Previous story | Table of Contents | Next story
What are the federal district courts?
Most federal cases are first tried and decided in the U.S. district courts, which are the federal courts of general trial jurisdiction. These lower federal courts exist at the discretion of Congress, since the Constitution specifies that federal judicial power "shall be vested in one Supreme Court."
There are 94 district courts in the United States; the District of Columbia; the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and the territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands. A district may be divided into divisions and several locations where cases can be heard. Each district court also has a bankruptcy unit.
What is the work of the federal district courts?
These courts apply and interpret the law to decide real cases and controversies. These courts cannot make laws (the function of the legislative branch), nor can they enforce or execute laws (the function of the executive branch.)
Can any kind of case be filed in a federal district court?
No. Federal district courts only hear cases in which there are issues based on the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States, or in which there is diversity of citizenship between the parties, such as citizens of one state bringing action against citizens of another. In these latter instances, the matter in controversy must be worth more than $50,000. In most cases, corporations are considered to be citizens of any state in which they have been incorporated or have their principal place of business.
How are federal district court judges chosen?
Federal district court judges are appointed for life. They can serve as long as they want to, and they can be removed from office against their will only through the impeachment process for treason, bribery or other "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Are civil cases handled differently in the federal courts than in our state courts?
No. Civil cases in the federal district courts begin when a complaint is filed by a plaintiff; an answer is then filed by a defendant.
Discovery proceedings begin, in which both parties try to find out as much as possible about information in their opponents' hands and how they plan to proceed at trial.
Such information usually includes the witnesses who will be called for trial and the testimony they will probably give, and the documents that will be placed into evidence.
The parties attempt to finalize treatment of issues for trial in pretrial proceedings. Then the trial is held and ends with a verdict rendered by a federal district court judge or jury.
Our attorneys make a big deal about preparation for these district court trials. Can't we just appeal if the judge or jury rules against us?
Yes and no. A disappointed party in a district court matter usually has the right to have the case reviewed in the court of appeals.
The court of appeals will reverse a district court decision if serious legal errors have been made, or if the district court has exceeded its jurisdiction at some point during the proceedings.
These are fairly high hurdles to clear; one cannot count on receiving a favorable reversal on appeal. For this reason it is important that efforts are made to cooperate with your county attorney or counselor in terms of advice given concerning maintenance of records.
It is difficult to do the daily work of county governments as if one is constantly anticipating a federal case to be filed. This approach, however, might save your local government from expending funds on damages and legal fees, and keep employees on the job and out of the halls of the federal courthouse.
Looking ahead
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that involves county liability for a sheriff's law enforcement decisions.
In McMillian vs. Monroe County (Ala.), an individual who had been convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death had the conviction overturned on appeal because several government officials did not disclose evidence that would have prevented a guilty verdict.
The individual filed suit alleging violation of his civil rights against four government officials and the county itself.
In Alabama, however, state law does not place law enforcement authority in the county government; the sheriff is a state officer. Both the district court and the court of appeals had ruled in favor of the county, stating that federal courts should respect the way a state chooses to structure its government. The court of appeals found that the sheriff was not a county policy-maker when he engaged in law enforcement activity; therefore, the two lower federal courts ruled in favor of a Monroe County finding that the Monroe County sheriff was not a county policy-maker when he engaged in law enforcement activity. As a result, the county was not subject to liability under the federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Their decisions are being appealed to the Supreme Court.
(Legal Notes was written by Donna Sacks, deputy general counsel, International Municipal Lawyers Association.)