Respuesta :
1. Federal courts have original subject matter jurisdiction over all cases that arise under (are based upon) any federal law. Here are some examples to clarify:
Filing a lawsuit against a police officer and a police department for violating a federal civil rights law that allows citizens that have been wrongfully arrested to collect civil damages.You file a lawsuit alleging that a competing company has made a product that infringes upon your patent. Patents are a creation of federal law, so you may file your suit in federal court.A growing small business sues a large company for engaging in unfair and anti-competitive business practices under federal antitrust laws.
An organization devoted to handicapped individuals sues a public establishment for failing to have any handicap accessible entrances under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2. Americans cling to the notion that someone born in the humblest of circumstances (such as Abraham Lincoln) may one day grow up to be the president of the United States, or at least a U.S. judge. As with most myths, this one has a kernel of truth. In principle virtually anyone can become a prominent public official, and a few well-known examples can be cited of people who came from poor backgrounds yet climbed to the pinnacle of power. More typically, however, America's federal judges, like other public officials and the captains of commerce and industry, come from the nation's middle and upper-middle classes.
1. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases in which the accusation pertains to a violation of federal law, and also in cases where parties involved in a lawsuit are from different states within the US or if one of the parties is a foreign entity.
- An example of the first type would be if you filed a suit against a company for infringing on a patent you hold. Since patents are part of federal law, it's a case for federal court.
- An example of the second type would be if a business owner in one state was sued by someone from another state for breach of contract or for fraudulent business practice.
2. Presidents (in general) will tend to appoint judges who align with their own views on political justice because they don't want their own attempts at leadership blocked by the courts, and also they hope to be able to leave a lasting legacy on nation overall through what they would consider favorable court decisions. Ideally, however, presidents will choose appointees for federal courts and the Supreme Court based on the overall strength of their qualifications, not merely based on political leanings they may seem to have.
3. Once a case reaches the Supreme Court, the The Supreme Court itself decides which cases it will hear.
The Supreme Court is asked to review more than 7,000 cases each year, so it would not be possible for the court to hear and make a decision on every case that is sent to it. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100 to 150 cases per year. The vast majority of those cases work their way up to the Supreme Court from lower courts. About two-thirds of the cases come from lower federal court decisions that are appealed for review, and about one-third of the cases are reviewing decisions made by supreme courts of individual states.
There are some cases that can have original jurisdiction at the Supreme Court level -- such as when there is a case between one state government and another or between state governments and the federal government. These are more rare within the overall agenda of the Court.
