Educational Outreach

Understanding Federal and State Courts
Fast Facts About Federal and State Courts

• In the case of United States v. Lanza (1922), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the "double-jeopardy" clause of the Fifth Amendment does not prevent the state and federal governments from punishing offenses against their peace and dignity, since each government is an independent sovereignty. In other words, a person may be tried in both federal and state court if an offense violates both state and federal laws.
• In Heath v. Alabama (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's "double-jeopardy" clause is not violated if two states prosecute a person for an offense that violated both of their laws. In other words, a person can be tried in two different state courts if their offense violated the laws of both states.
• In the case of Cohens v. Virginia (1821), Chief Justice John Marshal asserted that while the state courts were the final arbiters of their own constitutions, the U.S. Supreme Court was the final arbiter of the federal Constitution.
• The American legal system is known as a common-law system. Common law refers to the legal system that originated in England and is now used in the United States. It relies on expanding legal principles in a historic succession of judicial decisions. These principles can be changed by legislation.
• In the case of Hudson & Goodwin v. United States (1812), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal courts were without power to punish "common -law" crimes. "Common-law" crimes are those not statutorily defined (made criminal by an act of Congress), but were actions regarded as crimes in Great Britain at the time of the Revolution. The Court stated that the federal courts may not punish any action as a crime unless Congress made it a crime by a particular act of legislation.
• To a certain extent, Congress may be permitted to limit the authority of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. In the case of Ex Parte McCardle (1867), the Court recognized that the Constitution provided that the Supreme Court was to exercise its appellate jurisdiction "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." Thus, the Court upheld an act of Congress limiting the Court's own authority to grant writs of habeas corpus. However, in the case of U.S. v. Kline, the Court stated that Congress may not use its authority to limit the Court's jurisdiction in an attempt to control the results of a particular case.

top