Earlier this year there was an article about U.S. Supreme Court’s so-called “shadow docket” and it noted that it being used more often the past few years was semi in reaction to the lower circuit courts’ increased willingness to rule against the government on various matters since the beginning of the Trump administration.
What it didn’t say, and I haven’t been able to figure out myself, is what allows the lower courts to rule on federal matters in the first place. On things like Trump’s travel bans and Biden’s 100-person business vaccine mandate.
It’s been a long time since I took government and economics in 9th grade, but I really don’t recall the circuit courts being able to rule on anything outside their few states…
Can someone help me to understand what’s changed and why? And if it’s a case of them always having the power and they just didn’t exercise it, why didn’t they use it much until just recently?
Because every federal law gets enforced in various states, which means that the circuit courts have jurisdiction. They’ve been doing this for a rather long time.
Because the US Circuit courts are part of the federal court system. So they can rule on federal laws, as long as those laws affect the people within their jurisdiction.
This sentence was confusing, so excuse me if I didn’t understand your meaning.
The Supreme Court was originally all that was needed. Over time the case load increased dramatically until the Judiciary Act of 1891 created federal courts that were intermediary. However, the circuit court system we have today wasn’t created until 1911. Below them are 94 federal district courts.
Cases normally go up the ladder from the district courts, which are trial courts. Circuit courts, technically the Courts of Appeals, are appellate only, they take appeals and decide whether the law was properly applied. These decisions are precedent only for the states within the circuit, although other courts may accept their results or look to them for guidance. If two circuits make contradictory rulings, the Supreme Court is necessary to final a final decision that is precedence for the entire country. Constitutional issues from state courts I believe go straight to the Circuit Court for that state, but please correct me.
The shadow docket is mostly concerned with emergency stays of rulings by the circuit courts.
Basically, nothing has changed about the Court system but the number of “shadow docket” cases has increased. The why is not suitable for FQ.
I think the constitution itself shows that more than just the Supreme Court was needed.
Article III
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
I think this is the answer (assuming I’m understanding the question the OP is asking). Circuit courts are not state courts that enforce state laws; they are federal courts that enforce federal laws. The geographical designations just define what states they enforce federal laws in.
It’s no different than an FBI agent being assigned to a field office in Chicago, for example. He may be working in Illinois but he’s not investigating the breaking of Illinois laws. He’s investigating the breaking of federal laws in Illinois.
By citing the travel ban and vaccine mandate, I believe OP is asking how district and circuit courts can issue nationwide injunctions and stays (as happened in those cases). This is actually a relatively recent phenomenon, and the subject of a fair amount of debate.
Two circuit courts issuing contradictory rulings makes it very likely that the Supreme Court will take the case to settle things once and for all, but it’s not necessary. The Supremes can just choose not to take the case, and allow different interpretations of the law to hold in different states.
There are very few cases that the Supreme Court must take.
The Constitution gave Congress the power to establish other courts. What it did with the power was set up a series of circuit courts, which despite the name were trial courts. They applied existing law to cases and did not interpret laws. If Interpretation was needed it was done solely by the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until the Court of Appeal structure was set up (often, confusingly, given the old but incorrect designation of circuit courts) that the full burden was removed, because by then the U.S. was bigger and the law was much more extensive.
Relatively recent is about 50 years. They’ve become much more common recently, but nothing in law or the court structure has changed, to answer that part of the OP’s question. From your much appreciated link:
We can also think about national injunctions before they were commonplace. Since the 1970s, they have appeared intermittently. The best explanation for these national injunctions is not a change in controlling legal authority — no statute, rule, or case allowed them. Instead there were slow and subtle changes in how many judges and lawyers think about law.
True, but that’s not the issue I was addressing. Having two circuits with contradictory rulings is upsetting to nearly everybody. Unless Congress passes new law, the only body that can resolve the conflict and have one uniform national interpretation of the law is the Supreme Court. They don’t have to, but usually do in any case of importance. The Appeals Courts themselves cannot get together and decide to settle their disagreement.
Constitutional issues in State Judiciaries go up to that State’s highest court, and if there is anything in that decision that still has issues with the US Constitution, then it may go up directly to SCOTUS (not to the Federal Circuits).
What you seem to be referring to is the so-called “universal injunction” which is the case where a plaintiff goes before the Federal Courts to argue against some action of the Federal Government, and requests the Court to order the action to be stopped from applying to anyone who may be affected (not just themselves), pending the actual case being resolved.
As of today, precedent is that “universal injunction” does not require going all the way to SCOTUS. As quoted it has become more frequent since the 1960s but it had been around for a good while before. Article about the history of this legal device.
When an appellate court ruling is issued, it is now mandatory precedent in that jurisdiction. Outside of that jurisdiction, it is still precedent, but it is not mandatory. Rather, it is considered “persuasive”. Until traditional legal theories, precedent should usually be followed.
So, if a district issues an injunction, it is not technically required that it apply to the entire nation, but in the absence of a contrary decision I think most judges are inclined to enforce it. And that has an effect of creating a national standard, even if it only emanated from one circuit.