Author: Curt Doolittle

How Our Lower Courts Create False Positives That Confuse the Public.
(Re: Trump/Biden candidacy. Chevron Defense, and more)

The lower courts (below the supreme court) are expected to adjudicate all cases before them regardless of the court’s competency, clarity of the law, or the decidability of the case before them.

There is no provision where a lower court can defer a case to a higher court without issuing an opinion (decision), leaving the act of (costly) appeal to the parties.

Yet there are many cases where the matter is not of resolution of conflict between facts, or resolution of conflicts between competing legislation and law, but resolution of conflict or lack of clarity in constitutional matters.

So, in our legal systems, lower courts generally do not declare a matter “undecidable” and then defer it to a higher court. Instead, the process usually involves specific procedures and grounds for appealing a lower court’s decision to a higher court.

The result is the lower courts are forced to issue specious decisions that rapidly attract public attention even if the arguments or the decision are – as in more cases than you’d expect – rather ridiculous.

As such the people cannot invest too much interest in lower court decision that rests on ‘unsettled’ law, in particular constitutional clarity, until those matters are considered by at least an appellate, but in the most contentious unsettled matters, the supreme court.

Here’s how our court system typically works:

Decision-Making in Lower Courts:
Lower courts (like trial courts) are responsible for hearing cases, evaluating evidence, and making decisions based on the applicable law. They are expected to reach a decision on the matters before them, even if the case is complex or challenging.

Appeals Process:
If a party involved in a case disagrees with the decision of a lower court, they have the right to appeal to a higher court. The grounds for appeal might include claims of legal errors, misinterpretation of the law, or issues with how the trial was conducted.
The appeal is not a simple deferral; it’s a formal process where the appellant must provide a basis for why the higher court should review and potentially overturn or modify the lower court’s decision.

Role of Higher Courts:
Higher courts (like appellate courts or supreme courts) primarily review lower court decisions to ensure the correct application of law and legal principles. They do not typically re-examine factual evidence but focus on legal and procedural aspects.
If a higher court finds that there were significant legal errors in the lower court’s handling of the case, it may overturn the decision, modify it, or remand the case back to the lower court for a new trial or further proceedings.

Undecidability Not a Typical Ground for Appeal:
The concept of a case being “undecidable” is not a standard legal ground for appeal. Courts are expected to apply the law to the facts of the case and reach a decision, even in complex scenarios.
However, if a lower court finds that it lacks jurisdiction or that the case involves legal questions beyond its scope, it might dismiss or transfer the case, potentially leading to it being taken up by a higher court.

Summary
In summary, while lower courts do not typically defer cases to higher courts on the basis of undecidability, there are established mechanisms for appealing decisions and having higher courts review cases for legal errors or misapplications of law.

And… that’s not a good thing – at least – if the people can interpret such a matter as more settled than it is.

Cheers
– CD