Clarifying the court conundrum

With all this ink about cases and courts, readers have expressed understandable confusion. Courts referred to by state names; circuit, district, and magistrate courts; terms can be dizzying. Why, asked one reader, did a court in neighboring Washington decide a case involving the president’s travel ban? Shouldn’t that have happened in D.C.? What do all the court names mean, and why the differences?

In a word, jurisdiction.

What’s jurisdiction? Entire law courses are built around the topic, but simply put, jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide cases. That power is subdivided in two: Jurisdiction over the issues in the case (“subject matter jurisdiction”), and jurisdiction over the person (i.e., over the plaintiff and defendant, which may be people, organizations, or governments). Determining a court’s jurisdiction also involves a third consideration — location, so a court’s power to hear a case may also depend on territorial limits. An Idaho court, for example, wouldn’t settle a divorce suit between two Virginia citizens.

Jurisdiction is a big deal, often the first thing trial lawyers consider — where a case should be litigated. What determines both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction? It’s defined by statutes and the Constitution (sometimes, also by a contract selecting among possible jurisdictions, but that’s another topic).

Assuming personal jurisdiction is established, many subjects are litigated in both state and federal courts (contract disputes, civil rights, crimes, etc.), but practical considerations limit that. State judicial authority to enforce state laws tend to be limited to their own borders; it wouldn’t make sense, for example, for an Ohio court to decide how Idaho law should be applied here. Nor would it make much sense for a Utah state court to decide how the Internal Revenue Code should be interpreted for all

taxpayers.

Two systems: State and federal. As we have both state laws and federal laws, we have two corresponding systems. States establish their own court systems; the federal court system was established by the U.S. Constitution. Both systems include “appellate” or “appeals” courts, where litigants (plaintiffs and defendants) turn if they aren’t satisfied with a lower/trial court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest level of appellate court with the broadest potential authority, sometimes including cases which may begin in state courts, such as death-penalty cases.

Generally, federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases related to the U.S. Constitution or federal issues, such as civil rights, immigration, federal tax cases, and disputes between citizens of different states involving $75,000 or more. Bankruptcy courts are part of the federal system, and clearly named as such.

Most everything else is handled by generally overwhelmed state courts, which have the biggest caseload.

What are “Circuit” courts? The federal court system is divided into 11 numbered “circuits,” mapped geographically across the nation, plus two in the D.C. area (the D.C. and Federal Circuit Courts). Idaho is in the Ninth Circuit, along with much of the Western U.S.

And “District” courts? Within each federal circuit are several “U.S. District” courts (essentially trial courts), and a “(Numbered) Court of Appeal.” So federal court cases which begin in a U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Appellate courts don’t hear witnesses or have juries; just lawyers and judges discussing issues of law.

While state courts can and do consider federal issues as part of broader cases (a lawsuit often involves multiple issues to decide, so there can be state-federal overlap in one system), cases involving federal law as applied to citizens within that court’s territorial jurisdiction generally originate in U.S. District Courts.

Once a case gets through those two levels in a federal case — trial/district and appeal/circuit — the next level is the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court strictly limits what cases it considers, such as when at least two Circuit Courts of Appeal have conflicting decisions. (The travel ban decisions were made by U.S. District Courts in different circuits, including one in Washington.)

States, and their confusing terms. Now here’s where terminology can get frustrating, because within state court systems, the trial courts may also be called “circuit” or “district” courts. Idaho’s trial courts are called Idaho District Courts; New York calls its basic trial courts “Supreme Court of New York.” Other states call their trial courts “circuit” courts. It helps to look for either a state name, or “U.S.,” preceding the court name to know if it’s state or federal. If the reference “circuit” is to a federal court of appeals, it’s preceded by a number, such as “Fifth Circuit” or “Ninth Circuit.”

Turning to Idaho, we have three levels: District Courts — or trial courts — which include the Magistrate Division; Courts of Appeals; and our highest appellate court, the Idaho Supreme Court.

Idaho Magistrate Division. Magistrate judges hear misdemeanor criminal cases, bail, civil cases involving lower monetary amounts, certain juvenile cases, family law, probate (estate/wills), and small claims disputes (small claims are informal and without attorneys).

Idaho District Courts. Idaho is divided into seven judicial districts; Idaho’s five northern counties are in the First Judicial District. District Court judges hear serious criminal cases (felonies), as well as civil (non-criminal) disputes above a threshold monetary value, and appeals from the Magistrate Division.

Idaho Court of Appeals, Idaho Supreme Court. Founded in 1981 to relieve the caseload of appeals from the District Court, the Court of Appeals hears cases assigned to it by the Idaho Supreme Court. The Idaho Supreme Court not only hears final appeals, it also establishes statewide rules and policies for the operation of the entire court system.

Any judge or lawyer worth her salt would take issue with some of what’s written here; it’s incomplete and takes liberties for the sake of relative brevity. My apologies to them, and to readers who got nothing out of this but a bigger headache.

“Lawsuit: A machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage.” — Ambrose Bierce

•••

Sholeh Patrick, J.D., is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network. Email: sholeh@cdapress.com