Federal Courts

The United States judicial system is based on the federal courts structure as established in Article III of the Constitution. This system has been the subject of numerous studies and publications that seek to explain how it works. William A. Fletcher and James E. Pfander wrote a book, Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts, which provides an outline of the federal court system in the U.S. The book provides an outline of Article III courts, the requirement of case or controversy, advisory opinions, and justiciability. In addition, Fletcher & Pfander discuss congressional power over federal court jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of district courts, Supreme Court jurisdiction, and ancillary jurisdiction. Through this outline, the authors also discuss the law applied in federal courts. This paper provides an overview of the federal court system in the United States based on the book by Fletcher and Pfander.

History of the Federal Court System

Fletcher & Pfander begin the discussion regarding federal courts in the US by examining the history of the federal court system. The foundation of the federal court system in the U.S. is Article III of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the judicial power of the country. In addition to the Supreme Court, this article also gives inferior federal courts judicial power as may be established and ordained by Congress from time to time (Fletcher & Pfander, p.3). Based on this article, the federal court system in the US is based on the establishment of the Supreme Court, which differs from both the executive and the legislature. Congress has the discretion to determine what other federal courts can be established. Article III of the Constitution only established one court and granted Congress the discretion to decide on the creation of others. The Framers of the Constitution seemingly granted such discretion to Congress on grounds that the federal government could not be effective unless other courts are created to help in law enforcement. According to Frank, the creation of a federal lower court system in the U.S. was seemingly influenced by the necessity to resolve international admiralty disputes (p.28).

The history of federal courts in the country dates back to 1789 when Congress acted on its mandate to decide on the creation of other federal courts. In 1789, Congress established a federal judiciary comprising six justices, which was one of its first acts. Fletcher & Pfander postulate that the emergence of the modern federal judicial system was influenced by several regulations including the 1871 Civil Rights Act and Evarts Act of 1891 (p.7). These regulations introduced profound changes to the federal court system, which had remained stable until the Civil War period. The initial federal courts established by Congress had significantly unspecialized jurisdiction. Congress later established specialized courts with specialized jurisdiction including territorial courts, District of Columbia courts, Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Court of Federal Claims, and adjunct courts like bankruptcy courts and federal magistrates (Fletcher & Pfander, p.9).

Justiciability and Case or Controversy

Justiciability relates to restrictions on legal issues that courts can exercise their judicial authority (Fletcher & Pfander, p.15). In essence, justiciability addresses when a court has judicial authority and the ability to offer sufficient resolution to a dispute. Justiciability is one of the most important concepts of the U.S. federal court system as it deals with the limits of law and adjudication. The judicial authority of federal courts in the U.S. is stipulated in Article III of the Constitution. This Article creates several justiciability doctrines to determine when federal courts can adjudicate disputes (Cole, p.1). Justiciability doctrines emanating from Article III of the Constitution include ripeness, standing, feigned cases, advisory opinions, mootness, and political questions. Based on this Article, the jurisdiction of federal courts is restricted to adjudicating cases and controversies. The political question doctrine focuses on restrictions on adjudication on issues that are generally within the responsibility of other governmental authorities (Bendor, p.312). If a federal court finds that any of the four justiciability doctrines applies to a case, a controversy is deemed non-justiciable. Justiciability doctrines were developed by federal courts to help in determining whether disputes presenting federal questions can be adjudicated. However, these doctrines have been applied to all nine categories of cases and controversies (Hessick, p.75). Federal justiciability requirements are also applied to lawsuits brought under the provisions of diversity jurisdiction. The doctrines of justiciability usually overlap and can rarely be applied with absolute precision.

Congressional Authority over Federal Court Jurisdiction

Congressional power over the jurisdiction of federal courts is based on Article III, which is the Constitutions legal article. The U.S. Constitution establishes a federal judiciary with significant autonomy in which federal judges have life tenure and diminutions of judges salaries are prohibited. To this extent, federal courts in the U.S. have significant independence to carry out their legal duties and responsibilities. However, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate these courts. Congressional power over federal courts is granted to help ensure that proper checks and balances exist for federal courts to carry out their legal work and responsibilities in line with the Constitution. In line with the Article, federal courts do no have general jurisdiction in comparison to state courts (Fletcher & Pfander, p.55). Federal courts are restricted to the subject matter jurisdiction specified in Section 2 of Article III. Therefore, if a case does not fall under one of the stipulated heads of jurisdiction in this section, it cannot be heard by a federal court (Fletcher, p.930).

Congress has some amount of unchallenged authority to limit federal courts jurisdiction (Fletcher & Pfander, p.58). Congressional power to grant and withhold the jurisdiction as well as to regulate the original and appellate jurisdiction of appellate lower federal courts is derived from the Madisonian Compromise. Congress uses its powers to allocate jurisdiction among federal courts by making regulations and exceptions on jurisdiction. In some cases, Congress strips federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear a category of cases. Congress sometimes exercises its authority to strip federal courts the jurisdiction to hear particular cases in the midst of litigation. This reflects Congressional authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. However, the restriction of the jurisdiction of federal courts is exercised by Congress when dealing with particular cases and even during litigation. With regards to allocating jurisdiction, Congress has power to assign whole cases, assign exclusive jurisdiction over some questions, and allocate jurisdiction between courts in Article I and Article III.

According to Fletcher, historical evidence shows that...

…over cases involving questions of federal law is limited. These courts can hear any cases or claims relating to questions of federal law except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts as stipulated in constitutional provisions.

Relations Between Federal and State Courts

The relations between federal and state courts are partly governed by constitutional law. Collateral relations between federal and state courts are based on the principle of comity. Based on this principle, there is respect for state functions since the United States is essentially a union of different state governments. In addition, the principle promotes the belief that the federal government acts in the best interest of states. Therefore, these relations ensure that the federal government and state governments have the liberty to carry out their distinct functions in separate ways. The concept of comity is expressed in various ways in the U.S. judicial system including the abstention doctrine. Under this doctrine, federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction if the applicable state law is ambiguous and state law interpretation by a state court could generate the need to determine a federal constitutional issue (Thomson Reuters par, 23).

Collateral relations between federal and state courts are also reflected in the notion of equitable restraint. In this case, state actions, wishes, and interests effected through state courts are subject to restraint by federal courts. On the other hand, federal courts exercise restraint when undertaking actions that are likely to interfere with state courts. As part of the collateral relations between federal and state courts, Congress allowed habeas relief to state prisoners. In this regard, federal courts can grant habeas relief to state prisoners if state courts are deemed to lack proper jurisdiction. Cognizable habeas claims include ineffective assistance of counsel, unconstitutional sentencing, an excessive sentence, and lack of jurisdiction by the state court. On the contrary, claims excluded from habeas include suggestive pretrial identification and claims that have been previously raised or resolved by the courts.

The Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity

Under the state sovereign immunity doctrine, a state cannot be sued in a federal or state court without its approval (Fletcher & Pfander, p.286). This doctrine is the original premise of state immunity whose foundations can be traced back to English common law. However, the Eleventh Amendment has generated concerns relating to the protection of state sovereign immunity. The Amendment restricts state sovereign immunity to two specific circumstances in federal court, which has generated concerns regarding its original intent. The Supreme Court has expanded state sovereign immunity beyond the explicit directives of the Amendment on grounds that immunity emanates from the structure of the Constitution and not the Amendment.

In conclusion, the U.S. judicial system is based on a three-level federal judicial system comprising trial courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court. The federal court system has a long historical background that is founded in Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This Article provided the premise for the establishment of the Supreme Court and other federal courts as deemed necessary by Congress. As evident in this book, the federal court system has continued to evolve as American society has changed. However, constitutional provisions remain the foundational premise for the operations of federal courts. Constitutional provisions and legal…