Introduction

“The U.S. common law structure has a unified system of deciding legal matters with the principle of stare decisis at its core, making the concept of legal precedent extremely important. A prior ruling or judgment on any case is known as a precedent. Stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedents when overseeing an ongoing case with similar circumstances.”[1]

Many countries have their own set of legal systems. For example: English law follows a common law system whereas Luxembourg law follows parliamentary, democratic, representative and sovereign forms of power residing in the country and is typically a civil law country. Legal systems can be codified and uncodified such as written and unwritten law, for example: the United Kingdom does not have a constitution compared to India or the United States of America for that matter. In this article, we will be discussing the legal system of the United States of America and the laws that are borne out of this legal system.

“Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.”[2]

There are some basic fundamental theories that is part of the American legal system. This information is very useful for law students and students wanting to take up a career in the legal field. Some of these principles are summarised below in order to give our readers some basic information in the understanding of the American legal system.

The Principle of Stare Decisis / The Precedent

• The legal doctrine stating that courts should follow precedent is called stare decisis(a Latin phrase with the literal meaning “to stand by things decided”.[3] The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed”.[4] Precedent is a principle or rule established in a legal case that becomes authoritative to a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar legal issues or facts.[5] In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters.[6] The principle can be divided into two components:[7]
  • A decision made by a superior court, or by the same court in an earlier decision, is binding precedent that the court itself and all its inferior courts must follow.[8]
  • A court may overturn its own precedent, but should do so only if a strong reason exists to do so, and even in that case, should be guided by principles from superior, lateral, and inferior courts.[9]
• The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions.[10]

“When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision.  The previous deciding court must have binding authority over the court; otherwise, the previous decision is merely persuasive authority. In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court described the rationale behind stare decisis as  “promoting the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fostering reliance on judicial decisions, and contributing to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” 

The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be vertical stare decisis. Or, additionally, if the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York adhered to a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, that would be vertical stare decisis. 

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” When prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned,” then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is “particularly true in constitutional cases.” For example, in deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.”[11]

The Court Hierarchy

The Court Hierarchy is very important in any legal system. Having a main (federal) court alone will prove to be a tedious task. As the courts will be flooded with legal cases. Therefore, it is important that we have different levels of the judicial system, this way there is delegation of power and also ensures that justice is easily accessible or attainable. This will also avoid any concentration of power at the federal level. “Court level or hierarchy defines to a great degree the extent to which a decision by one court will have a binding effect on another court. The federal court system, for instance, is based on a three-tiered structure, in which the United States District Courts are the trial-level courts; the United States Court of Appeals is the first-level court of appeal; and the United States Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law.”[12]

Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction can be defined as the power of a particular court of law to adjudicate matters. For example: The National Company Law Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear cases regarding only disputes that take place within the company sector, like bankruptcy, breach of data, winding up the company etc., Or the District Court will deal with matters that are happening in that current district.

MORE INFORMATION ON JURISDICTION:

“It can also be defined as: –

1. Power of a court to adjudicate cases and issue orders; or
2. Territory within which a court or government agency may properly exercise its power. See, e.g. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co. et al., 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

One of the most fundamental questions of law is whether a given court has jurisdiction to preside over a given case. A jurisdictional question may be broken down into three components:

• Whether there is personal jurisdiction[aka whether the court may even hear the case involving the particular defendant(s)]. This is further broken down into 3 categories (See Pennoyer v. Neff for additional information): 
  • in personam jurisdiction
  • in remjurisdiction
  • quasi in rem jurisdiction
• Whether there is jurisdiction over the subject matter 
• Whether there is jurisdiction to render the particular judgment sought

The term jurisdiction can be best understood by being compared to “power.” Any court possesses jurisdiction over matters only to the extent granted to it by the Constitution, and/or legislation of sovereignty on behalf of which it functions (ex: a state court in Mississippi may need statutory permission by the Mississippi legislature to hear certain types of cases). The question of whether a given court has the power to determine a jurisdictional question is itself a jurisdictional question. Such a legal question is referred to as “jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction.”

Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s authority to decide the issue in controversy such as a contracts issue, or a civil rights issue. State courts have general jurisdiction, meaning that they can hear any controversy except those prohibited by state law (some states, for example, deny subject matter jurisdiction for a case that does not involve state citizens and did not take place in the state) and those allocated to federal courts of exclusive jurisdiction such as admiralty or bankruptcy issues (see 28 U.S.C. § 1333, 1334). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction in that they can only hear cases that fall both within the scope defined by the Constitution in Article III Section 2 and Congressional statutes (See 28 U.S.C. §1251, §1253, §1331, §1332).

Territorial jurisdiction is the court’s power to bind the parties to the action. This law determines the scope of federal and state court power. State court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and the federal court territorial jurisdiction is determined by the Due Process Clause of the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. (For more, see World-Wide Volkswagen v. Woodson; see also International Shoe v. Washington).

Other forms of jurisdiction include appellate jurisdiction (the power of one court to correct the errors of another, lower court), concurrent jurisdiction (the notion that two courts might share the power to hear cases of the same type, arising in the same place), and diversity jurisdiction (the power of Federal courts to hear cases in which the parties are from different states). An example showing the interplay of diversity jurisdiction with subject-matter jurisdiction is Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Group, L. P. (02-1689), 541 U.S. 567 (2004). 

Parties will often sue a defendant who is a resident of a different state. For a state court to hear this case, that court will need to satisfy the constitutional due process requirement for territorial jurisdiction (see above) as well as the state statutory requirement, which is typically known as a state’s long-arm statute.”[13]

DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEMS:

There are various types of legal systems and different countries have enforced different kinds of legal systems according to their culture and needs. For example: The United States of America has a presidential system, whereas the United Kingdom and India have a parliamentary system. Both the United States and India have their own written Constitution that they follow and is considered as the supreme law of the land. The constitution is primarily based on the aspirations of citizens, the history, geography and cultural factors. The Collins Dictionary defines the “legal system” as “the set of laws of a country and the ways in which they are interpreted and enforced.”[14]

As stated in the above paragraph, every country has their own set of legal systems and as such there is no one uniform system that the entire globe follows. The application of law will significantly depend on the kind of legal system exists in the country.

“The U.S. Department of Justice categorizes different legal systems into four main types of legal systems: common law, civil law, religious law, and customary law systems, with the latter two being exceedingly rare. Within each type of legal system, there is considerable variation based on precedent and local practices. There is also considerable overlap between these four categories, as many jurisdictions employ “hybrid” legal systems that reflect aspects of two or more legal systems. The United States, like most former British colonies, uses a form of the common law system.”[15]

[1] Stare Decisis: What It Means in Law, with Examples (investopedia.com)

[2] U.S. Senate: Constitution of the United States

[3] "stare decisis". LII / Legal Information Institute.

[4] Adeleye, Gabriel et al. World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions: a Resource for Readers and Writers, page 371 (1999).

[5] Precedent. Dictionary.com.

[6] Adeleye, Gabriel et al. World Dictionary of Foreign Expressions: a Resource for Readers and Writers, page 371 (1999).

[7] Kmiec, Keenan. The Origin and Current Meanings of "Judicial Activism", California Law Review (2004).

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Id.

[11] stare decisis | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

[12] Introduction to the American Legal System | LexisNexis

[13] jurisdiction | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

[14] LEGAL SYSTEM definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary (collinsdictionary.com)

[15] legal systems | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)