Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
State courts handle the vast majority of legal cases in America—over 95% of all court cases are decided at the state level, not in federal courts. When you're tested on federalism and the distribution of power in the American system, understanding how state judicial systems operate reveals how decentralization actually works in practice. You'll see concepts like judicial independence, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism play out differently across the 50 states.
The AP exam loves to test your ability to compare institutional structures and explain how different selection methods or jurisdictional boundaries affect political outcomes. Don't just memorize that states have three-tiered court systems—know why some states elect judges while others appoint them, and what that means for judicial accountability versus judicial independence. These trade-offs are exactly what FRQs are designed to probe.
State court systems follow a hierarchical structure that mirrors the federal system but operates independently within each state's jurisdiction. This tiered approach ensures that cases can be reviewed for errors while maintaining efficiency at the trial level.
Compare: Trial courts vs. appellate courts—both are part of the state system, but trial courts examine facts and evidence while appellate courts review only legal procedures and interpretations. If an FRQ asks about checks within the judicial branch, this distinction is your answer.
How judges reach the bench directly affects their independence and accountability—a core tension in democratic governance. Different selection methods prioritize different values, and states have experimented with various approaches.
Compare: Partisan election vs. Missouri Plan—both involve public input, but elections prioritize voter choice while merit selection prioritizes professional qualifications. This trade-off between accountability and independence appears frequently on AP exams.
Understanding what cases state courts can hear—and what they cannot—illustrates the practical boundaries of federalism. Jurisdiction determines which court system has the power to decide a dispute.
Compare: State court jurisdiction vs. federal court jurisdiction—state courts are courts of general jurisdiction (they can hear almost anything), while federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (they need specific authorization). This is a foundational federalism concept.
State constitutions create the legal framework for state courts and often provide protections beyond those guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. This "new judicial federalism" allows states to be laboratories of rights expansion.
Compare: Federal judicial review vs. state judicial review—both allow courts to invalidate unconstitutional laws, but state courts apply state constitutional standards that may differ from federal interpretations. This is how federalism creates variation in rights protections.
How courts are funded and managed affects their ability to deliver justice—a practical dimension of state politics that connects to broader debates about government capacity and reform.
Compare: Traditional courts vs. specialized problem-solving courts—both adjudicate cases, but traditional courts focus on determining guilt and imposing sentences while specialized courts emphasize addressing underlying causes of criminal behavior. This reform trend reflects changing views on criminal justice.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Court hierarchy | Trial courts → Appellate courts → State supreme court |
| Judicial selection | Gubernatorial appointment, partisan election, nonpartisan election, Missouri Plan |
| Jurisdiction types | General jurisdiction, limited jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction |
| State constitutional rights | Privacy rights, education rights, environmental protections beyond federal floor |
| Checks and balances | Judicial review of state laws, senate confirmation of appointees, retention elections |
| Court specialization | Drug courts, family courts, mental health courts, small claims courts |
| Reform strategies | E-filing, alternative dispute resolution, problem-solving courts |
| Federalism in action | State courts as final authority on state law, broader state constitutional protections |
Which two judicial selection methods both involve voter participation, and how do they differ in balancing accountability with independence?
A case involves a contract dispute between two residents of the same state worth . Explain why this case would be heard in state court rather than federal court.
Compare and contrast how trial courts and appellate courts function within the state court hierarchy—what does each court examine, and why does this distinction matter?
How does the concept of "new judicial federalism" allow state constitutions to provide rights protections that differ from federal constitutional rights? Give an example of how this might work.
If an FRQ asked you to explain how judicial selection methods affect the balance between judicial independence and democratic accountability, which two methods would you compare and what trade-offs would you identify?