Introduction
Understanding jurisdiction is a crucial skill impeded by the multitude of the differences and possibilities of intersection between state and federal laws, making it a challenging endeavor. Discerning the differences, similarities, and inconsistencies among the laws of different levels permits not only engaging with the described requirements through achieving an appropriate level of personal professionalism but also developing adequate critical thinking. Therefore, through defining jurisdiction concepts and the use of examples, it possible to better understand the situation, currently in place in the US system of laws.
The Meaning of Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction as an official method is choice power that is granted upon those relevant to the selective jurisdictional scope, usually subdivided into the aspects of the whole concept. In the US Constitution, historically, it is Article III that creates the prerequisites to “create a federal judicial system” through the investment of power on a national level (Chemerinsky, 2016, p. 2). Local, state, and federal courts, therefore, can individually carry out punishment for the breaching of their laws with a court for each level of a jurisdictional misdemeanor.
Concurrent jurisdiction occurs when two sections responsible for prescriptive action intersect, either in the case of a conflict of state and federal interests or when differing authorities cross within the same level. An appropriate example of intersection would be a conflict of interests between criminal and economic incidents due to the far-reaching effects of financial malpractice (Ryngaert, 2015). The legal situation is made even more complicated since “besides formal legal rules, there are customary or consensus practices that are also of importance” (Rosenbaum & Schap, 2016, p. 201). This situation creates circumstances where not only different states within the US attain the possibility of declaring concurrent interests but also create prerequisites for differing ways of practicing law.
State and Federal Examples
The state examples of judicial authority could be easily presentable, in the event of situational conditions contained within one US state. Taking a theoretical couple from Idaho as an example, vehicular manslaughter of another state citizen or the previous theft of the car would still retain them to be solely within the scope of Idaho jurisdiction (Idaho Legislature, 2018). Their case could become federal if their actions fell under the competency of the US Constitution or breaching federal laws (Siegel, Schmalleger, & Worrall, 2017).
This level could be achieved by the same Idaho couple if they decided to rob a federal agency insured bank or attempted to bring drugs from Canada into the country, involving the US as a stakeholder. Drug smuggling and the robbery of such capacity immediately make them a responsibility of the federal court.
Examples of Concurrent Jurisdiction
Concurrent jurisdiction requires a more delicate approach, especially in such cases as harmful environmental conditions that affect people living in specific states, such as the example of California and its drought that made water rights relevant. Effectively, the case consists of “concurrent jurisdiction between the state agency and the state trial court for water rights disputes,” with no possible clarification on whose authority is superior (Wong, 2017, p. 68). While granting this right to the state trial courts would seem natural for dispute claims, it is the state’s agency that has more competencies to deal with the issues that arisen.
Conclusion
Using examples to demonstrate the possibility and existence of state, federal, and concurrent jurisdiction helps solidify the already apperceived knowledge on the matter. Due to the fact that the US is composed of states, concurrent jurisdiction becomes a particularly common issue with different states attempting to claim heightened authority in some matters in opposition to others. Solving these issues becomes possible only through a deep understanding of not only the underlying problems but also the current judicial state of affairs.
References
Chemerinsky, E. (2016). Federal jurisdiction (7th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer.
Idaho Legislature. (2018). Title 18 crimes and punishments. Chapter 40 homicide. Web.
Rosenbaum, D. I., & Schap, D. (2016). Differences among state court jurisdictions in damages calculations. In Frank D. Tinari (Ed.), Forensic Economics (pp. 191-204). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryngaert, C. (2015). Jurisdiction in international law (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, L. J., Schmalleger, F., & Worrall, J. L. (2017). Courts and criminal justice in America (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Wong, Z. A. (2017). Exhausted of concurrent jurisdiction: A reexamination of National Audubon v. Superior Court of Alpine County. Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 7(1), 65-89.