This is an accepted version of this page
115-683: The Dingell–Johnson Act , also called the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act , is a United States federal law signed into law by President Harry S. Truman from 1950 that authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance for state fish restoration and management plans and projects. The Act has been amended 11 times, the last time in 1992. This United States federal legislation article
230-499: A common law court system has trial courts , intermediate appellate courts and a supreme court . Thus, the lower courts are bound to obey precedent established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent. The Supreme Court of California 's explanation of this principle is that [u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis , all tribunals exercising inferior jurisdiction are required to follow decisions of courts exercising superior jurisdiction. Otherwise,
345-401: A jury , and aggressive pretrial "law and motion" practice designed to result in a pretrial disposition (that is, summary judgment ) or a settlement. U.S. courts pioneered the concept of the opt-out class action , by which the burden falls on class members to notify the court that they do not wish to be bound by the judgment, as opposed to opt-in class actions, where class members must join into
460-548: A British classic or two, a famous old case, or a nod to Blackstone ; but current British law almost never gets any mention." Foreign law has never been cited as binding precedent, but as a reflection of the shared values of Anglo-American civilization or even Western civilization in general. Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce . The United States Code
575-500: A breach of general obligations imposed by law and not by contract. This broad family of civil wrongs involves interference "with person, property, reputation, or commercial or social advantage." Stare decisis Precedent is a court ruling that serves as an authoritative guide for resolving future cases with similar facts or legal issues. As a key aspect of stare decisis ("to stand by things decided") , courts are generally expected to follow precedent in their decisions. When
690-452: A court as persuasive authority as to how a particular statute or regulation may be interpreted (known as Skidmore deference), but are not entitled to Chevron deference. Unlike the situation with the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of
805-404: A determination as to the governing jurisdiction, a court is "bound" to follow a precedent of that jurisdiction only if it is directly in point. In the strongest sense, "directly in point" means that: (1) the question resolved in the precedent case is the same as the question to be resolved in the pending case, (2) resolution of that question was necessary to the disposition of the precedent case; (3)
920-548: A different three-judge panel. In federal systems the division between federal and state law may result in complex interactions. In the United States, state courts are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system. In practice, however, judges in one system will almost always choose to follow relevant case law in the other system to prevent divergent results and to minimize forum shopping . Precedent that must be applied or followed
1035-581: A final version is published in the Federal Register. The regulations are codified and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which is published once a year on a rolling schedule. Besides regulations formally promulgated under the APA, federal agencies also frequently promulgate an enormous amount of forms, manuals, policy statements, letters, and rulings. These documents may be considered by
1150-597: A handful of areas like insurance , Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran–Ferguson Act ). After the president signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over the president's veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it
1265-715: A higher court. In civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law , precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts. A court may consider the ruling of a higher court that is not binding. For example, a district court in the United States First Circuit could consider a ruling made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority. Courts may consider rulings made in other courts that are of equivalent authority in
SECTION 10
#17327908411351380-426: A kind of super-stare decisis". The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually immune from being overturned, regardless of whether they were decided correctly in the first place, is the idea to which the term "super- stare decisis " now usually refers. The concept of super- stare decisis (or "super-precedent") was mentioned during the hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito before
1495-438: A legislative branch which enacts state statutes, an executive branch that promulgates state regulations pursuant to statutory authorization, and a judicial branch that applies, interprets, and occasionally overturns both state statutes and regulations, as well as local ordinances. They retain plenary power to make laws covering anything not preempted by the federal Constitution, federal statutes, or international treaties ratified by
1610-426: A lesser form of judicial deference known as Skidmore deference . Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis . During the 18th and 19th centuries, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was an express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like
1725-409: A matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine
1840-415: A medical issue and others categorizing the same offense as a serious felony . The law of criminal procedure in the United States consists of a massive overlay of federal constitutional case law interwoven with the federal and state statutes that actually provide the foundation for the creation and operation of law enforcement agencies and prison systems as well as the proceedings in criminal trials. Due to
1955-521: A number of civil law innovations. In the United States, the law is derived from five sources: constitutional law , statutory law , treaties, administrative regulations , and the common law (which includes case law). If Congress enacts a statute that conflicts with the Constitution, state or federal courts may rule that law to be unconstitutional and declare it invalid. Notably, a statute does not automatically disappear merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it may, however, be deleted by
2070-557: A precedent is binding: In a conflict of laws situation, jus cogens norms erga omnes and principles of the common law such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , to a varying degree in different jurisdictions, are deemed overriding which means they are used to "read down" legislation, that is giving them a particular purposive interpretation , for example applying European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of courts ( case law ). "Super stare decisis "
2185-442: A prior court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, subsequent courts are encouraged to align their decisions with the earlier ruling to maintain consistency and predictability in the law. Common law legal systems often view precedent as binding or persuasive, while civil law systems do not. Common-law systems aim for similar facts to yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observing precedent when making decisions
2300-491: A similar way, but are not obliged to do so and are required to consider the precedent in terms of principle. Their fellow judges' decisions may be persuasive but are not binding. Under the English legal system, judges are not necessarily entitled to make their own decisions about the development or interpretations of the law. They may be bound by a decision reached in a previous case. Two facts are crucial to determining whether
2415-649: A small number of important British statutes in effect at the time of the Revolution have been independently reenacted by U.S. states. Two examples are the Statute of Frauds (still widely known in the U.S. by that name) and the Statute of 13 Elizabeth (the ancestor of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act). Such English statutes are still regularly cited in contemporary American cases interpreting their modern American descendants. Despite
SECTION 20
#17327908411352530-677: A sort of binding precedent when they answer legal questions that a court has not, either form of opinion may act as a source of law if they have a direct effect on the administration of government. The courts of England and Wales are free to consider decisions of other jurisdictions, and give them whatever persuasive weight the English court sees fit, even though these other decisions are not binding precedent. Jurisdictions that are closer to modern English common law are more likely to be given persuasive weight (for example Commonwealth states such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand). Persuasive weight might be given to other common law courts, such as from
2645-529: A subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis , a lower court that enforces an unconstitutional statute will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute will risk reversal by the Supreme Court. The United States and most Commonwealth countries are heirs to
2760-400: A willingness to reconsider others. And that willingness could itself threaten to substitute disruption, confusion, and uncertainty for necessary legal stability. We have not found here any factors that might overcome these considerations. It is now sometimes possible, over time, for a line of precedents to drift from the express language of any underlying statutory or constitutional texts until
2875-427: A year or less in jail and a substantial fine. To simplify the prosecution of traffic violations and other relatively minor crimes, some states have added a third level, infractions . These may result in fines and sometimes the loss of one's driver's license, but no jail time. On average, only three percent of criminal cases are resolved by jury trial; 97 percent are terminated either by plea bargaining or dismissal of
2990-441: Is no general federal common law . Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which was either enacted as part of the Constitution or pursuant to constitutional authority). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which
3105-551: Is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . United States federal law The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law , of which the supreme law is the nation's Constitution , which prescribes the foundation of the federal government of the United States, as well as various civil liberties . The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of Acts of Congress , treaties ratified by
3220-415: Is a process that has its origins in the English common law. Most state attorney opinions address issues of government finance or the authority of political bodies within the state. Often, these opinions are the only available authority interpreting rarely‑litigated statutes and constitutional provisions. By and large, courts treat state attorney general opinions as persuasive authority. The opinions lack
3335-546: Is a term used for important precedent that is resistant or immune from being overturned, without regard to whether correctly decided in the first place. It may be viewed as one extreme in a range of precedential power, or alternatively, to express a belief, or a critique of that belief, that some decisions should not be overturned. In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent" in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations. Posner and Landes used this term to describe
3450-526: Is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law . Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the United States Statutes at Large , and they are known as session laws . The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in
3565-438: Is known as binding precedent (alternately metaphorically precedent , mandatory or binding authority , etc.). Under the doctrine of stare decisis , a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In state and federal courts in the United States of America, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under
Dingell–Johnson Act - Misplaced Pages Continue
3680-406: Is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in
3795-462: Is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions. Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague. Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form, such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers . Second,
3910-418: Is often hard to distinguish from the ratio decidendi (reason for the decision). For these reasons, the obiter dicta may often be taken into consideration by a court. A litigant may also consider obiter dicta if a court has previously signaled that a particular legal argument is weak and may even warrant sanctions if repeated. A case decided by a multijudge panel could result in a split decision. While only
4025-423: Is permitted in some states but not others. Three strikes laws in certain states impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders. Some states distinguish between two levels: felonies and misdemeanors (minor crimes). Generally, most felony convictions result in lengthy prison sentences as well as subsequent probation , large fines , and orders to pay restitution directly to victims; while misdemeanors may lead to
4140-512: Is the mechanism to achieve that goal. Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation (in UK parlance) or regulatory law (in US parlance)). Case law , in common-law jurisdictions,
4255-460: Is the most prominent of the small number of remaining equity courts. Thirty-five states have adopted rules of civil procedure modeled after the FRCP (including rule numbers). However, in doing so, they had to make some modifications to account for the fact that state courts have broad general jurisdiction while federal courts have relatively limited jurisdiction. New York, Illinois, and California are
4370-571: Is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations , which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations . From 1984 to 2024, regulations generally also carried the force of law under the Chevron doctrine , but are now subject only to
4485-413: Is the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals or other rulings that can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law, which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency. Essential to the development of case law is the publication and indexing of decisions for use by lawyers, courts, and
4600-540: Is usually expressed in the form of various legal rights and duties). (The remainder of this article requires the reader to be already familiar with the contents of the separate article on state law .) Criminal law involves the prosecution by the state of wrongful acts which are considered to be so serious that they are a breach of the sovereign's peace (and cannot be deterred or remedied by mere lawsuits between private parties). Generally, crimes can result in incarceration , but torts (see below) cannot. The majority of
4715-624: The American Law Institute . Some bodies are given statutory powers to issue guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the Highway Code . In federal or multijurisdictional law systems, conflicts may exist between the various lower appellate courts. Sometimes these differences may not be resolved and distinguishing how the law is applied in one district , province, division or appellate department may be necessary. Usually, only an appeal accepted by
Dingell–Johnson Act - Misplaced Pages Continue
4830-620: The California constitutional convention was already complaining: "Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already." Today, in the words of Stanford law professor Lawrence M. Friedman : "American cases rarely cite foreign materials. Courts occasionally cite
4945-452: The Erie doctrine is that federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue (and thus no federal supremacy issue) in a case. When hearing claims under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction , federal trial courts must apply the statutory and decisional law of the state in which they sit, as if they were a court of that state, even if they believe that
5060-486: The Federal Arbitration Act (which has been interpreted to cover all contracts arising under federal or state law), arbitration clauses are generally enforceable unless the party resisting arbitration can show unconscionability or fraud or something else which undermines the entire contract. Tort law generally covers any civil action between private parties arising from wrongful acts that amount to
5175-611: The High Court and the Court of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so. A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if the lower court feels that the precedent is wrong. Even if an intermediate judge issues a ruling inconsistent with existing or subsequent precedent, if
5290-484: The Judiciary Acts ), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing . The rule gradually developed, case-by-case, as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power). The rule of binding precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as
5405-478: The Senate , regulations promulgated by the executive branch , and case law originating from the federal judiciary . The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law. The Constitution provides that it, as well as federal laws and treaties that are made pursuant to it, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in
5520-706: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom , which took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords in 2009. In civil law and pluralist systems, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts. Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis . Stare decisis means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedent from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy . One law professor has described mandatory precedent as follows: Given
5635-537: The common-law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedent, which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike most civil-law systems, common-law systems follow the doctrine of stare decisis , by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. For example, in England and Wales,
5750-502: The court of last resort will resolve such differences, and for many reasons, such appeals are often not granted. Any court may seek to distinguish its present case from that of a binding precedent, to reach a different conclusion. The validity of such a distinction may or may not be accepted on appeal. An appellate court may also propound an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case may distinguish
5865-511: The legal certainty resulting from the binding effect of previous decisions, and on the other side the avoidance of undue restriction on the proper development of the law." Judges are bound by the law of binding precedent in England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions. This is a distinctive feature of the English legal system. In other countries, particularly in mainland Europe, civil law means that judges take case law into account in
SECTION 50
#17327908411355980-538: The military , money , foreign relations (especially international treaties), tariffs , intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights ), and mail . Since the start of the 20th century, broad interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation , telecommunications , railroads , pharmaceuticals , antitrust , and trademarks . In some areas, like aviation and railroads,
6095-451: The rule of law . The contemporary form of the rule is descended from Justice Louis Brandeis 's "landmark dissent in 1932's Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co .", which "catalogued the Court's actual overruling practices in such a powerful manner that his attendant stare decisis analysis immediately assumed canonical authority." Here is a typical exposition of how public policy supports
6210-461: The Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract , tort , property , probate , criminal and family law , experienced by citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law , which, while sometimes harmonized, can and does vary greatly from one state to
6325-539: The District of Columbia alone, and up to seven states. Each panel of judges on the court of appeals for a circuit is bound to obey the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedent of a United States court of appeals may be overruled only by the court en banc , that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the United States Supreme Court —not simply by
6440-630: The Second Circuit (New York and surrounding states) is especially respected in commercial and securities law, the Seventh Circuit (in Chicago), especially Judge Posner, is highly regarded on antitrust, and the District of Columbia Circuit is highly regarded on administrative law. The doctrine of vertical precedent states that each court is bound by the decisions of higher courts in its jurisdictional area or tribunal hierarchy. Generally,
6555-638: The Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the committee chair, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times referring to Roe as a "super-precedent". He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept. Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority ) is precedent or other legal writing that
6670-488: The Supreme Court says that the First Amendment applies in a specific way to suits for slander, then every court is bound by that precedent in its interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to suits for slander. If a lower court judge disagrees with a higher court precedent on what the First Amendment should mean, the lower court judge must rule according to the binding precedent. Until the higher court changes
6785-401: The U.S. legal system, courts are set up in a hierarchy. At the top of the federal or national system is the Supreme Court, and underneath are lower federal courts. The state court systems have hierarchical structures similar to that of the federal system. The U.S. Supreme Court has final authority on questions about the meaning of federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. For example, when
6900-402: The United Kingdom lacked a coherent court hierarchy prior to the end of the 19th century. Furthermore, English judges in the eighteenth century subscribed to now-obsolete natural law theories of law, by which law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said. Judges saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making
7015-479: The United States), statements made in dicta , treatises or academic law reviews , and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc. In a " case of first impression ", courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by
SECTION 60
#17327908411357130-631: The Virgin Islands) is bound by rulings of the Third Circuit Court, but not by rulings in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington), since the Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction defined by geography. The Circuit Courts of Appeals can interpret the law how they want, so long as there is no binding Supreme Court precedent. One of
7245-437: The appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the precedent and the case under appeal, perhaps overruling the previous case law by setting a new precedent of higher authority. This may happen several times as the case works its way through successive appeals. Lord Denning , first of the High Court of Justice , later of the Court of Appeal , provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development of
7360-406: The average American citizen is subject to the rules and regulations of several dozen different agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, depending upon one's current location and behavior. American lawyers draw a fundamental distinction between procedural law (which controls the procedure by which legal rights and duties are vindicated) and substantive law (the actual substance of law, which
7475-441: The case is not vacated on appeal the decision will stand. If the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and wishes to evade it and help the law evolve, the court may either hold that the precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that the precedent should be "distinguished" by some material difference between the facts of the cases. If that decision goes to appeal,
7590-405: The charges. For public welfare offenses where the state is punishing merely risky (as opposed to injurious) behavior, there is significant diversity across the various states. For example, punishments for drunk driving varied greatly prior to 1990. State laws dealing with drug crimes still vary widely, with some states treating possession of small amounts of drugs as a misdemeanor offense or as
7705-473: The class. Another unique feature is the so-called American Rule under which parties generally bear their own attorneys' fees (as opposed to the English Rule of "loser pays"), though American legislators and courts have carved out numerous exceptions. Contract law covers obligations established by agreement (express or implied) between private parties. Generally, contract law in transactions involving
7820-405: The common law legal tradition of English law. Certain practices traditionally allowed under English common law were expressly outlawed by the Constitution, such as bills of attainder and general search warrants. As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis . American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to
7935-404: The common reasons the Supreme Court grants certiorari (that is, they agree to hear a case) is if there is a conflict among the circuit courts as to the meaning of a federal law. There are three elements needed for a precedent to work. Firstly, the hierarchy of the courts needs to be accepted, and an efficient system of law reporting. "A balance must be struck between the need on one side for
8050-532: The concept of estoppel starting in the High Trees case: Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130. Judges may refer to various types of persuasive authority to reach a decision in a case. Widely cited nonbinding sources include legal encyclopedias such as Corpus Juris Secundum and Halsbury's Laws of England , or the published work of the Law Commission or
8165-460: The courts' decisions establish doctrines that were not considered by the texts' drafters. This trend has been strongly evident in federal substantive due process and Commerce Clause decisions. Originalists and political conservatives, such as Associate Justice Antonin Scalia have criticized this trend as anti-democratic. Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there
8280-542: The crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted and punished at the state level. Federal criminal law focuses on areas specifically relevant to the federal government like evading payment of federal income tax, mail theft, or physical attacks on federal officials, as well as interstate crimes like drug trafficking and wire fraud. All states have somewhat similar laws in regard to "higher crimes" (or felonies ), such as murder and rape , although penalties for these crimes may vary from state to state. Capital punishment
8395-562: The decisions based on significant differences in the facts applicable to each case. Or, a court may view the matter before it as one of " first impression ", not governed by any controlling precedent. When various members of a multi-judge court write separate opinions, the reasoning may differ; only the ratio decidendi of the majority becomes binding precedent. For example, if a 12-member court splits 5–2–3–2 in four different opinions on several different issues, whatever reasoning commands seven votes on each specific issue becomes precedent, and
8510-525: The doctrine of stare decisis makes no sense. The decisions of this court are binding upon and must be followed by all the state courts of California. Decisions of every division of the District Courts of Appeal are binding upon all the justice and municipal courts and upon all the superior courts of this state , and this is so whether or not the superior court is acting as a trial or appellate court. Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept
8625-613: The exact order that they have been enacted. Public laws are incorporated into the United States Code , which is a codification of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives , and cumulative supplements are published annually. The U.S. Code is arranged by subject matter, and it shows
8740-412: The extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases. The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted " reception statutes " which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it
8855-607: The federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts. However, it is universally accepted that the Founding Fathers of the United States , by vesting "judicial power" into the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts in Article Three of the United States Constitution , thereby vested in them the implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent ; this power
8970-450: The federal Senate. Normally, state supreme courts are the final interpreters of state constitutions and state law, unless their interpretation itself presents a federal issue, in which case a decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by way of a petition for writ of certiorari . State laws have dramatically diverged in the centuries since independence, to the extent that the United States cannot be regarded as one legal system as to
9085-439: The federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust, trademark, and employment law , there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other. In
9200-433: The force of law that statutes and judicial opinions have. But, they still have the potential to act as a sort of pseudo‑law if they constrain the activities of public officials or the public. Oftentimes, this effect depends on the "formality" of the opinion. Opinions can be either formal, meaning they are published, or informal, meaning that they are sent directly to the opinion requestor. Although formal opinions can act as
9315-429: The general public, in the form of law reports . A precedent is a historical setting example for the future (though at varying levels of authority as discussed throughout this article), some become "leading cases" or "landmark decisions" that are cited especially often. Generally speaking, a legal precedent may be: In contrast, civil law systems adhere to a legal positivism , where past decisions do not usually have
9430-441: The hierarchy. A district court, for example, could not rely on a Supreme Court dissent as a basis to depart from the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, lower courts occasionally cite dissents, either for a limiting principle on the majority, or for propositions that are not stated in the majority opinion and not inconsistent with that majority, or to explain a disagreement with the majority and to urge reform (while following
9545-581: The influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent" later became associated with different issue: the difficulty of overturning a decision. In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in Roe v. Wade ), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by
9660-409: The issue, but has signaled in dicta that it sides with this rule. Therefore, in those states, there is only one federal court that binds all state courts as to the interpretation of federal law and the federal Constitution: the U.S. Supreme Court itself. The fifty American states are separate sovereigns , with their own state constitutions , state governments , and state courts . All states have
9775-433: The latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law, has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis ). The other major implication of
9890-473: The law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court. The doctrine stating that a judge is bound by (or at least should respect) previous decisions by the same court is called horizontal stare decisis . For example, in the United States federal court system , the intermediate appellate courts are divided into thirteen "circuits", each covering some range of territory ranging in size from
10005-428: The law. Therefore, a judge could reject another judge's opinion as simply an incorrect statement of the law, in the way that scientists regularly reject each other's conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science. In turn, according to Kozinski's analysis, the contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under
10120-453: The legal system. For example, an appellate court for one district could consider a ruling issued by an appeals court in another district. Courts may consider obiter dicta in the opinions of higher courts. The Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The phrase obiter dicta is usually translated as "other things said", but due to the high number of judges and individual concurring opinions, it
10235-436: The majority in the outcome). Courts may consider the writings of eminent legal scholars in treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews. The extent to which judges find these types of writings persuasive will vary widely with elements such as the reputation of the author and the relevance of the argument. In the United States, every state attorney general is permitted to issue advisory opinions on questions of law. It
10350-1139: The majority of types of law traditionally under state control, but must be regarded as 50 separate systems of tort law, family law, property law, contract law, criminal law, and so on. Most cases are litigated in state courts and involve claims and defenses under state laws. In a 2018 report, the National Center for State Courts ' Court Statistics Project found that state trial courts received 83.8 million newly filed cases in 2018, which consisted of 44.4 million traffic cases, 17.0 million criminal cases, 16.4 million civil cases, 4.7 million domestic relations cases, and 1.2 million juvenile cases. In 2018, state appellate courts received 234,000 new cases. By way of comparison, all federal district courts in 2016 together received only about 274,552 new civil cases, 79,787 new criminal cases, and 833,515 bankruptcy cases, while federal appellate courts received 53,649 new cases. States have delegated lawmaking powers to thousands of agencies , townships , counties , cities , and special districts . And all
10465-416: The majority opinion is considered precedential, an outvoted judge can still publish a dissenting opinion. Common patterns for dissenting opinions include: A judge in a subsequent case, particularly in a different jurisdiction, could find the dissenting judge's reasoning persuasive. In the jurisdiction of the original decision, however, a judge should only overturn the holding of a court lower or equivalent in
10580-462: The mid-19th century. Lawyers and judges used English legal materials to fill the gap. Citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people. The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910. By 1879 one of the delegates to
10695-542: The most famous is the Miranda warning . The writ of habeas corpus is often used by suspects and convicts to challenge their detention, while the Third Enforcement Act and Bivens actions are used by suspects to recover tort damages for police brutality. The law of civil procedure governs process in all judicial proceedings involving lawsuits between private parties. Traditional common law pleading
10810-664: The most significant states that have not adopted the FRCP. Furthermore, all three states continue to maintain most of their civil procedure laws in the form of codified statutes enacted by the state legislature, as opposed to court rules promulgated by the state supreme court, on the ground that the latter are undemocratic. But certain key portions of their civil procedure laws have been modified by their legislatures to bring them closer to federal civil procedure. Generally, American civil procedure has several notable features, including extensive pretrial discovery , heavy reliance on live testimony obtained at deposition or elicited in front of
10925-664: The next. Even in areas governed by federal law, state law is often supplemented, rather than preempted. At both the federal and state levels, with the exception of the legal system of Louisiana , the law of the United States is largely derived from the common law system of English law , which was in force in British America at the time of the American Revolutionary War . However, American law has diverged greatly from its English ancestor both in terms of substance and procedure and has incorporated
11040-402: The parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings. In law , a binding precedent (also known as a mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all lower courts under common law legal systems . In English law it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as
11155-416: The perennial inability of legislatures in the U.S. to enact statutes that would actually force law enforcement officers to respect the constitutional rights of criminal suspects and convicts, the federal judiciary gradually developed the exclusionary rule as a method to enforce such rights. In turn, the exclusionary rule spawned a family of judge-made remedies for the abuse of law enforcement powers, of which
11270-509: The phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere : "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed". In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. The principle can be divided into two components: The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent , reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions. In
11385-407: The precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making; the judicial review practiced by constitutional courts can be regarded as a notable exception. Stare decisis ( / ˈ s t ɛər r i d ɪ ˈ s aɪ s ɪ s , ˈ s t ɑː r eɪ / ) is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from
11500-591: The presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law. Although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution precedents from England or the British Commonwealth. Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases, because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until
11615-567: The present status of laws (with amendments already incorporated in the text) that have been amended on one or more occasions. Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies . Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise. Therefore, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations. Under
11730-544: The principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes. Regulations are adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Regulations are first proposed and published in the Federal Register (FR or Fed. Reg.) and subject to a public comment period. Eventually, after a period for public comment and revisions based on comments received,
11845-580: The relevant state law is irrational or just bad public policy. Under Erie , such federal deference to state law applies only in one direction: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law. Similarly, state courts are also not bound by most federal interpretations of federal law. In the vast majority of state courts, interpretations of federal law from federal courts of appeals and district courts can be cited as persuasive authority, but state courts are not bound by those interpretations. The U.S. Supreme Court has never squarely addressed
11960-473: The rest were unpublished and bound only the parties to each case. As federal judge Alex Kozinski has pointed out, binding precedent as we know it today simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed. Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked), and
12075-453: The rule of stare decisis . This is where the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself, in that an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases (and therefore also implicitly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction). Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007, about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and thereby became binding precedents, while
12190-422: The rule of binding precedent in a 2008 majority opinion signed by Justice Breyer : Justice Brandeis once observed that "in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. [...] To overturn a decision settling one such matter simply because we might believe that decision is no longer "right" would inevitably reflect
12305-429: The ruling (or the law itself is changed), the binding precedent is authoritative on the meaning of the law. Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts within their region. Thus, a federal district court that falls within the geographic boundaries of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the mid-level appeals court that hears appeals from district court decisions from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and
12420-609: The sale of goods has become highly standardized nationwide as a result of the widespread adoption of the Uniform Commercial Code. However, there is still significant diversity in the interpretation of other kinds of contracts, depending upon the extent to which a given state has codified its common law of contracts or adopted portions of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts . Parties are permitted to agree to arbitrate disputes arising from their contracts. Under
12535-408: The seven-judge majorities may differ issue-to-issue. All may be cited as persuasive (though of course opinions that concur in the majority result are more persuasive than dissents). Quite apart from the rules of precedent, the weight actually given to any reported opinion may depend on the reputation of both the court and the judges with respect to the specific issue. For example, in the United States,
12650-400: The significant facts of the precedent case are also presented in the pending case, and (4) no additional facts appear in the pending case that might be treated as significant. In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent. Under
12765-448: The state constitutions, statutes and regulations (as well as all the ordinances and regulations promulgated by local entities) are subject to judicial interpretation like their federal counterparts. It is common for residents of major U.S. metropolitan areas to live under six or more layers of special districts as well as a town or city, and a county or township (in addition to the federal and state governments). Thus, at any given time,
12880-412: The territories. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited because the scope of federal power is not universal. In the dual sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite because of the presence of Indian reservations ), states are the plenary sovereigns , each with their own constitution , while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in
12995-476: The territory of a regional appeals court. All appellate courts fall under a highest court (sometimes but not always called a "supreme court"). By definition, decisions of lower courts are not binding on courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among
13110-616: Was replaced by code pleading in 27 states after New York enacted the Field Code in 1850 and code pleading in turn was subsequently replaced again in most states by modern notice pleading during the 20th century. The old English division between common law and equity courts was abolished in the federal courts by the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in 1938; it has also been independently abolished by legislative acts in nearly all states. The Delaware Court of Chancery
13225-516: Was widely accepted, understood, and recognized by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was ratified. Several legal scholars have argued that the federal judicial power to decide " cases or controversies " necessarily includes the power to decide the precedential effect of those cases and controversies. The difficult question is whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent through strict adherence to
#134865