Stronger Federal Courts in the US

Well, more like a "strong federal judicial system."

If you think about it, America's federal legal system is nowhere as strong as it could be.

For instance, federal courts ruling in cases involving diversity of (state) citizenship can only rule if every party is from a different state; if one of four defendants is from the same state as a plaintiff, it goes to state court. This is particularly surprising because the Constitution doesn't require this; Congress just enacted a law providing this in 1789, and it's become tradition.

More pressingly, perhaps, is that federal courts don't really have a body of common law; when relying on such cases, they have to use the state's common law. So if Virginia says that there's no liability for emotional harm, then the VA Federal Court has to say there isn't either, even if the Federal Court in PA can say there is. But, prior to the infamous Erie Railroad v. Tompkins there was a united body of federal common law; and without that case, it is conceivable that such a system would remain.

This caused problems, of course. It meant you often had a different outcome for your case if you sued in federal instead of state court; which makes me think the end result would be state courts trying to modify themselves to adjust to federal law.

I think ultimately you get a much more coherent body of cases and common law across the US, but the consequences... hrm.
 
Top