Constitutional Law

Lesson 63: State Courts and Judicial Review

Welcome to the exploration of State Courts and Judicial Review, a critical aspect of Constitutional Law. State courts play a significant role in the judicial system, having jurisdiction over cases that are not exclusively federal. State courts interpret state constitutions, statutes, and regulations, and they also wield the mighty power of judicial review.

Note: For an understanding of the historical development of judicial review, refer to the Origins of Judicial Review. Also, check out "The Supreme Court: An Essential History" for an insightful read.

Structure of State Courts

The structure of state courts varies from state to state, but typically includes several levels:

Trial Courts: The first level where cases are initially filed and heard.
Intermediate Appellate Courts: These courts hear appeals from trial court decisions.
State Supreme Courts: The highest state courts, which have the final say in matters of state law.

graph TD; A["Trial Courts"] --> B["Intermediate Appellate Courts"]; B --> C["State Supreme Courts"];

Role of State Courts

State courts handle a vast majority of legal disputes in the United States. They adjudicate cases involving state laws and constitutions. Unlike federal courts, which have limited jurisdiction defined by the Constitution, state courts have broad jurisdiction.

Important: The authority of state courts includes interpreting state constitutions, which can give them a unique role in shaping state policy and law.

Judicial Review in State Courts

Judicial review in state courts refers to the power to review the constitutionality of state laws and actions. State courts can invalidate laws that conflict with the state constitution. For a deep dive, check out "Judicial Review and the National Political Process: A Functional Reconsideration of the Role of the Supreme Court".

Unlike the federal judicial system, where the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutional matters, state supreme courts hold this authority within their respective states. This can lead to diverse interpretations of similar legal issues across different states.

Key Examples of Judicial Review in State Courts

There are numerous examples where state courts have exercised judicial review. One notable case is Brown v. Board of Education, where state laws mandating racial segregation in public schools were challenged and ultimately overturned by the federal courts. However, state courts also played pivotal roles in implementing the decision.

To explore more about how judicial review has been applied historically, check out our lesson on Key Cases: Brown v. Board of Education. Additionally, "Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy" is a must-read.

Comparison with Federal Courts

While both state and federal courts have the power of judicial review, there are key differences in how they operate:

Jurisdiction: Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, while state courts have broader jurisdiction over state matters.
Authority: Federal courts interpret the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, while state courts interpret state constitutions and laws.

graph TD; G["Federal Courts"] -->|Interpret| H["U.S. Constitution"]; I["State Courts"] -->|Interpret| J["State Constitutions"];

Tip: For a detailed comparison between state and federal constitutions, refer to Differences Between State and Federal Constitutions. Also, "State Constitutions of the United States" provides a comprehensive overview.

Implications of Judicial Review in State Courts

The power of judicial review in state courts has profound implications for the governance and legal landscape of a state. By interpreting state constitutions and laws, state courts can shape policy and influence the application and evolution of state law. This power balances legislative actions and ensures that they adhere to constitutional principles.

Challenges and Criticisms

Judicial review in state courts is not without its challenges and criticisms. Some argue that it gives the judiciary too much power, potentially allowing unelected judges to overturn the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. Others contend that it is a necessary check on legislative and executive power.

Judicial Activism: Critics argue that judicial review may lead to judicial activism, where judges create new policies rather than merely interpreting existing laws.
Consistency: There is also a concern about consistency. Different state courts may interpret similar laws differently, leading to a patchwork of legal standards across the country.

Caution: Understanding these criticisms is essential for a balanced view of the role of state courts in judicial review.

Checks and Balances

The concept of checks and balances is integral to the functioning of state courts and their power of judicial review. This system ensures that no single branch of government becomes too powerful.

Note: For a deeper understanding of checks and balances, refer to our lesson on Checks and Balances. Additionally, "Checks and Balances: The Three Branches of the American Government" is a great book to read.

Conclusion

State courts play a crucial role in the American legal system through their power of judicial review. They ensure that state laws comply with state constitutions and provide a check on legislative and executive actions. However, this power also comes with challenges and criticisms that must be carefully considered.

To explore more about the broader context and implications of judicial review, you can delve into our lesson on Scope and Limits of Judicial Review. For further reading, consider "Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System".