496 Chapter 14Chapter 14 || The CourtsThe CourtsCommon Elements of the Judicial System Several characteristics of the judicial
system apply to all cases. First, ours is an adversarial system in which lawyers on both
sides have an opportunity to present their case, challenge the testimony of the opposing
side, and try to convince the court that their version of the events is true. The process of
“discovery,” in which both sides share the information that will be presented in court
before the trial begins, ensures a fair process and few last-minute surprises. Second,
49 of the 50 states and the federal courts operate under a system of common law,
which means that legal decisions build from precedents established in previous cases
and apply commonly throughout the jurisdiction of the court. The alternative, which
is practiced only in Louisiana, is the civil law tradition, which is based on a detailed
codification of the law that is applied to each specific case.
The notion of precedent (or stare decisis: “let the decision stand”) deserves special
attention. Precedent is a previously decided case or set of cases that serves as a guide
for future cases on the same topic. Lower courts are bound by Supreme Court decisions
when there is a clear precedent that is relevant for a given case. In many cases, following
precedent is not clear-cut because several precedents may seem relevant. The lower
courts have considerable discretion in sorting out which precedents are the most
important. The Supreme Court tries to follow its own precedents, but in the past 50
years justices have been willing to deviate from earlier decisions when they think that
the precedent is flawed. The Court has overruled more than twice as many decisions
since 1953 as it overturned in the previous 164 years. Part of this can be explained by the
relatively small number of precedents that could have been overturned in the first few
decades of our nation’s history. But even when accounting for the natural accumulation
of more precedents to potentially overturn, recent Courts have been much more willing
to deviate from precedent than previous Courts. For example, in the case concerning
taxes on Internet sales, the Court overturned part of a 26-year-old precedent that said
state sales taxes cannot be collected on businesses that do not have a physical presence
in a state.^15 As this record indicates, precedent is not a rule the Court must follow but a
norm that constrains its behavior.
Another characteristic common to all cases is that the person bringing the case must
have standing to sue in a civil case, which means that the person has a legitimate basis
for bringing the case. This usually means that the individual has suffered some direct
and personal harm from the action addressed in the court case. Standing is easy to
establish for private parties; in our earlier example, if your neighbor destroys your fence,
you have been harmed. However, determining who has standing gets more interesting
when the government is the one being sued. For example, when an environmental
group challenged the Interior Department’s interpretation of the Endangered Species
Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the group did not have standing to sue because it had
not demonstrated that the government’s policy would cause it “imminent” injury.^16
Similarly, federal courts have ruled that 10 members of Congress did not have standing
to challenge American bombing in Libya and that taxpayers do not have standing to
sue the government if they disagree with a specific policy.^17 Depending on your politics,
you may not want your hard-earned cash going to buy school lunches for poor children
or to fund various wars. However, your status as a taxpayer does not give you enough
of a personal stake in these policies to challenge them in court, and so you do not have
standing. Later, in the section discussing how cases get to the Supreme Court, we will
see that justices have some leeway in defining standing.
The final general characteristic of the legal system is the jurisdiction of the court.
When bringing a case before the court, you must choose a court that actually has
the power to hear your case. For example, if you wanted to contest a speeding ticket,
you would not file your case in the state supreme court or in the federal district
court; you would file it in your local traffic court. What if you believed you were thecommon law
Law based on the precedent of
previous court rulings rather than
on legislation. It is used in all federal
courts and 49 of the 50 state courts.precedent
A legal norm established in court
cases that is then applied to future
cases dealing with the same legal
questions.standing
Legitimate justification for bringing a
civil case to court.jurisdiction
The sphere of a court’s legal authority
to hear and decide cases.Full_15_APT_64431_ch14_488-529.indd 496 16/11/18 1:44 PM