Hey, y'all! Many of you have followed me for my post-election litigation snark, hopefully you all know I'm not a lawyer

However, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand some basic things about the US court system, so with that mind: let's talk about state vs. federal court.

Specifically, let's talk about jurisdiction! Jurisdiction, roughly, is the power a court has over parties or issues.

There's a popular perception that federal court is "the boss" of state court, and that's just not true -- except for a few circumstances where it is.

Some courts are courts of "general jurisdiction," meaning they can hear any kind of issue -- civil, criminal, large, small, what have you.

Some courts are courts of "limited jurisdiction," meaning they can only hear certain kinds of cases.

For example, in my state, we have state District Courts that can only hear misdemeanor cases and civil cases that have less than $100K in controversy, and then we have Superior Courts that can hear anything.

Another example is bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy court can't try crimes.

Another important distinction when it comes to types of courts is the difference between a "trial court" and a "court of review." A trial court is where every case starts: you bring your arguments, your facts, the relevant law, and you come out with a verdict.

If you think the judge screwed up the way she handled your case, you can ask a court of review -- an appeals court, also known as an appellate court -- to look at how you presented the case and how the judge ruled, and examine that ruling for legal mistakes.

IMPORTANT: All an appellate court is doing is seeing if the judge before them screwed up. They aren't re-trying the case. They you can't bring them new evidence, you can't even make new arguments. They aren't judging the case, they're judging the trial court judge.

OK. Moving on:

State courts have jurisdiction over everything that happens in their state. They judge matters that arise out of state law, and they judge whether state laws abide by the state constitution. They can do this even if the issue is also governed by federal law.

Every state has courts of general jurisdiction. Every one. And if you don't like how your state trial court handled your state trial issue, you take it to a state court of appeals, who rules on whether the state trial court applied state law correctly.

If you get your appellate ruling from the court of appeals, and you still think the judge screwed up, you can ask your state supreme court to hear it, and they might do it. (Unlike the appellate court, they don't have to.)

But what if they screw it up too?

Well, if your case only involves issues of state law . . . you're *fucked.* The State Supreme Court is the ultimate authority over state law. They are literally called the Court of Last Resort.

"But what about federal court?!" I hear you cry.

Well, federal court, unlike state court, ONLY has courts of limited jurisdiction. What authority controls the boundaries of that limited jurisdiction? Why the Constitution, in Article III § 2.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Now I love the Founding Fathers as much as anyone, but those motherfuckers ain't exactly what you would call pithy, so let me modernize that language a little bit.

The Federal Court System has jurisdiction over:

1) all issues arising from the US Constitution, Federal law & regulations, or previous Federal court cases.

2) All controversies where a state or the US is a party, or between residents of different states. (cont)

3) All issues of admiralty or maritime law.

4) Anything that arises from a US treaty, involves ambassadors or diplomats, or controversies between foreign citizens and US citizens.

That's it. If it doesn't come out of one of those four things? Federal court *cannot hear it.*

(this tweet reserved for all my lawyer friends to respond to and tell me all the edge cases I left out.)

So, by analogy: let's say my kids get into an argument over who gets the last cupcake. I step in and say that we split the cupcake.

If one of my kids then calls the school district superintendent and asks her to intervene, she'll be like "Um, no, not my circus nor my monkeys."

The Superintendent has a lot more power than I do. She oversees a much larger jurisdiction. But she has no authority over how our family sorts out our everyday shit. She only has authority over issues pertaining to our school district.

Now, if the issue WAS school-related? Maybe I tell my son that I'm furious with him because he built a superconducting supercollider in the back yard without asking permission first, and I tell him he can't go to school for two weeks as punishment.

Now the Superintendent *can* call me up and say "Uh, your kid has to be in school whether he violated the laws of physics or not. Send him on in."

Or if I choose to send my kids to school in clothes that violate the dress code, the school can make them change.

But for just family stuff? Even REALLY BIG family stuff, like a divorce or a decision about buying a new car? Get thee behind me, Superintendent, you have no power here.

It's the same with state court vs. federal court. If I bring a case that involves *only* issues of state law -- for example, whether or not a law my state legislature passed about the way the state handles elections violates the state constitution -- the Feds can't touch it.

And remember that thing I said waaaaay up above, about how appellate courts only judge the judge, not the case, and therefore you can't bring new evidence or make new arguments at appeal? I can't suddenly introduce a US constitutional argument to get in through the door.

If your original claims in state court are also live as a federal legal or constitutional question, then you can appeal from the State Supreme court into the Federal court of appeals on the basis of that federal question. See, for example, Loving v. Virginia.

But if they aren't. . . you're done. Don't go calling the school district to get them to enforce your mother's promise that you could get ice cream after you finished your homework.

And finally, as a coda to all this, and the thing that inspired this tweet thread to begin with:

this bonkers-ass lawsuit that Ken Paxton has filed in SCOTUS on behalf of the State of Texas

*hoo boy*

To expand my metaphor: this case is like if Ken Paxton called the superintendent of a school district he didn't even live in to yell about the way they handled athlete eligibility in their schools, because he's mad about who won the state AAAAA football championship.

And he doesn't have any kids in school in that district. Or anywhere. And didn't go to either school. And never did.

this is firmly into "old man yells at cloud" territory in its batshit loonballitude. this just, like, isn't a thing.

Anyway, I hope this has been entertaining or instructive! Have a lovely day, and enjoy watching these lawsuits crash and burn.

Jay, as is right and proper, corrects my screwups and over generalizations https://twitter.com/wolmanj/status/1336521454842765313