There are two court systems in the United States, namely, federal courts and state courts, each with different jurisdictions. State courts have broader jurisdiction than federal courts. For example, state courts have jurisdiction over almost all divorce and child custody cases, wills and inheritance cases, real estate disputes and juvenile cases, and hear most criminal, contract disputes, traffic violations and personal injury cases. Generally speaking, federal courts can hear cases involving the U.S. government or government officials, the U.S. Constitution or federal laws, and disputes between states or between the U.S. government and foreign governments. Even if the case itself does not involve federal law, if the litigants are citizens of different States, or if the dispute occurs between American citizens and foreign citizens, the case can be tried by the federal court. Federal law requires federal courts and state courts to recognize each other's judgments, but according to the relevant provisions of the Constitution, federal law takes precedence over the laws of any conflicting state. Because there are differences in the court system stipulated in the constitutions and laws of different states, we take Maryland as an example to illustrate the problem when analyzing state-level courts.
The structure of the federal court
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal court system. Under the Supreme Court, Congress has established two levels of courts: the court of first instance and the court of appeal.
court of first instance
The federal district court is the court of first instance in the federal court system. Within the scope stipulated by the Congress and the Constitution, the federal district court has jurisdiction over almost all types of cases that should be under the jurisdiction of the federal court, including civil and criminal cases. The federal courts have established 94 federal district courts throughout the country, with at least one in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Every federal district court has at least one federal bankruptcy court. The United States has three territories: Virgin Islands, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands, and the federal district court hears federal cases, including bankruptcy cases. In addition, two special courts of first instance have national jurisdiction over certain types of cases, namely, the International Trade Court hears cases involving international trade and customs issues; The federal compensation court has jurisdiction over most damage claims against the US government, federal contract disputes, illegal deprivation of private property by the federal government and other claims against the US government.
Court of appeal
The jurisdiction of 94 federal courts in China is divided into 12 circuit districts, and each circuit district has a federal court of appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal hears appeals after the decisions of the Circuit District Court, as well as appeals against the decisions of the federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Federal Court of Appeal also has national jurisdiction over some special cases, such as cases involving patent law and cases decided by the International Trade Court and the Federal Compensation Court.
Supreme court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the only court specially established by the Constitution. The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and eight judges. The Supreme Court is free to decide to hear a certain number of cases within the limits of authority determined by Congress. These cases may start in federal courts or state courts and usually involve important issues concerning the US Constitution or federal laws. Among thousands of appeals filed every year, the Supreme Court usually only hears about 150, most of which involve legal interpretation or the will of federal and international legislation.
Federal judge system
The work of federal courts involves many most important issues that affect ordinary people. Federal judges have extensive powers and discretion in the cases they hear.
Appointment and removal of judges
The appointment and removal of judges in the United States are two non-interference systems, and the appointment of judges more reflects the restriction of the executive and legislative departments on the judicial department; The removal of judges more reflects the independence of the judicial department relative to the executive and legislative departments.
Judges in the US federal courts must be nominated by the President, approved by the Senate, and then formally appointed by the President. In American history, the president's power to appoint judges has always been regarded by the administrative department as an important means to control the judicial department. When appointing judges, especially Supreme Court judges, all American presidents almost always favor their own party, party member, or at least those who are close to them ideologically. Although this practice will lead to criticism from the opposition parties, it has been accepted by various political forces in the United States, and Congress rarely opposes presidential nomination and appointment of judges.
If the power to appoint judges is mainly in the hands of the administrative department, then the power to recall judges is in the hands of the legislative department. The impeachment power of federal judges belongs to Congress. The impeachment of a judge of the House of Representatives must be because he has committed or is suspected of committing treason, bribery or other felony and misdemeanor. For example 1983 Federal Judge claiborne was impeached by Congress for taking bribes and evading taxes. The reason for impeachment is that the judge is unwilling to resign voluntarily, so he needs to be deprived of his post through impeachment procedure. In the 200-year history of the United States, 13 federal judges were impeached, convicted and dismissed for taking bribes or other serious judicial misconduct. The key to the impeachment power in the American system is that Congress will not dismiss a judge because he disagrees with a specific decision made in the trial of a case. Congress will not dismiss a judge because it disagrees with the overall way the judge decides the case, nor will it impeach him because he dislikes a judge or opposes his political views. A judge will only be removed from office if he commits "treason, bribery, serious crime or wrong behavior".
Because impeachment has such strict requirements, and the constitution clearly stipulates that federal judges can serve for life as long as they behave properly, it is impossible for Congress to restrict the specific judicial activities of judges through impeachment. The impeachment bill initiated by the House of Representatives must be passed by a majority vote, and if the Senate wants to convict the impeached person, it must also be passed by two-thirds of the members present. These strict procedures ensure that although Congress has the right to dismiss judges who violate the law, it cannot interfere with the normal exercise of judges' judicial power.
So generally speaking, although the president tries to influence the political inclination of the court when appointing judges, judges will basically not lose their positions or salaries because of their political inclination after taking office. A famous example of American judicial circles is that Eisenhower, when reviewing his presidency, thought that the biggest mistake he made was to appoint two Supreme Court judges who always disagreed with his political views after taking office. But even so, the president (or Congress) can do nothing about the judges. Because once a judge becomes a judge, he can be independent of the legislative and administrative departments and make a fair judgment when trying cases.
Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States stipulates that judges of the Federal Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, the District Court and the International Trade Court shall be nominated by the President of the United States and appointed with the approval of the Senate. The judges stipulated in Article 3 of the US Constitution are all lifelong, and can only be removed through impeachment. Although American law does not clearly stipulate the qualifications of judges, formal legal education and legal practical experience are recognized as prerequisites for becoming professional judges. Nominees are usually prominent private or government lawyers, state court judges, magistrates, bankruptcy judges or law professors. Federal courts do not participate in the nomination and confirmation of judges. The professional qualifications of candidates for federal judges are reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice and in consultation with the American Bar Association, an independent non-governmental lawyer organization, which also plays an important non-partisan role in reviewing formal legal education and legal practice experience. In modern times, two candidates for Supreme Court Justice nominated by President Nixon were rated below the average level of their professional qualifications by the Bar Association-American Bar Association, a non-governmental and non-partisan organization. Both nominees were rejected by the Senate. In the process of selecting judges, it is very important to obtain the recognition of this independent organization to maintain the lowest professional standards. In the process of nomination and approval, the political opinions of judges will be carefully examined by the public at the Senate confirmation hearing and the press. In addition, before nomination, the nominee will be privately questioned and investigated by the president and federal law enforcement agencies (FBI).
The bankruptcy judge is a judicial officer of the district court, appointed by the court of appeal for a term of 14 years. Magistrates are also judicial officers of district courts and are appointed by judges of federal district courts for a term of eight years. During the appointment of the above-mentioned judges, the performance evaluation and selection committee composed of local lawyers and other citizens assisted the judges in selecting candidates. These judges do not enjoy the protection that judges enjoy under article 3 of the Constitution. The President and Senate of the United States have no role in selecting bankruptcy judges and judicial officials. When they continue to serve, the court that appointed them must issue a notice, hoping that the public will evaluate the performance of the incumbent, and then convene a performance evaluation and selection Committee to solicit their opinions. The judges of the Federal Compensation Court are appointed by the President and need to be approved by the Senate for a term of 15 years.
Each court in the federal court system has a chief judge, who not only hears cases, but also performs administrative duties related to court management. The Chief Justice is usually the judge who has served in the court for the longest time. The Chief Justice of the Federal District Court and the Court of Appeal must be under the age of 65 when taking office, with a maximum term of seven years, and cannot continue to serve as the Chief Justice after 70 years old. According to the federal constitution, the judges of the Court of Appeal, the District Court and the International Trade Court serve for life, so they don't need to retire. However, if they reach the age of 65 and have worked for a certain number of years, they can voluntarily retire and receive full salary. Most judges who meet the retirement conditions stipulated in Article 3 of the US Constitution are rehired as senior judges and continue to hear cases full-time or part-time, but there is no extra remuneration. Retired bankruptcy judges, judicial judges and judges of the federal compensation court can also be re-employed. Without the work of these senior judges and re-employed judges, the court will need more judges to handle cases. For example, senior judges generally handle 15 to 20% of cases in the court of appeal and local courts.
The salaries and benefits of all federal judges are determined by Congress. The salary of a judge is roughly equivalent to that of a member of Congress. The annual salary of the Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court is over $654.38 +0.6 million, that of the judges of the Federal Intermediate Court of Appeal is about $654.38 +0.4 million, and that of the judges of the Federal Court of First Instance is about $654.38 +0.3 million. The income of state judges is also very rich, but slightly lower than that of federal judges. At the same time, Article 3 of the US Constitution stipulates that "judges of the Supreme Court and lower courts can serve for life if they are loyal to their duties, and they can receive remuneration during their term of office, and the amount shall not be reduced during their term of office." Although the profession of judge is not the highest paid profession in the United States, the annual income of partners in some large law firms can reach more than $200,000. But generally speaking, judges still belong to a profession with higher income and can also enjoy the corresponding protection of other treatment systems. This rich and stable income provides a material necessary condition for judges to try independently.
the judge occupation moral
Federal judges must abide by the American Code of Conduct for Judges, which is a set of moral principles and guidelines promulgated by the American Judges Conference. The judges' meeting is the highest decision-making body of the federal court system, presided over by the federal minister of justice, and composed of 26 judges, including 13 chief judges of the federal court of appeal, 12 judges elected by the circuit districts and 1 chief judges of the international trade court. The Code of Conduct for Judges provides guidelines for the impartiality and independence of the judiciary, the diligence and impartiality of judges, the permitted activities outside the judiciary and the avoidance of misconduct or even superficial misconduct. A judge may not try a case under the following circumstances: he knows the disputed facts, has personal prejudice against one party to the case, has served as a case lawyer, and has economic interests with one party or the subject matter of the case. If the case tried by a judge is related to him personally or has economic interests, or for any other reason, the fairness of the case is in doubt, so that even if he still believes that the case can be tried fairly, the judge may not try or judge the case in court. If the lawsuit involves a company, and the judge or his spouse or minor children hold even a small share of the company, he will be disqualified from hearing the case.
The United States implements a full-time neutral judge system. That is, judges may not hold part-time jobs, including administrative officials, members of parliament, other for-profit positions other than teaching, or even hold political party status or engage in political activities. In the view of western scholars, only by not engaging in a second job and maintaining political neutrality can judges exercise their functions and powers independently, otherwise they may be influenced by commercial interests, paid positions or parties and lose their independent and just position.
Judges should be impartial and neutral. Judges must ensure that lawyers perform their duties legally when they appear in court, so that both parties are on an equal footing in the process of stating cases. Even when the jury hears a case, the judge can have a great influence. Therefore, the judge must pay attention to prevent any personal prejudice or injustice, because this phenomenon may have an unfair impact on the jury and the judgment of the case.
According to the moral rules of judges, judges should be diligent and fair in exercising judicial power. Judges should be modest and decent when dealing with litigants, lawyers and witnesses and other judges. Judges should try their best to deal with court affairs decisively, prevent a large number of pending cases from accumulating, and prevent jurors, lawyers and litigants from wasting time. The judge should pay attention to the arguments of both sides and decide the case rationally and honestly.
A judge should have professional ability, comprehensive legal knowledge of possible legal affairs and fully grasp the changes of the law. This is more important than the requirement of lawyers' professional ability, because the appearance of knowledgeable judges can make up for the shortage of lawyers. Judges should also create an orderly working atmosphere, treat litigants, jurors and witnesses with patience, dignity and modesty in court, and treat lawyers, court personnel and other staff of both parties equally. Judges should avoid talking about pending cases in any public place.
Judges should promote the establishment, maintenance and implementation of relevant moral standards to protect the unity and independence of judicial institutions. In managing the behavior of members of this system, the judiciary remains independent of other government departments. If a judge finds that another judge's behavior is immoral, he has the responsibility to take appropriate disciplinary measures. Judges should also have the same obligation to lawyers in court, because judges have the most say on whether lawyers have professional ability and violate professional ethics, especially the ineffective and irregular behavior of lawyers. For example, the criminal defense lawyer has a conflict of interest with the client, and the client does not know. The court of first instance must inform the defendant to protect his right to a fair trial from infringement.
Judges should avoid all kinds of improper behaviors and forms when engaging in activities outside the court. If a judge's impartiality is doubted, he can't try a case, so the judge's personal behavior should be trustworthy, fair and honest at all times. Judges are subject to public supervision and must bear stricter constraints than other citizens. For example, judges may not be able to become members of some institutions because members of some institutions discriminate in terms of race, sex, religion or origin, which may lead other members of the public to doubt the fairness of judges' judgments. A judge shall not allow his family and friends to interfere in judicial activities, and shall not seek benefits by taking advantage of his position reputation. A judge should not allow anyone to think that a person or a party has a special influence on him. These regulations are designed to avoid giving the public a similar impression.
Judges are limited to purely private and unofficial activities. They are not allowed to participate in activities related to government background and public affairs. However, they can write or give speeches on the law or judicial operation and make suggestions to the federal court. A judge may become an official aiming at promoting the rule of law and take part in charitable or non-governmental activities, but he shall not engage in fund donation activities of such institutions for any problems that cannot lead to his matter of justice. When performing official duties, a judge shall not use his position to influence justice, and shall not engage in transactions with potential litigants.
In order to avoid conflicts of economic interests, federal law requires all judges and other senior government officials to declare their assets, liabilities, gifts accepted and expenses reimbursed for spouses and minor children every year. The financial declaration records of federal judges and some judicial officials are kept by the administrative office of the federal court and can be provided at any time upon the request of the public.
Judges are not allowed to participate in political activities, legal practice and commercial activities (except investment). The income from activities other than teaching cannot exceed about 15% of a judge's salary.
Judge supervision mechanism
Judges are independent in the American system, and at the same time, their violations of moral laws are subject to discipline and public supervision. First of all, the moral obligations of judges (like other citizens) are clearly defined in writing in advance. Therefore, judges are fully aware of the standards they must meet. Secondly, any citizen can complain to the review Committee or the expert group about acts that violate judicial ethics. These committees and expert groups are composed of judges and the public. Thirdly, the opinions of the Judicial Review Committee will be made public.
Although there are many external mechanisms restricting judges' power, the highest state of American social law and judges ultimately comes down to internal constraints, that is, judges' self-discipline. These people either gave up the opportunity to make a lot of money by practicing law, or left the high position of the government and all the power that can be controlled by politicians. To a great extent, they do so out of professional consciousness and sense of honor, which is a successful restriction on the abuse of power or corruption of American judges. Almost all Americans respect and admire the judge, even if they disagree with the judge's decision.
In addition, anyone who thinks that the judge's behavior is detrimental to the efficiency and effectiveness of the court's work, or that the judge cannot perform all his duties due to physical or mental defects, can complain to the Court of Appeal in the circuit where the judge is located. If the acts listed in the complaint do not meet the legal definition of misconduct or defect, or the complaint is related to the judge's judgment, or the complaint is trivial, the chief judge of the Court of Appeal has the right to return the complaint. In fact, most of the complaints were returned.
If the Chief Justice does not return the complaint, he must appoint a special investigation committee composed of judges to review the incidents mentioned in the complaint, prepare a written report and submit it to the Judicial Committee of the Circuit District. After considering the report of the Special Committee, the Judicial Committee has the right to further investigate the contents of the complaint or take appropriate measures, including: requesting the judges involved in the complaint to retire voluntarily; Prove that the judge can't continue to work due to physical or mental defects, resulting in vacant positions; Decided not to assign the case to the judge for the time being; Announce publicly or privately the admonition to judges; Take other appropriate measures.
If the Judicial Committee thinks that the judge stipulated in Article 3 of the Constitution may have committed a criminal offence, or the complaint against the judge cannot be handled by itself, it must refer the matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States for handling. The judicial conference may vote to refer the matter to Congress for possible impeachment and recall procedures. In practice, impeachment and recall rarely occur, usually when judges are convicted of serious crimes. The impeachment clause was first considered in the House of Representatives. If the House of Representatives votes to impeach the judge, the issue will be submitted to the Senate. The Senate is the only authority that has the power to impeach judges. In an impeachment case, the impeached person has no right to ask for a jury trial. The impeachment decision must be passed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Senate. Penalties in impeachment cases include dismissal from office and not being allowed to hold office again. Convicted parties will also be prosecuted, tried and punished according to law.
In American judicial practice, more effective quality supervision of judges comes from American trial style and extensive coverage of justice by mass media. As a common law country, the judgment style of the United States basically follows the tradition of Britain: judges judge any case in the form of written judgment. The style of judgment is usually as follows: first, objectively describe and summarize the important facts involved in the case; Two, review the main arguments and arguments of the plaintiff and the defendant (or their lawyers); Third, according to relevant laws, applicable precedents, legislative intent of the legislature, public interest considerations, etc. Reasoning, analyzing and demonstrating specific cases and legal provisions, and making judgments. In many cases, the judgment is a complete and rigorous document, which completely records the judge's thinking and reasoning about a case, and anyone can analyze and evaluate his judgment according to it and feel convinced. After a case is decided, the judgment is usually published immediately. Anyone can check and borrow in the library. Recent cases and judgments can be searched and read on the Internet through electronic media. This way of judging has brought great transparency to judicial activities and has become an effective supervision and promotion of the quality of judges' judgment.