, the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or federal appellate courts. The Court has original jurisdiction over limited types of cases, including those involving ambassadors and other diplomats, and cases between states.

In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court typically grants certiorari to fewer than 150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year. These are usually cases that the Court deems sufficiently important to require their review, such as when two or more federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The inferior courts are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and must apply its interpretation of the law to the facts of a particular case.

State courts can be divided into three levels: trial courts, appellate jurisdiction, and final appellate courts

Trial courts are where criminal cases start and finish. The trial court conducts the entire series of acts that culminate in either the defendant's release or sentencing. State trial courts can be further divided into courts of limited or special jurisdiction and courts of general jurisdiction. The nature and type of case determines which court will have jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction hear and decide issues such as traffic tickets or setting bail for criminal defendants. They typically hear certain types of minor civil or criminal cases. Courts of general jurisdiction, on the other hand, are granted the authority to hear and decide all issues brought before them. These courts hear all major civil or criminal cases and have the power to order individuals to do or refrain from doing certain acts.

Appellate jurisdiction is reserved for courts that hear appeals from both limited and general jurisdiction courts. These courts do not hold trials or hear evidence but decide matters of law and issue formal written decisions or "opinions". There are two classes of appellate courts: intermediate, or Courts of Appeals, and final, or Supreme Courts. The intermediate appellate courts are known as Courts of Appeals and hear and decide all issues of law raised on appeal in both civil and criminal cases. The final appellate courts are the highest state appellate courts and may be known as Supreme Courts or Courts of Last Resort. This court has jurisdiction to hear and decide issues dealing with all matters decided by lower courts, and its decision is binding on all other courts within the state.

The federal court system also has three main levels: district courts (the trial court), circuit courts (the first level of appeal), and the Supreme Court of the United States (the final level of appeal). The district courts are the general trial courts of the federal court system and handle both civil and criminal trials. The circuit courts, or Courts of Appeals, hear challenges to district court decisions and appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the American judicial system and has the power to decide appeals on all cases brought in federal court or those brought in state court but dealing with federal law.

Federal district courts are the lowest level of the federal court system and have original jurisdiction over all cases involving a violation of federal statutes

The US judicial system is based on the principle of federalism, with a dual system of state and federal courts. Federal district courts are the lowest level of the federal court system, with original jurisdiction over all cases involving a violation of federal statutes. This means that they preside over cases first and handle thousands of civil and criminal cases per year.

The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States. There are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one Supreme Court across the country. The district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system, with at least one United States district judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a life term.

Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over all cases involving a violation of federal statutes or other instances of statutorily-defined federal jurisdiction. This includes criminal cases, where an individual has broken a federal law, and civil cases, such as suing the government or an agent of the government for violating an individual's constitutional rights.

In addition to their original jurisdiction, federal district courts also share concurrent jurisdiction with state courts over specific crimes. For example, an individual who robs a bank can be tried and convicted in a state court for robbery and then tried and convicted in a federal court for the federal offense of robbing a federally-chartered savings institution.

The plaintiff has the initial choice of bringing the case to a state or federal court. However, if the plaintiff chooses a state court, the defendant may sometimes choose to "remove" the case to a federal court. This is because, in some cases, the jurisdiction of state courts overlaps with that of federal courts, and cases can be brought in either court.

Frequently asked questions