Appellate Jurisdiction in the US Court System

The Right to Appeal Must Be Proven in Every Case

Sculpture of the Scales of Justice
Dan Kitwood/Getty Images News

The term “appellate jurisdiction” refers to the authority of a court to hear appeals to cases decided by lower courts. Courts that have such authority are called “appellate courts.” The appellate courts have the power to reverse or modify the lower court’s decision.

Key Takeaways: Appellate Jurisdiction

  • Appellate jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear and decide appeals to decisions made by lower courts.
  • In the United States federal court system, cases originally decided in the district courts can be appealed only to the circuit courts of appeals, while decisions of the circuit courts can be appealed only to the U.S. Supreme Court. Decisions of the Supreme Court cannot be further appealed.
  • The right to appeal is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Instead, the appellant must “show cause” by convincing the appeals court that the trial court had failed to properly apply the laws involved or to follow proper legal procedures.
  • The standards by which an appeals court decides the correctness of a lower court’s decision is based on whether the appeal was based on a question of substantive facts of the case or on an incorrect or improper application of the legal process resulting in the denial of due process of law

While the right to appeal is not bestowed by any law or the Constitution, it is generally considered to be embodied in general tenets of law prescribed by the English Magna Carta of 1215.

Under the federal hierarchical dual court system of the United States, the circuit courts have appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by the district courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the circuit courts.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to create courts under the Supreme Court and to determine the number and location of courts with appellate jurisdiction.

Currently, the lower federal court system is made up of 12 geographically located regional circuit courts of appeal which have appellate jurisdiction over 94 district trial courts. The 12 appellate courts also have jurisdiction over specialized cases involving the federal government agencies, and cases dealing with patent law. In the 12 appellate courts, appeals are heard and decided by three-judge panels. Juries are not used in the appeals courts.

Typically, cases decided by the 94 district courts can be appealed to a circuit court of appeals and decisions for the circuit courts can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also has “original jurisdiction” to hear certain types of cases that may be allowed to bypass the often lengthy standard appellate process.

From about 25% to 33% of all appeals heard by federal appellate courts involve criminal convictions.

The Right to Appeal Must Be Proven

Unlike other legal rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the right to appeal is not absolute. Instead, the party asking for the appeal called the “appellant,” must convince the appellate jurisdiction court that the lower court had incorrectly applied a law or failed to follow proper legal procedures during the trial. The process of proving such errors by the lower courts is called “showing cause.” The appellate jurisdiction courts will not consider an appeal unless cause has been shown. In other words, the right to appeal is not required as part of “due process of law.”

While always applied in practice, the requirement to show cause in order to gain the right to appeal was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1894. In deciding the case of McKane v. Durston, the justices wrote, “An appeal from a judgment of conviction is not a matter of absolute right, independently of constitutional or statutory provisions allowing such appeal.” The court continued, “A review by an appellate court of the final judgment in a criminal case, however, grave the offense of which the accused is convicted, was not at common law and is not now a necessary element of due process of law. It is wholly within the discretion of the state to allow or not to allow such a review.”

The way in which appeals are dealt with, including determining whether or not the appellant has proven the right to appeal, can vary from state to state.

Standards by Which Appeals Are Judged

The standards by which a court of appeals judges the validity of a lower court’s decision depends on whether the appeal was based on a question of facts presented during the trial or on an incorrect application or interpretation of a law by the lower court.

In judging appeals based on facts presented at trial, the court of appeals judges must weigh the facts of the case based on their own firsthand review of the evidence and observation of witness testimony. Unless a clear error in the way the facts of the case were represented to or interpreted by the lower court can be found, the appeals court will generally deny the appeal and allow the decision of the lower court to stand.

When reviewing issues of law, the court of appeals may reverse or modify the lower court’s decision if the judges find the lower court wrongly applied or misinterpreted the law or laws involved in the case.

The court of appeals may also review “discretionary” decisions or rulings made by the lower court judge during the trial. For example, the appeals court might find that the trial judge improperly disallowed evidence that should have been seen by the jury or failed to grant a new trial due to circumstances that arose during the trial.

Sources and Further Reference