1. Key Features of the Judicial Branch
PURPOSE: Interpreting and applying national law; ensuring laws are Constitutional
Supreme Court is the only one specifically mentioned in Constitution
The only court mentioend in the constitution, the rest is up to congress

2. Courts are designed to promote the “rule of law” and be impartial

3. Judicial Review: Courts must decide if laws conflict with the U. S
Judicial Review: Courts must decide if laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution
Unconstitutional: Against the Constitution
If a law is declared to be this, it cannot be enforced

4. Our court system is an adversarial system
The courts cannot act on an issue until two parties bring it to them
Criminal Trial Courts
Civil Trial Courts
Adversary system: judicial system in the US in which 2 parties are in conflict and bring the matter to court
Trial Courts mean the truth comes out about whether someone has committed a crime or hurt somebody else
We are not an inquisitorial system (some countries are): a judge plays a more active role in gathering and presenting evidence
--more lenient rules on the admissibility of evidence
--a judge can require the accused to answer questions, etc. (pg 391)

5. The federal courts must determine if a case is justiciable (appropriate for review) before hearing it
Specific part of Constitution in question
Appropriate for review by the courts or not
They also expect a specific portion of the Constitution to be in question
No encouragement of members of other branches
Small portion of Constitution in question

6. They cannot rule on political matters, only legal questions
Expected parties involved in a federal case need standing before they can bring a case
Personal interest being threatened
Standing: condition of having a personal interest that has been, or is in danger of being, denied by an action or law
They can’t just argue it is unconstitutional, they must have personal interest in it
They also expect a party challenging a law, cannot have ever benefited from that law
Roe (P), a pregnant single woman, brought a class action suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas abortion laws. These laws made it a crime to obtain or attempt an abortion except on medical advice to save the life of the mother.
Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Hallford, a doctor who faced criminal prosecution for violating the state abortion laws; and the Does, a married couple with no children, who sought an injunction against enforcement of the laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional. The defendant was county District Attorney Wade (D).

7. They also expect burden of proof to be on the party hearing the case
Laws always presumed legal until proven otherwise by evidence
Laws are presumed to be legal until proven otherwise by evidence
burden of proof n. the requirement that the plaintiff (the party bringing a civil lawsuit) show by a "preponderance of evidence" or "weight of evidence" that all the facts necessary to win a judgment are presented and are probably true. In a criminal trial the burden of proof required of the prosecutor is to prove the guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt," a much more difficult task. Unless there is a complete failure to present substantial evidence of a vital fact (usually called an "element of the cause of action"), the ultimate decision as to whether the plaintiff has met his/her burden of proof rests with the jury or the judge if there is no jury. However, the burden of proof is not always on the plaintiff. In some issues it may shift to the defendant if he/she raises a factual issue in defense, such as a claim that he/she was not the registered owner of the car that hit the plaintiff, so the defendant has the burden to prove that defense. If at the close of the plaintiff's presentation he/she has not produced any evidence on a necessary fact (e.g. any evidence of damage) then the case may be dismissed without the defendant having to put on any evidence.
Read more:

8. Jurisdiction (legal authority)
Federal Courts: dependent on subject matter and parties involved
State Courts: jurisdiction over state law
Pg 402
The differences between federal and state courts are defined mainly by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the kinds of cases a court is authorized to hear. State courts have broad jurisdiction, so the cases individual citizens are most likely to be involved in -- such as robberies, traffic violations, broken contracts, and family disputes -- are usually tried in state courts. The only cases state courts are not allowed to hear are lawsuits against the United States and those involving certain specific federal laws: criminal, antitrust, bankruptcy, patent, copyright, and some maritime cases. Federal court jurisdiction, by contrast, is limited to the types of cases listed in the Constitution and specifically provided for by Congress. For the most part, federal courts only hear: Cases in which the United States is a party; Cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution or federal laws (under federal-question jurisdiction); Cases between citizens of different states if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (under diversity jurisdiction); and Bankruptcy, copyright, patent, and maritime law cases. In some cases, both federal and state courts have jurisdiction. This allows parties to choose whether to go to state court or to federal court. - See more at:

9. Limited Jurisdiction (Fed. Govt.) mostly includes:
Subject matter tied to U.S. Constitution
Subject matter tied to federal laws
Subject matter tied to treaty of federal govt.
-- Subject matter involving maritime law
Criminal Cases in State and Federal Court Most criminal cases involve violations of state law and are tried in state court, but criminal cases involving federal laws can be tried only in federal court. We all know, for example, that robbery is a crime, but what law says it is a crime? By and large, state laws, not federal laws, make robbery a crime. There are only a few federal laws about robbery, such as the law that makes it a federal crime to rob a bank whose deposits are insured by a federal agency. Examples of other federal crimes are bringing illegal drugs into the country or across state lines, and use of the U.S. mails to swindle consumers. Crimes committed on federal property (such as national parks or military reservations) are also prosecuted in federal court. State Laws and the Federal Constitution Federal courts may hear cases concerning state laws if the issue is whether the state law violates the federal Constitution. Suppose a state law forbids slaughtering animals outside of certain limited areas. A neighborhood association brings a case in state court against a defendant who sacrifices goats in his backyard. When the court issues an order (called an injunction) forbidding the defendant from further sacrifices, the defendant challenges the state law in federal court as an unconstitutional infringement of his religious freedom. Some kinds of conduct are illegal under both federal and state laws. For example, federal laws prohibit employment discrimination, and the states have added their own laws which also forbid employment discrimination. A person can go to federal or state court to bring a case under the federal law or both the federal and state laws. A state-law-only case can be brought only in state court. - See more at:

10. Party is the federal government
Party is an ambassador, foreign minister, or consul
Parties are different state governments
Parties are citizens from different states
Parties are a foreign government vs. a state
Parties are foreign citizen vs. state resident
Jurisdictions of federal courts are divided on several levels
District courts (original jurisdiction)
Court of appeals (appellate jurisdiction)
Supreme Court
Courts and Caseloads State courts handle by far the larger number of cases, and have more contact with the public than federal courts do. Although the federal courts hear far fewer cases than the state courts, the cases they do hear tend more often to be of national importance. Think of the court cases you have heard the most about. Most are U.S. Supreme Court decisions, because the federal laws they uphold and the federal rights they protect extend to everyone in this country. When state cases are known outside their local area, it's often because of the identity of the parties: for example, the O.J. Simpson case was widely followed, although the outcome would not affect the millions of television viewers. Cases Filed Annually: State Court: 30,000,0000 cases filed Federal Court: 1,000,000 cases filed Number of judgeships authorized: State Court: Approximately 30,000 judgeships Federal Court: Approximately judgeships - See more at:
Concurrent Jurisdiction
means a case my be tried in either federal OR state courts
In the United States, concurrent jurisdiction exists to the extent that the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear actions that can also be heard by state courts. For example, when a party from Alabama sues a party from Florida for a breach of contract, the Alabama party can sue in either federal court (under its diversity jurisdiction) or in the state court located in Florida (under its personal jurisdiction over the defendant). Concurrent jurisdiction may also be created where the United States Congress, in creating a cause of action, permits the courts of the states to hear cases alleging that cause of action. For example, a state court may hear a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
Concurrent jurisdiction in the United States can also exist between different levels of state courts, and between courts and other government agencies with judicial powers. Different countries can also share concurrent jurisdiction over a case, where different countries have authority over the parties or events giving rise to the cause of action.