AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

SUBMITTED TO:-

Dr.Bibhuti Kalyan Mahakul

(FACULTY POLITICAL SCIENCE)

SUBMITTED BY:-

xyx
(ROLL NO- SEM-IV)

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY

2 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

UPARWARA, NEW RAIPUR (C.G)

Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work entitled "AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM" is record of an original
work done by me under the guidance of Faculty Member Dr. Bibhuti Kalyan Mahakul.

3 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Certificate
This is to be certified that this project work entitled AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM" is
the record of Bona fide research work done by under my supervision and guidance. The project
work has not previously formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associate ship,
fellowship or other similar title of recognition.

Date: 18/02/2015
Dr. B.K.Mahakul
(Faculty member Political Science),

4 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur

Acknowledgements:
I feel highly elated to work on the topic AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The practical realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. I express my deepest
regard and gratitude towards Dr.Bibhuti Kalyan Mahakul, faculty of Political science for giving me the
opportunity to work on this project. His invaluable guidance has been of immense help in understanding and
carrying out the nuances of the project.
I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for providing extensive database
resources in the Library and for the Internet facilities provided by the University.
Some printing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to receive comments
and suggestions to further improve this project report.

xyx

5 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Roll No:
Semester IV

Contents:

Declaration
Acknowledgements
Introduction
1. American Judicial System
2. Objectives of the study
3. Research methodology
4. Review of Literature
History
Sources of Law
1. Constitution
2. Statutes
3. Decisions and roles of administrative agencies
4. Court Decisions
Structure of the Courts
1. State Court System
2. Federal Court System
Judges
Prosecutors
Lawyers
Conclusion
References

6 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Introduction:
The American legal system has several layers, more possibly than in most other nations. One reason is the
division between federal and state law. To understand this, it helps to recall that the United States was founded
not as one nation, but as a union of 13 colonies, each claiming independence from the British Crown. The
Constitution fixed many of the boundaries between federal and state law. It also divided federal power among
legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government (thus creating a separation of powers between
each branch and enshrining a system of checks-and-balances to prevent any one branch from overwhelming
the others), each of which contributes distinctively to the legal system.

Objectives of the study

To describe The American Judicial System

To explain the features of American Judicial System
To analyze the structure of American Judicial System
To analyze development in American Judicial System
To present an estimate of American Judicial System

Research Methodology
This Research Project is descriptive and critical in nature. Accumulation of the information on the topic
includes wide use of secondary sources like books, e-articles etc. The matter from these sources has been
compiled to prepare this project work. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred. The structure
of the project, as instructed by the Faculty of POLITICAL THOUGHT has been adhered to and the same has
been helpful in giving the project a fine finish off.

Review of Literature

American Supreme Court, Sixth Edition by Robert G. McCloskey

Judicial Process in America by Robert A. Carp
Select World Constitutions by U. N. Gupta

7 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

History
Before the appropriation of the Constitution, the United States was administered by the Articles of
Confederation. Under the Articles, all elements of the national government were vested in a solitary chamber
lawmaking body called Congress. There was no detachment of official and administrative forces. The
nonappearance of a national legal was viewed as a noteworthy shortcoming of the Articles of Confederation.
Therefore, the agents assembled at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 communicated broad
assention that a national judiciary should be established. A decent arrangement of contradiction emerged, in
any case, on the particular shape that the judicial branch should take.

The Constitutional Convention and Article III

The primary proposition displayed to the Constitutional Convention was the Virginia Plan, which would have
set up both a Supreme Court and mediocre government courts. Adversaries of the Virginia Plan reacted with
the New Jersey Plan, which required the making of a solitary government preeminent tribunal. Supporters of
the New Jersey Plan were particularly irritated by lower government courts. They contended that the state
courts could hear all cases in the primary occurrence and that a privilege of allure to the Supreme Court would
be adequate to ensure national rights and give uniform judgments all through the nation. The contention
between the states' rights advocates and the patriots was determined by one of the numerous bargains that
portrayed the Constitutional Convention. The com-guarantee is found in Article III of the Constitution, which
starts, "The legal Power of the United States should be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such second rate
Courts as the Congress might now and again appoint and build up."
Moreover, the history of the federal courts reminds us that some of the current provisions and proposed
changes that seem so sensible now will appear as quaint and curious to our descendants as those proposed and
adopted by American ancestors appear to us today.

8 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Sources of Law
The four primary sources of law in the American legal system are federal and state constitutions, federal and
state statutes, the decisions and rules of administrative agencies, and the decisions of the courts.
1. The Constitution
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the United States. It establishes the general organization of the
federal government, grants certain powers to the federal government, and places certain limits on what the
federal and state governments may do. The Constitution establishes and grants certain powers to the three
branches of the federal government legislative, executive, and judicial. The Constitution also is a grant of
power from the states to the federal government. The federal government has only the powers granted to it by
the Constitution. These powers are both express and implied. The express powers include, for example, the
power to collect taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution also grants the federal
government broad implied powers to enact laws necessary and proper for exercising its other powers.
The Constitution also places certain limits on what the federal and state governments may do. The most
famous limits on federal power are the first 10 amendments to the Constitutionthe Bill of Rights. The basic
rights protected by the Bill of Rights include the right to free speech; free exercise of religion; freedom from
unreasonable searches and seizures; trial by jury; and the right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law. State powers are limited by the 14th Amendment as follows: . . . nor shall any
state deprive any Person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. These clauses of the 14th Amendment frequently are referred
to as the due process clause and the equal protection clause. As another constitutional limitation on both state
and federal governmental power, courts have also recognized an individual right to privacy. This right
frequently affects hospitals and healthcare professionals.
The due process clause imposes restrictions and duties only on state action, not on private action. Actions by
state and local governmental agencies, including public hospitals, are considered to be state actions and must
comply with due process requirements. Actions by private individuals at the behest of the state also can be
subject to the due process requirements. In the past, private hospitals were considered to be engaged in state

9 | AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM

action when they were regulated or partly funded by governmental agencies. Today, it is rare for private
hospitals to be considered engaged in state action on that basis.

2. Statutes
Another major source of law is statutory law, which is the law enacted by a legislature. Legislative bodies
include the United States Congress, state legislatures, and local legislative entities, such as city councils and
county boards of supervisors. Congress has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution, but those
powers have been interpreted broadly. State legislatures have all powers not denied them by the United States
Constitution, by federal laws enacted under the authority of the federal government, or by their state
constitutions. Local legislative bodies have only those powers granted by the state. Through statutes or
constitutional amendments, some states have granted local governments broad powers authorizing home rule.
When there is a federal and state law conflict, valid federal law supersedes.
In certain cases, federal law may preempt an entire area of law, so that state law is superseded even if it is not
in direct conflict. In some law, such as bankruptcy law, Congress explicitly preempts dual state regulation. In
other areas of the law, the courts find that preemption is implied from the aim and pervasiveness of the federal
statutory scheme, the need for uniformity, and the likelihood that state regulation would obstruct the full goals
of the federal law. In the area of healthcare law, one of the most frequently applied preemption provisions can
be found in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Designed to achieve uniformity
in the regulation of healthcare benefits, ERISAs preemption provisions determine whether state law claims
will be heard in state or federal court and what damages are available .
When state law and local government rules conflict, valid state law supersedes. In some cases, state law may
preempt an entire area of law, so that local law is superseded even if it is not in direct conflict.

3. Decisions and Rules of Administrative Agencies

Decisions and Rules of Administrative Agencies The decisions and rules of administrative agencies are other
sources of law. Legislatures have delegated to numerous administrative agencies the responsibility and power
to implement various laws. The delegated powers include the quasi-legislative power to adopt regulations and
the Quasi-judicial power to decide how the statutes and regulations apply to individual situations. The
legislative branch has delegated this authority because it does not have the time or expertise to address the
complex issues involved in many areas that it believes need to be regulated. Administrative agencies that have
been invested with these powers include the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Food and

10 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

Drug Administration (FDA), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), and the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS). DHHS promulgates regulations governing a broad spectrum of activities related to health care. In 2000
and 2003, DHHS issued detailed regulations pursuant to HIPAA governing the privacy and security of all
health information used by healthcare providers, healthcare clearing houses, and health plans. The FDA
promulgates regulations and applies them to individual determinations involving the manufacture, marketing,
and advertising of foods, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices.
The NLRB decides how national labor law applies to individual disputes. The IRS promulgates and applies
regulations to individual disputes concerning federal taxation. Many administrative agencies, such as the
NLRB, seek to achieve some consistency in their decisions by following the position they adopted in previous
cases involving similar matters. That is similar to the way the courts develop the common law, discussed later
in this chapter. When dealing with these agencies, it is important to review the body of law that has evolved
from their previous decisions.
Administrative rules and regulations are valid only to the extent that they are within the scope of the authority
granted by legislation to the agency that has issued them. The Constitution also limits delegation by the
legislative branch. The legislature must retain ultimate responsibility and authority by specifying what
regulations the administrative body may make. In the past, courts often declared delegations to be
unconstitutional unless there was considerable specificity. Today, the courts interpret the Constitution as
permitting much broader delegation, but the general area of law to be regulated still must be specified.

4. Court Decisions
The body of judicial decisions is the fourth source of law. In the process of deciding individual cases, the
courts interpret statutes and regulations, determine whether specific statutes and regulations are per- mitted by
the relevant state or federal constitution, and create the common law when deciding cases not controlled by
statutes, regulations, or a constitution. Disagreements over the application of statutes or regulations to specific
situations arise frequently. In some situations, the legislature has granted an administrative agency the initial
authority or discretion to decide how a law shall be applied. That agencys decision usually can be appealed to
the courts.

11 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

However, courts generally defer to the decisions of administrative agencies in discretionary matters, and limit
their review to whether the delegation to the agency was constitutional and whether the agency acted within its
authority; followed proper procedures had a substantial basis for its decision, and acted without arbitrariness or
discrimination. Whether or not an administrative agency is involved, the court still may have to interpret a
statute or regulation or decide which of two or more conflicting statutes or regulations apply. Courts have
developed several rules for statutory interpretation. In addition, in some states, a statute specifies rules of
interpretation.
These rules or statutes are designed to help determine the intent of the legislature in passing the law. The courts
also determine whether specific statutes or regulations violate the Constitution. All legislation and regulations
must be consistent with the Constitution. The case of Marbury v. Madison established the power of the courts
to declare legislation invalid when it is unconstitutional. Many of the legal principles and rules applied by the
courts in the United States are the product of the common law developed in England and, subsequently, in the
United States. The term common law is applied to the body of principles that evolves from court decisions
resolving controversies. Common law is continually being adapted and expanded. During the colonial period,
English common law applied uniformly. After the American Revolution, each state provided for the adoption
of part or all of the then existing English common law. All subsequent common law in the United States has
been developed on a state basis, so common law may differ from state to state.

12 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

Structure of Courts
To understand the judicial branch of government and the effect of court decisions as precedents, it is necessary
to understand the structure of the court system. There are more than 50 court systems in the United States,
including the federal court system, each states court system, the District of Columbia court system, and that of
Puerto rico and other U.S. territories. These courts do not all reach the same decisions on specific issues.
Frequently, a majority approach and several minority approaches exist on each issue. Thus, careful review is
necessary to determine which court decisions apply to an individual hospital and, if no decisions are
specifically applicable, to predict which approach the relevant courts are likely to adopt. The federal court
system and many state court systems have three levels of courtstrial courts, intermediate courts of appeal,
and a supreme court. Some states have no intermediate courts of appeal.

State Court System

The trial courts in some states are divided into special courts that deal with specific issues, such as family
courts, juvenile courts, probate courts, and limited courts that deal only with lesser crimes, such as
misdemeanors, or with civil cases involving limited amounts of money. Each state has trial courts of general
jurisdiction that may decide all disputes not assigned to other courts, or disputes barred from the courts by
valid federal or state law. At the trial court level, the applicable law is determined, and the evidence is assessed
to determine the facts. The applicable law then is applied to those facts. It is the judges role to determine what
the law is. If there is a jury, the judge instructs the jury as to the law, and the jury determines the facts and
applies the law. If there is no jury, the judge not only determines what the law is, but also determines the facts
and applies the law. In either case, the determination of the facts must be based on the evidence properly
admitted during the trial, so the facts as heard by the decision maker may not necessarily be what actually
happened.
Each state has a single court at the highest level, usually called the supreme court. In some states, the name is
different. For example, in New York, the highest court is the Court of Appeals, while trial courts in New York
are called supreme courts. The highest level court in each state decides appeals from the intermediate appellate
courts or, in states without such courts, from trial courts. The highest level court frequently has other duties,
including adopting rules of procedure for the state court system and determining who may practice law in the
state, which includes disciplining lawyers for improper conduct.

13 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

Federal Court System

The federal court system has a structure similar to that of state court systems. The federal trial courts are the
United States district courts and special purpose courts, such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which hears
certain claims against the United States. Federal trial courts are fundamentally different from state trial courts
because the federal courts have limited jurisdiction. A federal suit must involve either a question of federal law
or a dispute between citizens of different states in which the dispute involves an amount of at least $75,000.
Federal questions include cases involving possible violations of federal law or of rights under the United States
Constitution.
When a federal trial court decides a controversy between citizens of different states, the court is acting under
what is called its diversity jurisdiction, using federal court procedures but applying the law of the applicable
state. Sometimes federal trial courts will decline to decide state law questions until they have been ruled on by
a state court. That is called abstention. It is designed to leave states issues for state courts and to minimize the
federal courts workload. Federal courts generally will not abstain when there also are important federal
questions not affected by the state law question. Some states have procedures by which the federal courts can
ask a state court directly to decide a particular question of state law when it is important to the decision of a
case before the federal court.
Appeals from the federal trial courts go to a U.S. court of appeals. The United States is divided into 12 areas,
called circuits. The circuits are numbered 1 through 11, plus the District of Columbia circuit court, which is
called the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The nations highest court is the Supreme Court of the
United States, which decides appeals from the U.S. courts of appeals. Decisions of the highest state courts also
may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if they involve federal laws or the U.S. Constitution. When the
courts of appeals or the highest state courts decline to review a lower court decision, the decision sometimes
can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court

14 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

Judges
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and circuit and district judges are appointed by the President of the United
States if approved by a majority vote of the U.S. Senate. These justices and judges serve during good
behavior in effect, a life term. Presidents usually nominate persons to be judges who are members of their
own political party. Persons appointed are usually distinguished lawyers, law professors, or lower federal court
or state court judges. Once these judges are appointed their salaries cannot be reduced. Federal judges may
only be removed from office through an impeachment process in which charges are made by the House of
Representatives and a trial is conducted by the Senate.
In the entire history of the United States, only a few judges have been impeached and those removed were
found to have committed serious misconduct. These protections allow federal judges to exercise independent
judgment without political or outside interference or influence. The methods of selecting state judges vary
from state to state and are often different within a state, depending on the type of court. The most common
selection systems are by commission nomination and by popular election. In the commission nomination
system, judges are appointed by the governor (the states chief executive) who must choose from a list of
candidates selected by an independent commission made up of lawyers, legislators, lay citizens, and sometimes
judges.
In many states judges are selected by popular election. These elections may be partisan or non-partisan.
Candidates for judicial appointment or election must meet certain qualifications, such as being a practicing
lawyer for a certain number of years. With very few exceptions, state judges serve specified, renewable terms.
All states have procedures governing judicial conduct, discipline, and removal. In both the federal and state
systems, judicial candidates are almost always lawyers with many years of experience. There is no specific
course of training for judges and no examination. Some states require judges to attend continuing education
programs to learn about developments in the law. Both the federal and state court systems offer beginning and
continuing education programs for judges.

15 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

Prosecutors
Prosecutors in the federal system are part of the U.S. Department of Justice in the executive branch. The
Attorney General of the United States, who heads the Department of Justice, is appointed by the President with
Senate confirmation. The chief prosecutors in the federal court districts are called U.S. attorneys and are also
appointed by the President with Senate confirmation. Within the Department of Justice is the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, which investigates crimes against the United States.
Each state also has an attorney general in the state executive branch who is usually elected by the citizens of
that state. There are also prosecutors in different regions of the state, called states attorneys or district
attorneys. These prosecutors are also usually elected lawyers.
The U.S. legal system uses the adversarial process. Lawyers are essential to this process. Lawyers are
responsible for presenting their clients evidence and legal arguments to the court. Based on the lawyers
presentations, a trial judge or jury determines the facts and applies the law to reach a decision before judgment
is entered.

Lawyers
Individuals are free to represent themselves in American courts, but lawyers are often necessary to present
cases effectively. An individual who cannot afford to hire a lawyer may attempt to obtain one through a local
legal aid society. Persons accused of crimes who cannot afford a lawyer are represented by a court-appointed
attorney or by federal or state public defender offices. American lawyers are licensed by the individual states in
which they practice law.
There is no national authority that licenses lawyers. Most states require applicants to hold a law degree (Juris
Doctor) from an accredited law school. An American law degree is a post-graduate degree awarded at the end
of a three-year course of study. (Normally individuals complete four years of college/university before
attending law school). Also, most states require that applicants for a license to practice law pass a written bar
examination and meet certain standards of character. Some states allow lawyers to become bar members based
on membership in another states bar. All states provide for out-of-state lawyers to practice in the state in a
particular case under certain conditions. Lawyers can engage in any kind of practice. Although there is no
formal distinction among types of legal practice, there is much informal specialization.

16 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

Conclusion
Some judicial policies have a greater impact on society than others. The judiciary plays a greater role in
developing the nations policies than the constitutional framers envisioned. However, American courts are not
all-powerful institutions, writes Gerald N. Rosenberg in Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social
Change? They were designed with severe limitations and placed in a political system of divided powers. To
ask them to produce significant social reforms is to forget their history and ignore their constraints. Within
this complex framework of competing political and social demands and expectations is a policy making role
for the courts. Because the other two branches of government are sometimes not receptive to the demands of
certain segments of society, the only alternative for those individuals or groups is to turn to the courts. Civil
rights organizations, for example, made no real headway until they found the Supreme Court to be a supportive
forum for their school desegregation efforts. As civil rights groups attained some success in the federal courts,
others were encouraged to employ litigation as a strategy.
All things considered, the courts seem best equipped to develop and implement narrow policies that are less
controversial in nature. The indigent defendants in state criminal trials must be provided with an attorney did
not meet any strong outcries of protest. Furthermore, it was a policy that primarily required the support of
judges and lawyers; action by Congress and the president was not really necessary. A policy of equality for all
segments of society, on the other hand, is so broad and controversy-laden that it must move beyond the
judiciary. As it does so, the courts become simply one part, albeit an important part, of the policy making
process

17 | A M E R I C A N J U D I C I A L S Y S T E M

References

American Supreme Court, Sixth Edition by Robert G. McCloskey

Judicial Process in America by Robert A. Carp

Select World Constitutions by U. N. Gupta

The Editorial Board. (2013). Courts without Judges. NY Times.

Wheeler R. (2013) What's Behind all Those Judicial Vacancies Without Nominees?. Brookings
Institution.

McMillian BJ. (2013). President Obama's First-Term U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: An
Analysis and Comparison with Presidents since Reagan. CRS.

People v. Leonard, 40 Cal. 4th 1370, 1416 (2007) (Ninth Circuit decisions do not bind Supreme Court
of California).

Gregory C. Sisk, Litigation with the Federal Government (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 2006),
418-425.

Robert J. Hume, How Courts Impact Federal Administrative Behavior (New York: Routledge, 2009),
92-106.

Mitchell Rogovin & Donald L. Korb, "The Four R's Revisited: Regulations, Rulings, Reliance, and
Retroactivity in the 21st Century: A View From Within", 46 Duquesne Law Review 323, 366-367
(2008).

Michael L. Wells, A Litigation-Oriented Approach to Teaching Federal Courts, 53 St. Louis U. L.J. 857
(2009).