Overlapping Jurisdictions: Where Federal and State Jurisdictions Meet

Introduction

Jurisdiction is meant to protect a defendant—ensuring they are heard in a court with adequate resources and authority over their case. It is of paramount importance that the court hearing a defendant’s case has sufficient—but not unnecessary or excessive—authority. This issue is increasingly important when jurisdictions overlap, and several courts have authority to hear the case. This article will outline what jurisdiction is, as well as the effect that overlapping jurisdiction can have on a case.

What is jurisdiction? 

Jurisdiction is defined as a court’s authority to hear a matter. For example, an appellate court has the authority to hear appeals cases, whereas a district court has authority to hear trials. Jurisdiction is also a geographic area over which a court has authority. For example, a California court has jurisdiction over cases arising in California. There are different types of jurisdiction:  

1. Original jurisdiction is the first review of a case. A court with original jurisdiction has the authority to conduct a trial and accept evidence. 

2. Appellate jurisdiction refers to authority to conduct a second review to look for error.

3. Exclusive jurisdiction means that only the specific court has the authority to process the case.

4. Overlapping (or concurrent) jurisdiction means several courts share jurisdiction. 

Where does jurisdiction come from? 

Federalism is the principle that underlies the structure of American government. Federalism establishes a separation between state and federal governments. There are separate state and federal laws, courts, and jurisdictions. The Constitution outlines what jurisdiction belongs to the state and federal government.  

State versus federal jurisdiction

State jurisdiction is the state’s authority to hear state cases, whether at a state trial court or state appeal court. State jurisdiction usually arises from a state law being violated within state territory. Violations of state criminal law can be infractions, misdemeanors, or felonies based on their severity. You can learn more through What To Expect In A State Criminal Case. 

Similarly, federal jurisdiction arises when a federal law is violated, the conduct crosses state boundaries (e.g., a drug trafficking operation across state lines), or residents of several states are involved. Visit What To Expect In A Federal Criminal Case to learn more. This is also discussed further in our Difference between state and federal charges.

How can jurisdiction overlap? 

The difference between state and federal jurisdiction can seem clear-cut. However, there is a gray area where the jurisdictions overlap. This gray area is called overlapping, or “concurrent” jurisdiction. State and federal authorities have overlapping legal authority to prosecute a crime depending on the circumstances. Some crimes violate both state and federal laws. Drug trafficking offenses are one example. Other crimes violate state laws but happen on federal property. For example, simple possession of a drug (in a small amount for personal use) is typically a state charge. However, simple possession on a federal military base, which is federal property, invokes a charge in federal court where state law may be used to determine whether a crime was committed. Another example is when someone violates a state law (DUI, robbery, theft, etc.) at a national park—which is federal property.  You can learn more about this kind of case through CVB Cases.

What happens when jurisdiction overlaps? 

In some cases where jurisdiction overlaps, the prosecutor or charging authority must decide which court to refer the case to and which laws apply—federal or state. This decision is made based on several factors. While considering the specific interests of justice, the prosecution strategizes based on the available resources in either court and the overall likelihood of the case’s success. For instance, a charging authority or prosecutor will likely refer a ‘simple drug possession at the airport’ case to state court, even though it occurred on federal property (the airport). This is because state courts traditionally adjudicate simple possession cases, while federal court resources are reserved for higher-level offenses. 

Jurisdiction as a defense 

As spotlighted earlier, the aim of jurisdiction is to protect a defendant by ensuring their case is processed by a court with sufficient authority and resources. In line with this principle, jurisdiction can be a defense. For instance, jurisdiction is an element of the offense in federal court. A federal prosecutor must prove that the federal court has jurisdiction over the case, whether it be due to violation of a federal law, involvement of a federal issue, the offense occurring on federal land, or other relevant circumstances. If the federal prosecutor fails to prove federal jurisdiction, the judge or jury must acquit the defendant of the crime. To learn more about criminal defenses, visit this link. 

Conclusion

In summary, a defendant has the right to be fairly heard, and this can only happen at a court with authority over the case. Prosecutors have a responsibility to this right when determining which jurisdiction should prosecute the case. Defense attorneys must act as diligent referees, alerting the judge when they believe an unfair overreach has occurred. Jurisdiction can even be used as a defense when a defense attorney argues that the court does not have authority over the case.  As always, should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out. You may also review the resources below.