Judiciary in a Federal system - who judges what?

[Romanos IV]

I've been studying how Federal systems work and I've got a problem understanding sth. A Federal constitution explicitly or implicitly assigns legislative powers to the Federal Legislatures and State/Subnational legislatures. Federal and subnational govts also have more or less defined responsibilites.

But, what about the judiciary? I know in the US there are both Federal and State criminal laws, for example. Is it always the case that the Federal courts try federal offenses and State courts try state offenses? If so, can State courts decisions be appealed to a Federal court? And what if the two jurisdictions overlap (sb committed both kind of crimes at once)? Will the case go to two concurrent trials?

And I imagine it's even more complex for private law.

Another question I have is, what if a State Constitution is contrary to a Federal simple law? Federal legislation is superior, but for example, an expanded State Bill of Rights could get in conflict with a simple federal law on criminal proceedings.

(any answer/example for any Federal system -US, Canada, Australia, Germany , India etc. is welcome, ofc).

[magickyleo101]

I've been studying how Federal systems work and I've got a problem understanding sth. A Federal constitution explicitly or implicitly assigns legislative powers to the Federal Legislatures and State/Subnational legislatures. Federal and subnational govts also have more or less defined responsibilites.

But, what about the judiciary? I know in the US there are both Federal and State criminal laws, for example. Is it always the case that the Federal courts try federal offenses and State courts try state offenses? If so, can State courts decisions be appealed to a Federal court? And what if the two jurisdictions overlap (sb committed both kind of crimes at once)? Will the case go to two concurrent trials?

Jurisdictional issues involving federal courts in the US are pretty complex. Under the separate sovereigns exception, both the state and the federal government (or multiple state governments) can prosecute a person for the same act without violating the double jeopardy rule. Generally, only the federal courts are going to have jurisdiction over a prosecution of a person for breaking a federal law.

But it gets more complicated in the state courts. State courts will apply some federal law in the course of adjudicating a state issue (for example, state courts will apply the exclusionary rule for violations of a defendant's fourth amendment rights). Moreover, a person who's sent to prison by state courts can generally appeal his conviction through a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court (though usually only once state court appeals are exhausted).

And I imagine it's even more complex for private law.

It's significantly more complicated. For example, under diversity jurisdiction federal courts can adjudicate state law claims. Under the Erie doctrine, the federal court will apply state substantive law to the case, but the federal rules of civil procedure and the federal rules of evidence will generally govern how the case proceeds. And although federal courts often trump state courts, federal courts sitting in diversity will defer to state court interpretations of state law.

But (to add another layer of complication) WHICH state's laws are applied (or even whether it's the laws of a locality in the US as opposed, say, to the laws of Mexico) can vary depending on choice of law considerations. Thus, a Texas state court might apply the laws of Kansas or Mexico, depending on the facts of the case and a Federal court in Texas might apply Mexican law because that's what a state court in Texas would do.

Another question I have is, what if a State Constitution is contrary to a Federal simple law? Federal legislation is superior, but for example, an expanded State Bill of Rights could get in conflict with a simple federal law on criminal proceedings.

The general rule is that federal law of any sort always controls over state law IF there's actually a conflict. But if there's no conflict (for example, if the state law simply expands upon the protections granted by federal law) then the state law will still apply. The process of replacing state law with federal law is known as preemption.

[xcorps]

[Romanos IV]

Thanks for the great answer. And a last thing: Is English case law a source of law(and is it only so when no relevant federal legislation exists)? Wouldn't it be unacceptalbe for a republican country to apply case law coming from a country from which it revolted and whose case law was made by courts judging cases in the name of a King/Queen?

[magickyleo101]

Thanks for the great answer. And a last thing: Is English case law a source of law(and is it only so when no relevant federal legislation exists)? Wouldn't it be unacceptalbe for a republican country to apply case law coming from a country from which it revolted and whose case law was made by courts judging cases in the name of a King/Queen?

English law doesn't play as big a role in American jurisprudence as it did through even the turn of the 20th century, but it still comes into play in a number of ways.

First, when the American colonies rebelled the colonists weren't looking to fundamentally transform society so much as they were trying to shift who was in charge (i.e. they weren't like communist rebels). Thus, most American states actually passed statutes shortly after the revolution basically re-adopting the laws that had existed just before the revolution, including English common law.

Thus, in a case where a cause of action (or other law) goes back to the colonial period (an example would be conversion), the old English case law is going to have some relevance to the form of the current law.

Moreover, throughout the 19th century and early 20th century, American courts frequently looked to English courts as authorities on the law. Thus, rules from cases like Winterbottom were largely adopted whole cloth by American courts. In fact, the original Winterbottom case is still commonly read in the first year of American law school, as are several other English cases.

Of course, as America grew as a world power (and eventually came to eclipse the UK as the dominant world power), the American judiciary lost some of its deference to the English courts and English court cases are now something of a rarity.

Moreover, during the 20th century the American legal landscape experienced a shift from a heavily common law system to a primarily statutory system. Since most of our statutes are home-grown (and not borrowed from the English), English law generally won't play as big a role in modern American decisions. However, some statutes (like the statute of frauds) are still basically English statutes, and American courts will still look back to the English history from time to time for interpretive guidance.

Second, American courts will often look to other jurisdictions with similar laws when approaching a case of first opinion (thus, the courts of Oregon might look to the courts of New York). Insofar as the English law is similar in form to the American law, the courts might very well look at how English courts have interpreted their statutes.

If you want a book that covers a lot of this stuff (and provides and excellent, excellent overview of the development of American law generally), I highly recommend Lawrence Friedman's "A History of American Law." Chapter 1 of Part 2 should give you a lot of what you're looking for (though looking at it now, Friedman kind of disagrees with some of what I've written :-/).

[Adhamh Ashashi]

Such an excellent answer coming from Magickyleo. Also makes me appreciate the simple Court system I have to study in Ireland