Understanding Federal and State Courts: A Comprehensive Guide

The United States is a federation made up of 50 sovereign states, each with its own laws and courts. Nonetheless, federal courts play a critical role in adjudicating matters that affect the entire nation. This article delves into the purpose of federal courts, how they differ from state courts, and the contexts in which each plays a vital role.

The Role of Federal Courts

Federal courts are responsible for deciding federal criminal and civil cases, as well as disputes between citizens in different states involving dollar amounts in excess of $75,000. These cases typically involve federal laws and include matters such as trade, copyright, and foreign commerce. Additionally, disputes arising from state laws between citizens in different states must be resolved in federal court if the claim substantially involves federal rights or constitutional questions. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect individuals from discrimination, is enforced through federal courts.

Differences Between Federal and State Courts

The primary difference between federal and state courts lies in their jurisdiction and the scope of their authority. State courts have jurisdiction over matters arising from state laws and the state constitution, while federal courts have jurisdiction over federal laws and the nation's constitution. In the USA, federal courts are subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government, whereas state courts are subject to the jurisdiction of their respective state's government.

What is Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear a case. State courts have exclusive jurisdiction over matters arising within their own states, as well as some matters involving federal law if they substantially involve federal rights or constitutional questions. Federal courts, on the other hand, have exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving federal law and the Constitution. This means that state courts must comply with federal laws and the Constitution, but they do not have to apply other federal laws unless they are relevant to the case at hand.

Historical Context and Modern Use

Historically, the existence of federal courts arose from the need to address national issues that individual states could not or would not address. For instance, during the Reconstruction era and the Jim Crow period, federal courts were critical in enforcing civil rights and ending de facto racial segregation. Today, federal courts are often used to challenge state laws that are in violation of federal laws.

Weaponization of Federal Courts

There are concerns that federal courts have been "weaponized" against individuals and political candidates. State courts, while operating on a smaller scale, also have their specific jurisdiction and can be used to resolve disputes and enforce state laws. However, in recent years, there have been instances where state and federal courts have been utilized in ways that may not serve the public interest or the foundational principles of justice.

Key Differences in Judging Cases

All courts must judge cases based on the Constitution, and all cases, regardless of where they are heard, must adhere to constitutional principles. However, while federal courts are obligated to apply federal laws, state courts have no obligation to apply federal laws unless they are relevant to the case. Federal courts are thus more likely to hear cases that involve federal regulations, national interests, or constitutional questions, while state courts are more likely to hear cases involving state-specific laws and issues.

In conclusion, the roles of federal and state courts are integral to the functioning of the US legal system. Understanding the differences in jurisdiction, the scope of authority, and the historical context helps to clarify how each court operates and why they are essential to the governance of the United States.