Malcolm Rivera
The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government in which power is shared between the federal government and the state governments. Both the federal and state governments have their own court systems. The federal court system has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States. State court systems generally mirror this structure, with trial courts, state appellate courts, and a state Supreme Court. However, one particular aspect that stands out is the bifurcated system of appellate review in certain states like Texas and Oklahoma. In Texas, for instance, the Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction over civil disputes, while the Court of Criminal Appeals holds jurisdiction over criminal matters. This bifurcation has led to a perception of complexity and a lack of symmetry in the Texas judicial system.
Explore related products
$16.29 $29.95
What You'll Learn
The Texas Supreme Court's jurisdiction
The Texas Supreme Court is the highest court in the state of Texas, which is unique in that it is one of only two states (the other being Oklahoma) that divides its highest court into two entities. The Texas Supreme Court resolves appeals of civil matters, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals resolves appeals of criminal cases. The Texas Supreme Court is based in Austin, northwest of the state Capitol, and consists of a Chief Justice and eight justices.
The Court has administrative control over the State Bar of Texas and is the sole authority for licensing attorneys in Texas. Justices are elected to six-year terms in statewide elections, with staggered terms meaning that only some justices are up for re-election in any one cycle. Justices must be at least 35 years old, citizens of Texas, licensed to practice law in Texas, and must have practiced law for at least ten years. When a vacancy arises, the governor may appoint a Justice, subject to Senate confirmation, to serve the remainder of the term until the next general election.
The Texas Supreme Court holds mandatory jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus and mandamus, and discretionary jurisdiction over appeals of other cases. It generally focuses on cases that raise questions regarding a significant legal issue. The Court also handles matters involving discipline in the legal profession and answers questions related to Texas law that have been certified from a federal appellate court.
The Texas Supreme Court is unique in that its manner of denying discretionary review can imply approval or disapproval of the merits of the lower court's decision, affecting the geographic extent of the precedential effect of that decision. This means that the Court does not have to hear relatively minor cases just to create uniform statewide precedents, but it also results in lengthy citations to the opinions of the Courts of Appeals.
Presidential Term Limits: How Long is Too Long?
You may want to see also
Court of Criminal Appeals
The Court of Criminal Appeals is the highest court in the State of Oklahoma with appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases. It is the state court of last resort in criminal matters, deriving its origin and jurisdiction from the state constitution.
Tennessee also has a Court of Criminal Appeals, which is divided into three sections: Eastern, Middle, and presumably a Western section.
The federal court system in the United States has three main levels: district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. The district courts are the trial courts, and there are 94 of them across the country. The circuit courts are the first level of appeal, and there are 13 of these. The Supreme Court is the final level of appeal in the federal system and is based in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court has nine justices, including one chief justice, who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for life.
The Chavez Constitution: A New Era for Venezuela
You may want to see also
Intermediate courts
The UK's court system is facing a crisis due to a growing backlog of cases, resulting in unacceptable delays for victims, witnesses, and defendants. This has led to a loss of trust in the justice system. The Law Society has warned against setting up an intermediate court, arguing that it would waste time and resources without addressing the underlying issue of supply and demand. They advocate for sustained investment across the criminal justice system to ensure timely and fair justice.
However, CILEX (the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) supports the introduction of intermediate criminal courts, provided that issues around funding, recruitment, training, and courtroom capacity are addressed. They believe that intermediate courts could help tackle the current case backlog by hearing cases that are too serious for magistrates' courts but not serious enough for the Crown Court. This would free up time for the Crown Court and bring swifter justice for victims.
The Criminal Law Solicitors Association (CLSA), on the other hand, has expressed concerns about the potential costs and complications associated with intermediate courts, particularly regarding legal aid and solicitor capacity. They argue that the introduction of intermediate courts could result in a disservice to both defendants and victims.
The London Criminal Courts Solicitors' Association (LCCSA) shares similar sentiments, stating that intermediate courts raise more questions than answers and may not be the solution to reducing the Crown Court backlog. They suggest that proper investment in the Probation Service and pre-charge engagement would be more effective.
Overall, while intermediate courts are proposed as a potential solution to the case backlog, there are concerns about their effectiveness, cost, and potential impact on the justice system.
Rifle Arm Brace: What's the Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Civil and criminal expertise
The US Constitution establishes a federal system of government, with power shared between the federal and state governments. Each government has its own court system, with three main levels: trial courts, appellate courts, and the highest court. While the federal court system has three main levels—district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court—the state court system varies in structure, though it generally mirrors the federal system.
The district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. They handle both civil and criminal cases, with at least one district judge appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a life term. There are 94 district courts across the country.
The circuit courts are the first level of appeal in the federal system. There are 13 circuit courts, 12 of which are organized geographically, and they determine whether the law was correctly applied in the trial court.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and the final level of appeal in the federal system. The Court has nine justices, eight associate justices, and one chief justice, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
While the federal court system has a uniform structure, the state court system varies. For example, Colorado has subject-specific courts, while New York's highest court is called the Court of Appeals.
One notable aspect of the state court system is the bifurcated appellate review in Texas, where the Supreme Court of Texas has jurisdiction over civil disputes, and the Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal matters. This system has been described as complex and criticized for its lack of order and symmetry. However, advocates of bifurcated review argue that criminal and civil expertise benefits the parties, lawyers, and the legal system.
Informal Constitution Changes: The People's Power
You may want to see also
Reform attempts
The US Supreme Court is facing increasing calls for reform, with critics arguing that it has become an activist court that is out of step with the public and mainstream legal thought. The Court's recent rulings on issues such as abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, and gay rights have been particularly contentious, with many perceiving a crisis between deeply held values and the Court's course of action.
There is a growing concern about the lack of accountability and transparency within the Court. Critics point to evidence of corruption, unchecked lifetime appointments, and decisions that consolidate policymaking power in the courts. The Court's low approval ratings and the public's declining trust underscore the urgency for reform.
Proposed reforms include the implementation of a binding code of ethics, term limits for justices, restructuring of the Supreme Court and lower courts, and curbing abuses of power. Some have suggested expanding the Court to make it more democratically representative, while others advocate for limiting its jurisdiction or discretion over the cases it hears.
While there is a strong push for reform, it is important to note that any structural changes would require congressional action and could even necessitate a constitutional amendment. The challenges of implementing reforms are significant, and past attempts at reform, such as President Roosevelt's court-packing plan in the 1930s, have largely been unsuccessful.
Despite the obstacles, the current momentum for change suggests that reform attempts are likely to continue, driven by a desire to restore integrity, accountability, and balance to the judicial system and ensure it serves the interests of the people.
Primary Care Physician Visits: Preventative Measures, Proactive Steps
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Texas.
The Supreme Court of Texas has final appellate jurisdiction over civil disputes, while the Court of Criminal Appeals has final jurisdiction over criminal matters.
The bifurcated system of appellate review in Texas is rooted in Article V of the Texas Constitution of 1876.
The Court of Criminal Appeals has been described as the "busiest appeals court in the nation". Reform efforts have been proposed since the 1970s, but they have rarely gained traction.
Yes, Oklahoma is the only other state with a similarly bifurcated appellate system.
