Essay Sample on US Court System: Federal & State Courts Explained

Introduction

The US court system includes the federal court system and the state courts. The federal courts are fully mandated to carry out cases that relate to the constitutionality of the law and those that involve the United States treaties. Also, cases involving the ambassadors, disputes between states, public ministers, maritime laws, and bankruptcy laws are all included in the federal laws. The federal judiciary operates independently from the legislative and executive branches of the government, but all relate to each other on the matter of constitutionality. The branches of the Judiciary decide the constitutionality of every federal law and helps in the resolving of the other disputes that relate to federal laws. Nonetheless, judges are dependent on the executive arm o the government for decisions (Moreno, 2019).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The courts are the one who decides what happens and what needs to be done. They give directive on the events of a scenario and what should follow in that accord. They have the jurisdiction to pronounce sentencing and the nature of punishment the person should receive. The courts also decide on a peaceful way on how to solve private conflicts when people cannot decide on the matter. Dependant on the nature of crime or dispute, various cases may end up in federal courts while some end in state courts.

The judicial system of America includes the Supreme Court, which takes the position of the highest court in the country. It was founded under Article III of the constitution and was authorized by the Congress to amend and pass legislative laws that create a system that includes lower courts. In the federal system that has been operating since 94 other district trial courts and other thirteen appeal courts, all are under the Supreme Court (Nagel, 2017).

The courts of appeal are 13 and the 94 judicial districts grouped into 12 circuits with each one of them having a court of appeals. Their mandate was to determine whether the law was applied correctly or not in the preceding trial courts. They consist of a bench of three judges, and no juries are included. The appeals courts take hearings of challenges to the district courts made decisions from those courts located in their circuit and also appeals that arise from decisions made by federal administrative agencies. Furthermore, the Appeals for every federal circuit have a nationwide jurisdiction that hears appeals in various specialized cases like those that relate to patent laws and those decided International Trade Courts of America and also by the Federal Claims Court of America.

Bankruptcy Appellate panels include 3-judge panels that are authorized to take appeal hearings that relate to bankruptcy. They represent the federal court of appeal and ought to be created by such circuit. The district courts resolve their disputes by the determination of facts and the application of the principles of the law to give decisions. Trials courts involve the judge of the district who takes the proceeding of the case and the jury who then decides on the case. Magistrate judges give assistance to the district judges in the preparation of the cases for their trial.

Exclusive jurisdiction is offered to the federal courts over cases of bankruptcy that involve businesses, personal and farm bankruptcy. It, therefore, means that a case involving bankruptcy is not to be filed or heard in a state court. Throughout the bankruptcy procedure, businesses and individuals that cannot credit their creditors may ask for supervised litigation by the court for their assets or have a reorganization of their financial affairs by their debts.

Court Case

Shelby County v. Holder, 2013

The main question in the case was whether the renewal of the Section 5 in the constitution relating to Voter Rights Act was dully under the constraints and constitutional jurisdictions of Section 4(b) and whether it exceeded the authority of the congress under 14th and the 15th constitutional Amendments, and thus if in violation of the 10th Amendment and the fourth Article of the Constitution?

The US 14th amendment right duly protects every citizen their right for due process of the law. The 15th amendment, on the other side, protects every citizen the right to vote irrespective of their race or colour. The 10th amendment, which also forms a basis to the case, reserves right that is not granted to the federal state. US constitution article four allows for the right of self-government in every state of the country.

In the case, a determination was based on the voting rights Act that was enacted in 1965 addressed the racial discrimination during the voting process. Section 5 of the constitution prohibits any eligible district from making changes to the electoral laws and standard procedures without the official authorization. Section 4 subsections (b) of the constitution defines the eligibility of a district in relation to electoral laws to be one with a voting test set by November 1st of 1964 and 50% of presidential election turnout. In case of the event of changes of electoral laws, the supposed districts have to prove to a three bench judge or the attorney general of Washington D.C. court that the changes made either contain purpose or will have the effect of negatively affecting individuals voting right especially if based on race or colour. Section 5 of the constitution, which also applies in the case, was enacted for a period of five years but continually renewed since.

Shelby County, in Alabama, thus filed a suit in the district court and they were seeking both a declaration judgment involving Section 4(b) and Section 5 if are unconstitutional and also a permanent injunction on the case which was against their enforcement. The case was upheld by the district court on the constitutionality of both sections and then granted a summary judgment which was to be delivered to the Attorney General. The United States Court of Appeals in the Columbian District made a ruling that the Congress was within their powers in their authorization of Section 5 and 4(b) and that the Sections are all relevant to the matter of discrimination during voting (King, & Smith, 2016).

The Court was further decided in the Supreme Court because it was a matter that was touching on the constitutionality of all Citizens of the country in matters of electoral laws in the States. In the final determination of the case, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. decided that Section 4 that covers the voting rights was unconstitutional. It was held by the court that Section 4 that includes the Voting Rights Act, had burdens that were no longer responsive to voting conditions in the districts in question. It was decided so because although the constraints the Section has on the various named States were meaningful in the 1960s, and 70s, they hold no representation in the constitutional currently and therefore hold an unconstitutional power violation that regulates elections that are reserved for the States by the constitution.

The hearing also held that the method for the determination of if the changes done to a state's voting process need be reviewed federally is outdated and do not reflect the changes that might have occurred 50 years ago in the narrowing the voter turnout gap in those states. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring argument, held that Section 5 involving the Voting Rights Act was in violation of the constitution (Aneja, & Avenancio-Leon, 2019, May). He argued that direct discrimination against voters based on their colour and race that Section 5 prohibited was no longer evident. With no such circumstances, Congress could not constitutionally make a justification that places the Section 5 burden on the United States.

Justice Ruth Bader on her side gave a dissent in which by arguing that the power of the Congress to enforce the 15th and the 14th Amendment incorporates the legislative action that includes the Voting Rights Act. The history of the legislature and the contents of the Amendment and also the precedent Congress support authority in their capacity to pass legislation that certainly targets abusers of the state. However, Congress need not have unlimited power but ought to demonstrate the process taken rationally proceeds to a legal objective, just like the case that involved the Voting Rights Act. The Congressional evidence on the case to determine if to renew the electoral rights, without doubt, proved that there was still the need for the justification of the burdens that were placed on the state in the case hearing. She again argued that holding Section 4 to be unconstitutional, the opinion of the majority made it possible for the effective enforcement of Section 5.

The outcome of the case was dully justified because the constitution Voting Rights Act protects every Citizen on their eligibility to vote despite their race or colour. The changes that were made by some state in the 1960s and the 70s were only constitutional at that time because of the preceding matters that were at hand. Therefore such provisions and powers to the respective states do not hold ground or right in the current constitution. The matter was dully heard on respective state courts because they were addressing matters that relate to the State and the laws that were passed there. But then they had to be heard in the Supreme Court because the issue was now exceeding the state courts and needed the address of the federal court to determine the constitutionality of the matter.

References

Aneja, A. P., & Avenancio-Leon, C. F. (2019, May). Disenfranchisement and Economic Inequality: Downstream Effects of Shelby County v. Holder. In AEA Papers and Proceedings (Vol. 109, pp. 161-65).

King, D. S., & Smith, R. M. (2016). THE LAST STAND?: Shelby County v. Holder, White Political Power, and America's Racial Policy Alliances. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 13(1), 25-44.

Moreno, C. R. (2019). Address to the Supreme Court of Mexico on the American Judicial System. Cal. Legal Hist., 14, 76.

Nagel, R. F. (2017). American judicial review in perspective. In Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights (pp. 225-238). Routledge.