2. The administrative organization of courts in the United States

One peculiarity of the American judiciary is that within each state, courts are almost completely independent of each other. Partly this is a consequence of the development of the American judiciary as a separate branch of government, independent of the executive. In other nations the judiciary is controlled by the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Interior. In the United States no executive department controls the courts either at the federal or at the state level.

Until recently each court in the nation governed itself. Each one formulated the rules under which cases would be heard; each hired its own auxiliary personnel; each judge determined for himself the days and the hours to hold court. No one had responsibility for the operation of the court system as a whole. No one collected statistics to determine which courts were overburdened and which were left unused. No one had the authority to transfer a judge from one court to another to alleviate delay in hearing trials. No organization existed through which judges could compare their experiences, exchange ideas, or learn of new developments in the manner of conducting court.

Since 1922 the federal courts and some of the state courts have operated under minimal administrative supervision. Although their authority comes from legislative enactments, judicial administrators work independently of the legislative or executive branches. In the federal court system an administrator of the courts operates under the supervision of the Chief Justice of the United States. He collects statistics and other information to guide the work of the courts. Most authority, however, rests with the Supreme Court, with conferences of judges, who meet at various levels, and with the chief judge of the Court of Appeals in each circuit, who has some authority over the transfer of judges from one district (or circuit) to another. Most states, however, do not possess any means of imposing administrative controls over their courts. Each judge is sovereign over his own courtroom. He is free to adopt his own local rules of procedure to supplement the standard ones for the state. He is free to hold court during any hours he pleases. Therefore, in most states the judiciary represents an extreme case of the fragmentation and autonomy that in more moderate form is so characteristic of American government. Whereas cities, counties, and special districts must conform to administrative controls in many of their activities, courts are left more independent.

The Court System in the United States

The Constitution of the United States provides that “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 or establish”. Judges in federal courts are appointed for life and can be removed only if impeached¹ for gross misconduct by the House of Representatives and convicted by the Senate.

The federal judicial system consists of the following courts:

The Supreme Court of the United States, holding sessions in Washington D.C.², and consisting of nine judges, is the court of final resort. It hears appeals on federal questions from circuit courts or the highest state courts, but it hears only such cases, as it deems necessary to the public interest³.

Courts of Appeal, one for each of ten circuits in the United States are courts of appellate jurisdiction. Each court of appeal has five or six judges. These courts were formerly called and, hence, are sometimes now referred to as “circuit courts of appeal”.

District Courts have been set up in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia; they are eighty-nine in all. Each of these courts, as a rule, has jurisdiction over a state or part of a state.

A court may consist of a judge and a jury or only a judge and a clerk⁴, or it may be a tribunal including a number of judges. The words “judge” and “court” are sometimes loosely interchanged, but they are not necessarily synonymous.

A term of court is the period fixed by law for the holding of court sessions. Although each state legislature has the power to set the schedule, very often the designation of time for holding court sessions is left to the court itself. Terms of court may be regular or special; the latter⁵ are held for a special purpose, usually for the hearing of non-jury cases.

Jurisdiction has been defined as the authority of a court to hear and determine a case. A court of original jurisdiction is one in which a legal proceeding is first started. A court of appellate jurisdiction is one, which reviews cases removed by appeal from a lower court.

Courts of Law and Courts of Equity

A court of law is one, which administers justice according to the principles and the norms of common law. A court of equity is one which administers justice according to the rules and principles of equity.(the term equity is a revival from ancient English times when litigants felt the harshness and rigidity of the common law, and therefore, appealed to the king’s chancellor for special consideration of justice based on equitable principles.) many states have abolished the distinction between courts of law and equity.

Commentary

1. if impeached – if judges are impeached

2. Washington D.C. – District of Columbia

3. as it deems necessary to the public interest – которые по его мнению представляют общественный интерес

4. a clerk – секретарь суда

5. the latter – последний

Active vocabulary

Judiciary

Ministry of Interior

To hire its own auxiliary personnel

To operate under the supervision of

The authority to transfer a judge from one court to another

To alleviate delay in hearing trials

Legislative enactments

To guide the work of the court

The court of last resort

Courts of appeal

District court

To hold court sessions

To review cases removed by appeal

Litigants

Assignment I. Topics for discussion.

1. The administrative organization of the courts in the United States.

2. The court system in the USA.