The Dual Challenges Of United States Courts And Federal Courts

The American court system does not function as a single entity that adjudicates all claims presented before it but as divided courts representing the individual fifty state governments and one the central federal government in a judicial federalism structure. The United States Constitution binds the federal government as it examines the cases before it, and each state government is obligated to its state constitution when rendering decisions. Claims that can originate in either or both systems further complicate matters. These dual challenges have led to a more complex system where each state’s courts and federal courts interpret the other’s laws (Schapiro, 1999, 2023). Judicial federalism recognizes the independence of the individual fifty

Schapiro, in his article Polyphonic Federalism: State Constitutions in the Federal Courts, advocates for federal courts as interpreters of state constitutions. He notes that this arrangement between the federal courts and the states is valuable in that the federal courts are better positioned as defenders of individual rights and liberties (Schapiro, 1999, 2023). He argues for a single authoritative voice in these matters and believes that as this voice, the federal courts will act as a “positive good” (Schapiro, 1999, 2023, p. 1461) where these dual challenges arise. He does not examine the role of the states as defenders of the individual rights of their citizens, nor does he question how that position constrains federal overreach. For Schapiro, the paramount issue where dual challenges exist is the likelihood of federal abstention in the federal portion of the claim, adjudicating only the state matter and returning to the federal issue if the state claim did not resolve the question (Schapiro, 1999, 2023). Though seemingly reasonable, this is even problematic. State law interpreted by federal courts is “non-authoritative” (Schapiro, 1999, 2023, p. 1413) and, as such, is not binding on state constitutions. Further, many of these claims involve applying state law against a government actor. In cases like these, federal courts exercise increased caution to avoid any violations of the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. This process produces inconsistent rulings from federal benches when dual constitutional issues present themselves before the courts (Schapiro, 1999, 2023). According to Schapiro, federal courts have three choices when dual challenges present themselves. The federal courts can choose to settle the federal claim, rule on the state claim, or abstain and allow the state court to adjudicate the state claim (Schapiro, 1999, 2023, p. 1461). Settling the federal claim has a finality that settling a state