Government in the United States, National, State and Local

by James Wilford Garner

In most cases appeals may be taken from the decisions of the district courts to the circuit courts of appeals or to the Supreme Court.

Federal Attorneys, Marshals, and Clerks.—In each of the federal judicial districts, there is a United States attorney who prosecutes violations of the federal laws in his district. There is also in each district a United States marshal who bears somewhat the same relation to the federal court that a sheriff does to a state court. He executes the processes of the court, arrests offenders, and performs other ministerial functions for the court. In each district there is a clerk who has custody of the seal of the court and keeps a record of its proceedings, orders, judgments, etc. The marshal and attorney are appointed by the President, but the clerk is chosen by the court itself.

In each district, also, the court appoints a number of United States commissioners who are empowered to issue warrants for arrest, take bail, determine whether accused persons shall be held for trial, and perform other duties somewhat similar to those discharged by justices of the peace under the judicial system of the state.

The Regular Federal Judges.—Appointment.—All federal judges are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The judges of most of the states, as we have seen, are now chosen by popular election, but that method did not commend itself to the framers of the federal Constitution. The existing method of appointing federal judges has given general satisfaction, and with remarkably few exceptions, the persons appointed to the federal bench have been men of integrity and fitness.[100]

The term for which all the regular federal judges are appointed is good behavior. This is virtually for life, since they cannot be removed except by impeachment.[101] All other officers of the United States are appointed for definite terms, usually for four years. Except in a few states, the state judges are elected for definite terms ranging from two years to twenty-one years (p. 113). The framers of the federal Constitution, however, were deeply impressed with the advantages of a judiciary possessing the qualities of permanency and independence, and they wisely provided that the judges should hold their offices so long as their official conduct was above reproach.

Compensation.—The Constitution declares that the judges shall receive at stated times a compensation for their services which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. As we have seen, the compensation of the President can neither be increased nor diminished during the time for which he is elected, but the prohibition in the case of the judges applies only to a reduction of their salaries. Increases are permitted to be made at any time. The compensation now allowed the chief justice of the Supreme Court is $15,000 a year, and the associate justices $14,500, amounts which are low in comparison with the salaries of the highest English judges, who receive $25,000 a year. The circuit judges receive $8,500 a year, and the district judges $7,500.

Any judge of a United States court having held his commission ten years and having attained the age of seventy years, may retire from the bench and receive the same salary during the rest of his life that was payable to him at the time of his resignation. Few judges do retire, however.

Power of the Supreme Court to Declare Laws Unconstitutional.—An important power of the Supreme Court for which there is no direct authority in the Constitution, is that of declaring acts of Congress which are in conflict with the Constitution, null and void and of no effect. This power was first exercised by the Supreme Court in 1801 in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison. Congress had passed an act giving the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in certain cases where the Constitution says it should have appellate jurisdiction, and when the act came before the court for enforcement it declined to be bound by it. The great chief justice, John Marshall, wrote the opinion of the court which held the act of Congress null and void. His argument, in brief, was that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the judges are bound to give effect to it. When, therefore, the court is called upon to give effect to a law of Congress which is clearly in conflict with the higher law of the Constitution, it must give the preference to the latter, otherwise the declaration in favor of the supremacy of the Constitution would have no meaning. Down to 1913 the Supreme Court had declared thirty-three acts of Congress, or parts of such acts, unconstitutional.

Power to Declare State Laws Unconstitutional.—Laws passed by the state legislatures, ordinances of municipal councils, and even the provisions of state constitutions themselves may be declared null and void by the Supreme Court in case they are in conflict with the national Constitution or the laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof. It has already been pointed out that appeals may be taken to the federal Supreme Court from the highest courts of a state whenever a right, title, or privilege under the federal Constitution is involved and the state court has decided against the right or privilege claimed. Thus where one is prosecuted and convicted under a state law or provision of a state Constitution which he claims is contrary to some provision in the federal Constitution or laws, he has a right to appeal to the United States Supreme Court and have the question of the constitutionality of the state law finally determined there. This is a necessary consequence of the supremacy of the federal Constitution and laws over those of the states. More than 200 acts of state legislatures have been pronounced null and void by the United States Supreme Court.[102]

Sometimes inferior federal courts declare acts of Congress and of the state legislatures to be unconstitutional, but in all such cases an appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court for final review.