Changing Law In America: A Relative Perspective

Law in the United States is a complex and multi-layered system, with laws at the federal level and state level, and a further web of local laws. The US legal system is based on a system of federalism, or decentralisation, with individual states retaining powers not specifically enumerated as exclusively federal. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, prescribing the foundation of the federal government and various civil liberties. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which includes Acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations by the executive branch, and case law from the federal judiciary.

The US legal system is based on common law, which relies heavily on court precedent in formal adjudications. This means that even when a statute is at issue, judicial determinations in earlier court cases are critical to the court's resolution of the matter before it. The US system has diverged from its English ancestor, incorporating civil law innovations, and US courts rarely follow post-Revolution precedents from England or the British Commonwealth.

The process of lawmaking in the US is a complex one, with Congress as the lawmaking branch of the federal government. A bill is a proposal for a new law or a change to an existing law, which can be proposed by a sitting member of the US Senate or House of Representatives, or be petitioned by citizens. Once introduced, a bill is assigned to a committee, which researches, discusses, and makes changes, before it is put before the chamber to be voted on. If the bill passes one body of Congress, it goes through the same process in the other body, before both chambers vote on the same version of the bill. If it passes, it is presented to the President, who can approve and sign it into law, or veto it.

With so many layers of law, it is perhaps unsurprising that citizens and lawyers alike struggle to keep up with the sheer volume of legislation.

The impact of precedent and stare decisis

The principle of stare decisis, or "to stand by things decided", is a foundational concept in the American legal system. It is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. In other words, stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedents when overseeing an ongoing case with similar circumstances.

The impact of stare decisis is that it gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable. The principle of vertical stare decisis, which holds that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts, is deeply entrenched in the American legal system. This is what makes the Supreme Court "supreme". For example, the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) directly overruled the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1893). This precedent held that "separate but equal" public accommodations did not violate the Constitution, but the Supreme Court later recognised that "separate" did not usually result in "equal", and so racially segregated schools were deemed to be unconstitutional.

The doctrine of stare decisis also operates horizontally. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the Supreme Court has, in rare cases, reversed its own previous rulings. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis. The most recent and controversial overturning of a precedent occurred on June 24, 2022, when the court reversed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, making Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization the next major case to depart from stare decisis.

The dual court system

The Federal Court System

The federal court system is established by Article III of the US Constitution, which specifically creates the US Supreme Court and gives Congress the authority to create lower federal courts. The federal court system is composed of 13 Courts of Appeals and 94 District Courts, with the Supreme Court at the apex. The federal courts deal with cases that involve federal laws, the interpretation and application of the US Constitution, interstate crime, and major crimes like human trafficking, drug smuggling, or counterfeiting. They also have jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between states, or between foreign countries or foreign citizens and US states or citizens.

The State Court System

The state court system, on the other hand, deals with cases that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This includes family law, contract law, probate disputes, lawsuits involving parties located in the same state, and violations of state and local laws. Each state creates its own court system, so they differ in structure, the number of courts, and sometimes jurisdiction. However, a court of last resort, often known as a Supreme Court, is usually the highest court in each state. Some states also have an intermediate Court of Appeals, and below these are the state trial courts, which may be referred to as Circuit or District Courts.

Checks and Balances

The interrelationship between various sources of law

The law of the United States is derived from five sources: constitutional law, statutory law, treaties, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). The US legal system is based on federalism, or decentralisation, with the national government retaining significant powers, while individual states retain powers not specifically enumerated as exclusively federal.

The interrelationship between the various sources of law in the US is complex. There is a set of rules that defines the relative priority among the different sources of law and between the state and federal systems. The federal court system is based on a three-tiered structure, with the United States District Courts acting as trial-level courts, the United States Court of Appeals as the first level of appeal, and the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the law.

The term "jurisdiction" in American law has two important meanings. Firstly, it refers to the formal power of a court to exercise judicial authority over a particular matter. Secondly, the federal court system is based on a system of "jurisdictions", which refers to the geographic distribution of courts of particular levels. For example, while there is only one Supreme Court, the court of appeals is divided into 13 circuits, and there are 94 district courts. Each state court system also has its own "jurisdiction". The jurisdiction in which a case arose determines which courts' decisions will be binding precedents.

Sources of law can be classified as either mandatory/binding or persuasive. Courts may disregard precedent that is not binding. Primary sources of law can be mandatory or persuasive, while secondary sources are never mandatory and are used for guidance and information.

In summary, the interrelationship between the various sources of law in the US is complex and governed by a set of rules that define the relative priority among them. The federal court system, with its three tiers, and the state court systems, each with its own "jurisdiction", play a crucial role in this interrelationship.

The role of common law

In the U.S., common law is primarily found at the state level, with state legislatures sometimes codifying common law rules from their courts. For instance, the 2018 California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court articulated a three-part test for determining whether workers were independent contractors or employees, which was subsequently codified and expanded upon by the California Legislature. While most common law is at the state level, there is also a limited body of federal common law, where federal courts create and apply rules in the absence of controlling federal statutes.

The common law system in the U.S. has its roots in English common law, which was in force during the colonial period. Over time, American law has evolved and diverged from its English predecessor, incorporating civil law innovations. The adoption of common law in the U.S. was not without controversy, especially after the American Revolution, when there was widespread distrust of anything British. However, the Federalists believed that common law protected the natural rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Common law is deeply rooted in the principle of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided." This principle promotes stability and consistency in the legal system, as courts follow precedents established by previous decisions. However, lower courts have some flexibility and can choose to modify or deviate from precedents if they are outdated or if the current case differs substantially.

The malleability of common law is another key feature. Common law courts are not absolutely bound by precedent and can reinterpret and revise the law without legislative intervention to adapt to changing social, legal, and political philosophies. This evolution of common law occurs gradually, reducing disruptive effects and ensuring that the law remains responsive to changing social needs.

In conclusion, common law plays a crucial role in the American legal system, influencing both state and federal laws. It provides a foundation for decision-making in unusual cases, fills gaps in statutory and constitutional law, and adapts to changing social needs through judicial interpretation and precedent.

The relative priority of federal and state law

The law of the United States is derived from five sources: constitutional law, statutory law, treaties, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law). The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and federal laws made under it take priority over conflicting state laws. This is known as the Supremacy Clause, which is considered a cornerstone of the US federal political structure.

The Supremacy Clause establishes that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under its authority are the "supreme Law of the Land", and state courts and constitutions are subordinate to this. Federal statutes and treaties must be within the parameters of the Constitution and not violate constitutional limits on federal power, such as the Bill of Rights. The US Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted to mean that federal acts take priority over conflicting state acts. This applies to acts from state legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, and constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, an act of Congress, takes precedence over state constitutions. Food and Drug Administration regulations may also override state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.

The Supremacy Clause also applies to treaties, which are regarded as equally "supreme law of the land" with federal statutes. Treaties are subject to judicial interpretation and review, and courts have consistently recognised them as legally binding. The Supreme Court first applied the Supremacy Clause in the 1796 case, Ware v. Hylton, ruling that a treaty superseded conflicting state law.

While the Supremacy Clause establishes the priority of federal law, the scope of federal preemption is limited. The US has a dual sovereign system of federalism, where states are plenary sovereigns with their own constitutions, while the federal government has limited supreme authority as enumerated in the Constitution. States may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution, as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. As such, US law consists primarily of state law, which can vary greatly from state to state.

Even in areas governed by federal law, state law is often supplemented rather than preempted. This is especially true in areas like family law, where a small number of federal statutes interact with a larger body of state law. In other areas, like aviation and railroads, federal law has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts almost all state law.

Frequently asked questions