When a state case goes to the Federal Courts, what decides which forum it will be presented before? I know that the SCOTUS can hear appeals from State Courts of last resort. But I have also read about cases going to Federal District and Courts of Appeals from state courts. How is it decided? I suppose that it might be a question of the nature of relief sought?
There are several situations in which a case in state court might end up in federal court. Basically, any case could be appealed to the Supreme Court (as you mentioned).
However, a state case that is improperly in state court and should be in federal court instead, can be transferred to federal court. This is usually because of jurisdiction- the federal court has the authority to hear the case in question.
Federal jurisdiction happens in a few main ways: the type of law (for instance, all bankruptcy or admiralty cases are in federal court);the citizenship of the defendant and the plaintiff (when the parties are from different states and the amount in question is over $75,000, the case can be heard in federal court); additionally, when a case is brought because of a direct violation of the Constitution, a treaty or federal law, the federal courts have jurisdiction (the violation must be the focus of the case and not merely a component of it or a defense).
In those instances, the case would go to the proper Federal District court. Which Federal District court depends on many things, including how the case ended up in Federal District Court. This would be one of the first things that the lawyers involved may argue about- which federal court is proper for the case to be in. This is called venue.
I am not aware of any instances in which a case would go immediately to the Court of Appeals. Is there a particular example of this?
In the criminal context, there are two possibilities: direct appeals and collateral matters.
A state crime where the defense involves a federal question – say, for example, the state prosecutes obscene material and the accused presents a First Amendment defense – works its way through the state court system to the state court of last resort. An direct appeal from that decision (or more accurately, a request for a writ of certorari) would go to the US Supreme Court.
But the accused may also have a line of collateral attack. He may ask the federal courts to overturn his conviction because the conviction was obtained in violation of his federal rights – say, for example, that his attorney was paid for by the state and failed to put on even a minimal defense. This has no bearing on the merits of the original charge but represents an effective denial of his right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. In that case, he would start his collateral attack against the conviction with the lowest federal court, the US district court for his district, and then appeal to the federal circuit court, and finally to the US Supreme Court.
An important point of clarification: the qualifications I listed are explicitly for civil (non-criminal) cases.
Thanks. But for clarification, collateral attacks. Does he need to exhaust the State Court system before going to the Federal District Court, or can he do it whenever?
To clarify the civil side a little further: For cases where both the state court and the federal court have jurisdiction, if the plaintiff initially files in state court, the defendant may remove the case to federal district court, but is not required to. This can typically only be done at the outset of the case. After removal, the plaintiff can then make a motion in the federal court to have the case remanded to state court on the grounds that the removal was in error.
If only the federal court has jurisdiction (and the state court does not), the plaintiff must file in federal district court. If he or she files in state court, the proper remedy is dismissal, not removal. In practical terms, though, if the defendant removed the case to federal court rather than seeking dismissal in state court, that would probably be allowed.
If only the state court has jurisdiction, then removal is improper. If the case is removed nonetheless, the plaintiff should be able to have it remanded to state court.
As to the federal appeals courts, I know of no procedure to go from state court to a federal appellate court. However, there is a procedure in the reverse direction: When a federal appeals court is called upon to adjudicate an unsettled question of state law, under some circumstances it can certify that question to the highest court of that state, requesting that the state high court provide a ruling. The state court has the option to refuse, in which case the federal appellate court just makes its best guess as to what the right interpretation of state law is.
In general, he must exhaust his direct appeals at the state level before trying post-conviction collateral attacks.
However, states also have some type of post-conviction review process – what at common law was called a writ of coram nobis (and for every lawyer reading this that did not learn Virginia law, see how lucky you were?) and has now generally been replaced with a statutory process of some kind that will vary by state.
So far as I know, there is no general requirement to exhaust your state’s PCR process before trying federal review, but there are fifty rules in play. Consult your own state’s statutes for details.