judiciary

n., pl., -ies.

1. The judicial branch of government.
2. 1. A system of courts of law for the administration of justice.
   2. The judges of these courts.

[Probably from Latin iūdiciārius, of the courts, from iūdicium, judgment, from iūdex, iūdic-, judge. See judge.]

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.

The branch of government that is endowed with the authority to interpret and apply the law, adjudicate legal disputes, and otherwise administer justice.

The U.S. judiciary comprises a system of state and federal courts, tribunals, and administrative bodies, as well as the judges and other judicial officials who preside over them.

Every society in human history has confronted the question of how to resolve disputes among its members. Many early societies chose a private system of revenge for dispute resolution. As civilization gradually evolved, and the system of revenge became perceived as counterproductive to society, communities began designating individuals to resolve disputes in accordance with established norms and customs. These individuals were usually leaders who were expected to exercise their judgment in an impartial manner.

The origins of judicial action, judicial power, and judicial process may be traced to the first communities that relied on neutral third parties to resolve legal disputes. Judicial action is any action taken by a court or other judicial body to interpret, apply, or declare what the law is on a particular issue during a legal proceeding. It is also the action taken by a judicial body to settle a legal dispute by issuing an opinion, order, decree, or judgment. Judicial power is the authority of a court to hear a particular lawsuit or legal dispute, and take judicial action with regard to it. Judicial process is the procedures by which a court takes judicial action or exercises its judicial power.

Ancient Greece, one of the earliest known societies in Western civilization, employed a combination of judicial procedures. Greek rulers, known as arkhons, were empowered to hear a variety of disputes, as was the agora, a group of respected elders in the community. A court known as the Areopagus heard murder cases, and direct retaliation by private citizens was still permitted in many civil disputes. The judicial powers of these institutions were gradually replaced by the Ekklesia, an assembly of six thousand jurors that was divided into smaller panels to hear particular cases.

Juries also played an integral role in the development of the English judicial system. As more legal disputes were submitted to juries for resolution, this system became more self-conscious. Concerns were expressed that both judges and juries were rendering biased decisions based on irrelevant and untrustworthy evidence. Litigants complained that trial procedures were haphazard, arbitrary, and unfair. Losing parties sought effective remedies to redress erroneous decisions made at the trial court level. Each of these concerns has manifested itself in the modern judicial system of the United States.

The blueprints for the U.S. judiciary were laid out in 1789. During that year the U.S. Constitution was formally adopted by the states. Article III of the Constitution delineates the general structure of the federal judicial system, including the powers and obligations of federal courts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 (1 Stat. 73 [codified as amended in 28 U.S.C.A.]) fleshes out many details of federal judicial power that were not addressed by the Constitution. The blueprints for the state judicial systems were created similarly by state constitutional and statutory provisions.

The U.S. judicial system has three principal characteristics: it is part of a federalist system of government, it has a specific role under the federal separation-of-powers doctrine, and it is organized in a hierarchical fashion.

Federalism

The judiciary is part of a federalist system in which the state and federal governments share authority over legal matters arising within their geographic boundaries. In some instances both state and federal courts have the power to hear a legal dispute that arises from a single set of circumstances. For example, four Los Angeles police officers who were accused of participating in the 1991 beating of speeding motorist Rodney G. King faced prosecution for excessive use of force in both state and federal court. In other instances a state or federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over a particular legal matter. For example, state courts typically have exclusive jurisdiction over matrimonial law, and federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy law.

Separation of Powers

Under the separation-of-powers doctrine, the judiciary shares power with the executive and legislative branches of government at both the state and federal levels. The judiciary is delegated the duty of interpreting and applying the laws that are passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive branch.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress its lawmaking power, and Article II authorizes the president to sign and veto legislation and to execute laws that are enacted. Article III grants the federal judiciary the power to adjudicate lawsuits that arise under the Constitution, congressional law, treaties with foreign countries, and certain other instances that are specifically enumerated.

Federal judges are not elected to office. Instead, they are appointed to office by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Once appointed, federal judges hold office for life, unless they resign or are impeached for "Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (U.S. Const. art. II, § 4).

The lifetime appointment of federal judges is controversial. On one hand, the federal judiciary runs the risk of growing out of touch with popular sentiment because it is being immunized from the electorate. On the other hand, it is considered necessary for the judiciary to remain independent of popular will so that judges will decide cases according to legal principles, not political considerations.

In many states judges are elected to office. Nonetheless, each state constitution similarly delegates powers among the three branches of government. Accordingly, judges are still expected to decide cases based on the law, not the political considerations that the executive and legislative branches may take into account in executing their duties.

Hierarchy

The U.S. judiciary is a hierarchical system of trial and appellate courts at both the state and federal levels. In general, a lawsuit is originally filed with a trial court that hears the suit and determines its merits. Generally, parties have the right to ask an appellate court to review the decision of a trial court. Parties aggrieved by a final judgment have the right to appeal the decision. Both state and federal governments provide at least two levels of appellate review, one consisting of intermediate courts of appeal and one consisting of a supreme court. The federal appellate system is divided into eleven numbered circuits, known as the U.S. courts of appeal, plus the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Each federal appellate court has jurisdiction over a certain geographic area, and may hear appeals only from federal district courts within that jurisdiction. Specialized courts have been created to hear appeals concerning patents (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), international trade (the U.S. Court of International Trade), and military matters (the Court of Military Appeals).

At the state level, a lawsuit may be filed with a court sitting in a particular city, county, or district. At the federal level, Article III, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Pursuant to this authority, Congress has established in each state at least one U.S. district court, where lawsuits are commenced regarding federal matters. Congress has also created an intermediate tier of federal appellate courts that sits between the Supreme Court and the federal district courts.

Special Courts

Not all lawsuits begin in an ordinary trial court. Both the state and federal governments have established special courts that are expressly designated to hear specific types of lawsuits. For example, at the federal level, special courts have been created to hear legal claims involving bankruptcy, tax, and military law. At the state level, many governments have established special courts to hear family law and probate matters.

Alternative Dispute Resolution and Administrative Agencies

In certain areas of law, litigants are prohibited from beginning a lawsuit in an ordinary trial court unless they first exhaust other methods of dispute resolution through an administrative body. Since the mid-1930s state and federal governments have created elaborate administrative systems to dispose of certain legal claims before a lawsuit may ever be filed. For example, at the federal level, administrative agencies have been created to oversee a number of disputes involving labor law, environmental law, antitrust law, employment discrimination, securities transactions, and national transportation, among others.

Administrative agencies are created by statute, and legislatures may prescribe the qualifications for administrative officials, including administrative law judges, who are appointed by the executive branch, courts of law, and heads of government departments. These agencies are charged with the responsibility of establishing, developing, evaluating, and applying policy over a given area of law. The body of rules, principles, and regulations promulgated by such agencies and their officials is known as administrative law.

State and federal governments have passed formal rules that set forth the procedures that these administrative bodies must follow. The rules governing federal administrative adjudication are provided in the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.A. § 551 et seq. [1988]).

Laws promulgated by state and federal administrative bodies, including adjudicative bodies, are considered no less authoritative than laws enacted by legislatures, decreed by the executive branch, or issued by the judiciary. However, litigants who first exhaust their administrative remedies through the appropriate agency and are dissatisfied with a decision rendered by an administrative law judge, may appeal the decision to an ordinary court of law.

A court's exercise of discretionary power is also influenced by state and federal codes of judicial conduct. These codes require judges to perform their official duties in a fair and impartial manner. In this regard judges must exercise caution to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The violation of requirements set forth in state and federal codes of judicial conduct can result in severe penalties. These mandates impose extra incentive for judges to be evenhanded in the exercise of their discretion.

See: Administrative Law and Procedure; Alternative Dispute Resolution; Code of Judicial Conduct; Court of Appeal; Court of Claims; Court Opinion; Discretion in Decision Making; Federalism; Judicial Review; Jury; Separation of Powers.

Note: click on a word meaning below to see its connections and related words.

The noun has 2 meanings:

Meaning #1: persons who administer justice
  Synonym: bench

Meaning #2: the system of law courts that administer justice and constitute the judicial branch of government
  Synonyms: judicature, judicatory, judicial system

---

Common misspelling(s) of judiciary

• judisuary

Dansk (Danish)
n. - domstolene, den dømmende magt, dommerne, dommerstanden

Nederlands (Dutch)
rechterlijke macht, justitie

Français (French)
n. - organisation judiciaire, magistrature, pouvoir judiciaire

Deutsch (German)
n. - Richterschaft

Ελληνική (Greek)
n. pl. - δικαστικός κλάδος

Italiano (Italian)
giustizia, magistratura

Português (Portuguese)
n. pl. - judiciário (m), magistratura (f) (Jur.)

Русский (Russian)
судебная власть, система судебных органов, судебное право, судебная практика, прецедентное право

Español (Spanish)
n. - magistratura, administración de justicia, poder judicial, judicatura

Svenska (Swedish)
n. pl. - domarkåren, rättsväsendet, domstolsmyndighet

中文（简体）(Chinese (Simplified))
司法部, 法官, 司法制度

中文（繁體）(Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 司法部, 法官, 司法制度

한국어 (Korean)
n. - 재판의 , 법관의

日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 司法, 裁判官, 司法部, 司法制度
adj. - 司法の, 裁判所の, 裁判の, 裁判官の

العربيه (Arabic)
‏(الجمع) هيئه القضاة, السلطه القضائيه‏

עברית (Hebrew)
n. - ‮השופטים, מערכת בתי-המשפט, המערכת המשפטית‬

If you are unable to view some languages clearly, click here.

To select your translation preferences click here.