1
The Judicial Branch of Government and Jurisdictional Principles
Student’s Name
Institution of Affiliation
Course
Professor
Date
2
The Judicial Branch of Government and Jurisdictional Principles
The judiciary, as a branch of the US government, regulates and identifies the
compliance of the country's policies with the law. It works with a complicated hierarchy of
courts, which includes federal and state courts and others that are assigned special tasks. As is
characteristic of all functioning courts, these courts are guided by rules regarding jurisdiction,
which identifies the power of a court to handle and determine cases. Jurisdiction and
justiciability doctrines such as standing to sue are some of the critical factors when trying to
comprehend how legal issues are processed in the United States legal system. In the
following paper, three fact patterns that involve jurisdiction and standing will be illustrated
and analyzed on the basis of real-life case scenarios related to the operation of the judicial
branch. Also, it will examine the structure of the federal court system and offer the source of
more information on the federal courts and the legislative background of the lower federal
courts.
Judicial Branch Overview
This branch of the U. S. government is assigned the responsibility of managing the
justice systems in relation to the legal systems of the country. It is a part of the constitution of
the United States of America and is a structure comprising a number of courts, among them
being the Supreme Court. The judicial system is an independent structure that controls the
executive and the legislative arm of government to ensure a balance of power (Epps, 2021).
Federal courts consist of district courts, which are trial courts; circuit courts of appeals, which
students final decisions of trial courts; and the supreme court, which deals with constitutional
matters and also the meanings of federal laws. Moreover, federal courts can hear cases of
federal statutes, constitutional questions, and cases between two states or between a state and
a citizen of another state, and so on. The main appellate court, the Supreme Court, congress,
has, under its constitutional mandate, provided for the lower federal courts to handle most of
3
the federal cases so as to enable justice to be done in every part of the country. This structure
enables the Judicial branch to apply and explain several laws so that the citizens’ rights are
protected and the legal system is upheld in the United States of America.
Fact Pattern 1: Johnny and David’s Bank Robbery Case
Case Summary
Johnny, a resident of Atlanta Georgia and his friend David were worranced by their
hard times and decided to rob a bank in Dalton Georgia. It progressed to robbery and took to
hostage, to flee to Chattanooga in Tennessee. Later on, they were caught in Nashville city in
Tennessee, where they produced the hostage.
Jurisdictional Analysis
The first question to be answered in this case is whether the matter is within the
federal court's equity jurisdiction or one of the state courts. They are important because they
establish federal jurisdiction since they are bank robbery as well as kidnapping that occurs
across state line. According to 18 U. S. C. § 2113, bank robbery becomes a federal crime if it
was perpetrated on a bank which the federal government insures. Furthermore, it is also a
federal crime if committed across state Lines. Each is a federal crime, and as both occurred
during the crossing of state lines (from Georgia to Tennessee), federal jurisdiction is again
supported. This means that the federal court would be at liberty to prosecute Johnny and
David for the robbery of the bank and kidnapping. This is consistent with the principle of
federal jurisdiction, where a federal court has the mandate to entertain federal or dual crimes.
A case of this nature would have to be decided either in a district court or a federal circuit
court. Most probably, the defendants could be apprehended in Georgia or Tennessee, where
the events that led to the shooting took place, or else elsewhere. Moreover, local courts in
Georgia or Tennessee might have jurisdiction to try some of the aspects of the crimes, which
involve state laws infringed during the commission of the robbery. However, inasmuch as the
4
case involves federal crime as well as interstate activities, the federal court would be called to
service.
Fact Pattern 2: Gwen and Blake’s Car Accident Case
Case Summary
Gwen and Blake from California were on their honeymoon in Hawaii when they were
hit from behind by another Honolulu inhabitant. Both were injured very badly and
necessitated a lot of medical attention. They are desiring to sue the residents for the damages.
Jurisdictional Analysis
This case arises mostly with a question of which courts, federal or state, have
jurisdiction for the case at hand. In this case, there is a consideration of the diversity
jurisdiction, which is provided under 28 U. S. C. § 1332 (United States Code, 28 USC §
1332, 2024). Diversity jurisdiction permits the federal courts to deal with civil actions in
which the value exceeds seventy-five thousand dollars and the participants are citizens of
different states. The plaintiffs, Gwen and Blake, are from California, while the defendant
lives in Hawaii. The plaintiffs have spent a lot on medical bills and are expecting to undergo
more surgeries later, which tells of more than seventy-five thousand dollars. In this respect,
the plaintiffs could bring the action in a federal district court under the diversity jurisdiction.
The federal district court in Hawaii shall have jurisdiction since the accident took place in
Hawaii and the defendant resides in the state.
Gwen and Blake also have the privilege of filing it in the Hawaii State Court since the
accident was in the state, and the defendant is a Hawaiian citizen. As a result, the state courts
of Hawaii would exercise general jurisdiction over any personal injury or tort matters that
arose from an accident within the state. Consequently, it can be pursued in either federal or
state court in accordance with the plaintiffs' wish. If they had to proceed to federal court, then
the advantage would be that a forum of the federal court would be more neutral since Gwen
5
and Blake are out-of-state plaintiffs suing a resident of the state. On the other hand, filing in
state court might turn out to be more convenient and cheaper, not forgetting the fact that the
Hawaii state court will be in a position to understand the laws that regulate traffic in Hawaii
and the standard of care expected from any individual.
Fact Pattern 3: Freda’s Pregnancy Discrimination Case
Case Summary
Freda only got to know she was pregnant and informed her workmates at the
workplace. A few months after that, she lost her job even though she had been icing on the
cake regarding performance appraisal. Despite receiving a dismissal letter from her employer
stating that her dismissal was a result of downsizing, her employer fired Freda only because
she was pregnant. Her fellow employee, Anthony, is very much infuriated by the firing of
Freda and has resolved to represent her in court.
Jurisdictional Analysis
It seems that there is evidence of violation of provisions of the Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1972, which forms part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The PDA outlaws discrimination when a woman is pregnant, breastfeeding, on maternity
leave, or with a medical condition that is related to pregnancy. That is, if this case relates to
federal anti-discrimination law, Freda can file her lawsuit in federal court. The first procedure
in such circumstances normally entails the seeking of a complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This investigative body deals with the issue
of discrimination in the workplace (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2024). If
Freda followed the EEOC regulations and filed a complaint with the EEOC, she could get a
so-called 'right to sue' letter, which would enable her to bring her case to the federal court.
The federal court would have jurisdiction because this case is about a violation of federal law.
Standing and Third-Party Lawsuits
6
One of the questions that came up in this scenario is whether Anthony, Freda's
counterpart, was allowed to bring the lawsuit on her behalf. The principle of standing
demands that the person who is suing must be the one who has been–in one or the other–
injured by the violation. Since Freda and not Anthony were fired, only Freda has the right to
sue. Freda's discharge angers Anthony, but as a layman, he cannot bring the suit on Freda's
behalf unless he is an attorney of the law for Freda. As a rule, it is prohibited to sue the third
party, and the latter can do it only in cases when the affected has suffered a personal injury.
However, this is not always the case as there are few exceptions to this rule; for instance,
where the plaintiff is a minor or person with a disability, the action is to be brought by or on
behalf of the plaintiff.
Federal Court Structure and District Identification
The federal court system in the U. S. is structured into three main levels: trial courts,
appellate courts, and the US Supreme Court. To be specific, district courts are the 'lower' or
'trial' courts where most of the federation actions start, which include both civil and criminal
cases. A court of appeals or the circuit court is an appellate court that corrects the lower court
and the district court's error in law or procedure. The Supreme Court, which is the highest,
tries cases of national importance or a constitutional interpretation. There are federal judicial
districts, which are, in turn, sub-divisions of each state, which is why district courts match up
with the federal judicial districts in geographic locations. For example, Alabama has three
districts: There are three regions, namely the Northern Region, the Middle Region, and the
Southern Region. The circuit courts are all over the United States, with the 11th Circuit which
deals with appeals from Alabama, Georgia, and Florida state. District courts and appellate
courts were established at the federal level by Congress to have an elaborate judicial system
that can accommodate federal levels, which include an appeal and a review of cases.
7
Conclusion
The judicial branch of the United States is an important part of the legal system since
it involves the interpretation of the laws by dispensing proper justice. Preliminary rules
include rules on jurisdiction, which define where a case is to be heard, whether in a federal or
state court and the doctrine of standing. From the consideration of the above fact patterns, it
is evident that federal courts have a strong participation in the hearing of cases that pertain to
federal crimes, diversity of citizenship, and federal laws, while state courts are more engaged
in cases that are closely related to local law and local jurisdiction. The lower federal courts on
the other hand are the ones established by the Congress; thus offering a channel for the
disposition of federal matters. The principles of jurisdiction and standing are basic to preserve
the exercise of the due process and to guarantee that the ongoing legal battle is an appropriate
one and in the court of competent jurisdiction.
References
Epps, D. (2021). Checks and Balances in the Criminal Law.EVand. L. Rev.,E74, 1.
openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1155&context=law_scholarship
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2024). Pregnancy discrimination.
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm
United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2113. (2024). Bank robbery and incidental crimes.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2113
United States Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (2024). Diversity of citizenship; amount in
controversy; costs. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1332
