Is Your State Court Really 'Of the People'? A Deep Dive into New Jersey vs. Federal Supreme Courts

 Is Your State Court Really 'Of the People'? A Deep Dive into New Jersey vs. Federal Supreme Courts

In this post, we'll examine the origins and legitimacy of state and federal courts through a lens of legal research, journalism, and education. Drawing on historical documents, constitutional texts, and scholarly analyses, we'll explore how these institutions embody, or sometimes distance themselves from the principle of popular sovereignty. Our focus: the New Jersey Supreme Court compared to the U.S. Supreme Court. All claims are backed by verifiable sources to ensure accuracy and encourage further reading.

The Roots of the New Jersey Supreme Court: From Colonial Chaos to Modern Ratification

The New Jersey Supreme Court's history reflects the evolution of state governance, shaped by successive constitutions and public involvement.

• Historical Evolution: Established under the 1776 Constitution during the Revolutionary War, the court initially functioned as a "Court of Appeals" without direct popular ratification. This framework was revised in 1844 via a constitutional convention and public referendum. The modern structure emerged from the 1947 Constitution, drafted by elected delegates and ratified by voters on November 4, 1947, with approximately 78% approval (653,096 yes votes to 184,632 no). This process unified the judiciary, designating the Supreme Court as the state's highest appellate body. (see  Supreme Court of New Jersey), (see History of New Jersey Supreme Court)
• How Justices Get Selected: Justices are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state senate, serving initial seven-year terms with possible reappointment until age 70. This merit-based system prioritizes judicial independence over direct elections, aligning with representative democracy where citizens elect the appointing officials.(see New Jersey Supreme Court)
• Tying It to 'The People': The 1947 Constitution's preamble begins with "We, the people of the State of New Jersey," affirming popular sovereignty. While not directly elected, the court's legitimacy stems from voter-ratified frameworks and elected representatives, consistent with republican principles under the U.S. Constitution's Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4).

The U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Foundations and Parallels

The federal judiciary, often viewed as the archetype of constitutional authority, shares structural similarities with state systems but operates within a national framework.

• Constitutional Basis: Article III of the U.S. Constitution vests judicial power in "one supreme Court" and inferior courts established by Congress. Ratified in 1788 by state conventions, this article outlines jurisdiction but leaves details to legislation. The Judiciary Act of 1789, enacted by the first Congress on September 24, 1789, set the Court's initial composition (one chief justice and five associates) and operational structure. (see Article III), (see Judicial Branch), 

  (see Judiciary Act of 1789 Establishes Federal Courts) 

• Appointment Process: Like New Jersey, justices are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, with lifetime tenure to ensure impartiality. This indirect method mirrors state practices, emphasizing expertise over electoral politics.
• Why It's Not the Same as State Courts: Federalism reserves powers to states under the Tenth Amendment, allowing independent judicial structures. However, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) mandates that state laws align with federal ones, rendering conflicting provisions void. This clause, a response to weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation, ensures national uniformity on key issues.

James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, defended separation of powers as essential to preventing tyranny, arguing branches should not be "totally separate" but interconnected for checks and balances. Abraham Lincoln echoed this in his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863: "government of the people, by the people, for the people," emphasizing citizen-centered democracy amid the Civil War.

Broader Implications: Federalism, Alignment, and What It Means Today

These systems highlight federalism's balance: States retain sovereignty but must comply with federal supremacy, protecting rights via the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation doctrine.

• Alignment and Checks: State courts like New Jersey's handle most litigation but defer to federal precedents on constitutional matters. This prevents overreach, as intended by the Founders.
• Counterpoints to Consider: Questioning appointed systems' legitimacy would challenge courts in 29 states, as only 21 use competitive elections for supreme court justices (13 nonpartisan, 8 partisan), while 17 employ retention elections and 12 rely solely on appointments. Elections can enhance accountability but risk politicization.

Recent cases, such as those on reproductive rights or environmental policy, illustrate these tensions, underscoring the need for informed civic engagement.

Overview of State Supreme Courts

State supreme courts in the United States serve as the highest judicial authority within each state's court system. They are responsible for interpreting state laws, constitutions, and regulations, ensuring justice is administered fairly and consistently. While their core functions are similar across states, there are variations in structure, selection processes, and specific powers. These courts operate independently from federal courts but must adhere to the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, meaning their rulings on federal issues can be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. They play a crucial role in protecting individual rights, upholding the rule of law, and sometimes advancing protections under state constitutions that go beyond federal minimums.

All state supreme courts, including New Jersey's, are part of the judicial branch of government. This branch is one of the three co-equal branches (alongside the legislative and executive), designed to interpret laws rather than create or enforce them. State supreme courts act as the final arbiters of state-level disputes, reviewing decisions from lower courts and providing oversight to the entire state judiciary.

Role, Purpose, and Duties

General for State Supreme Courts

• Role: They function as appellate courts of last resort, primarily reviewing appeals from intermediate appellate courts or trial courts to ensure correct application of state law. They resolve legal uncertainties, set precedents for lower courts, and interpret state constitutions without interference from the U.S. Supreme Court on purely state matters.
• Purpose: To safeguard democracy by protecting rights, maintaining order in society, and acting as a check on the other branches of government. They enforce state laws, promote equal treatment under the law, and can drive court reforms through rulemaking authority in many states.
• Duties: Decide cases involving state constitutional questions, statutory interpretations, and administrative regulations; oversee the judicial system, including disciplining judges and attorneys; and in some states, handle original jurisdiction in specific matters like election disputes or attorney admissions.

Traits and Characteristics

General for State Supreme Courts

• Structure: Most consist of 5 to 9 justices (including a chief justice), though the exact number varies by state. They typically sit en banc (as a full panel) for decisions.
• Selection: Methods differ: some states use gubernatorial appointments with legislative confirmation (like New Jersey), others hold partisan or nonpartisan elections, and a few employ merit-based selection via commissions.
• Tenure: Terms range from 6 to 12 years in many states, with mandatory retirement ages (often 70-75). Some offer life tenure or reappointment options.
• Traits: Independent, impartial, and focused on precedent (stare decisis); they emphasize fairness, legal scholarship, and public accountability. They are often more accessible than federal courts for everyday disputes like family law or contracts.

Wrapping Up: A System Built on Balance

Both courts derive authority from "the people" through ratification, representation, and constitutional safeguards. This framework, while imperfect, promotes stability and justice. For deeper exploration, consult the cited sources or primary texts like the U.S. and New Jersey Constitutions.

What are your views on judicial selection? Share in the comments let's discuss!