2.2 The Judicial System

The United States runs dual court systems: one federal, one for each of the fifty states. Paralegals must know both, because choosing the wrong court — or failing to spot that the opposing party chose the wrong court — is a jurisdictional defect that can end a case regardless of its merits.

The Federal Court Structure

Article III of the Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized Congress to create inferior federal courts. Congress did so, producing a three-tier pyramid.

U.S. District Courts

The district courts are the federal trial courts. There are 94 districts, with at least one in every state. Trials happen here: juries are empaneled, witnesses testify, and evidence is admitted. Every federal civil case under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure begins in a district court. District courts create findings of fact but not binding appellate precedent.

U.S. Courts of Appeals

The courts of appeals (circuit courts) review district court decisions. There are 13 circuits: eleven numbered regional circuits (First through Eleventh), the District of Columbia Circuit, and the Federal Circuit, which has nationwide subject-matter jurisdiction over topics such as patent appeals and claims against the United States. Appeals are heard by panels of three judges; a losing party may seek rehearing en banc, meaning by the full court. Appellate courts review the trial record for errors of law — they do not retry facts, hear witnesses, or accept new evidence.

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court sits at the top with nine justices — a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices — appointed for life. Its appellate jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary. A party seeking review files a petition for a writ of certiorari; the Court grants cert only when four justices vote to hear the case (the rule of four). The Court receives thousands of petitions each year and grants roughly 1–2%, typically to resolve circuit splits — disagreements among the courts of appeals. The Court also has narrow original jurisdiction (for example, disputes between states), exercised rarely.

State Court Structure

Most states mirror the federal pyramid: trial courts of general jurisdiction (often called superior, district, or circuit courts — names vary by state), an intermediate court of appeals (in most but not all states), and a state supreme court as the court of last resort on questions of state law. Below the general trial courts sit courts of limited jurisdiction — small claims, traffic, probate, and family courts. State courts are courts of general subject-matter jurisdiction: they can hear nearly anything, including most federal claims, unless Congress has made jurisdiction exclusively federal.

Jurisdiction: The Threshold Question

A court cannot act without jurisdiction, and jurisdiction has two independent requirements.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court's power over the type of case. It cannot be waived or conferred by agreement of the parties, and it can be challenged at any time — even on appeal. Federal district courts have two main grants under Title 28 of the U.S. Code:

• Federal question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1331): the case arises under the Constitution, a federal statute, or a treaty. There is no minimum dollar amount.
• Diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. § 1332): the parties are citizens of different states (complete diversity — no plaintiff may share state citizenship with any defendant) and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

Some matters belong exclusively to federal court — bankruptcy, patent and copyright infringement, federal antitrust, and prosecutions for federal crimes. Others are concurrent, meaning either system may hear them; a state-court defendant in a diversity case may remove the case to federal court.

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is the court's power over the parties, particularly the defendant. State long-arm statutes authorize jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants, but the Constitution's Due Process Clause limits that reach: under International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), the defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state such that maintaining the suit "does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Modern doctrine splits this into general jurisdiction (the defendant is essentially "at home" in the forum) and specific jurisdiction (the claim arises out of the defendant's purposeful contacts with the forum). Unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction can be waived — a defendant who litigates the merits without raising it consents to it. Venue — the proper geographic district within a system that has jurisdiction — is a separate, waivable question of convenience.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the courts' power to declare a statute or executive action unconstitutional and therefore void. The Constitution does not mention it expressly; Chief Justice Marshall established it in Marbury v. Madison (1803), reasoning that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Judicial review applies to both federal and state action and is the practical engine behind the Supremacy Clause.

Paralegal Scenario

Your firm sues an out-of-state manufacturer in your state's courts for $60,000 on a negligence theory. The manufacturer removes to federal court. Was removal proper? Check both requirements: complete diversity (your client and the manufacturer are citizens of different states — yes) and amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 — no. The case fails the amount requirement, and because there is no federal question (negligence is state common law), your attorney should move to remand. This is exactly the arithmetic the exam expects you to run.

Common Exam Traps

• Saying the amount in controversy must be "$75,000 or more." The statute says exceeds $75,000 — $75,000 exactly is not enough.
• Confusing the courts: courts of appeals do not conduct trials or hear new evidence.
• Treating subject-matter jurisdiction as waivable like personal jurisdiction — it is not.
• Assuming the Supreme Court must hear every appeal from a federal court of appeals — review is discretionary by certiorari.