The United States court system has seen a trend of increased involvement of the federal courts in criminal matters, which used to fall within the exclusive domain of the state courts. Most criminal cases violate only state law, and therefore are tried only in the state courts.
The boundary, by which federal courts and state courts diverge with regard to trying criminal cases, is known as jurisdiction. The federal courts have quite a broad jurisdiction, which encompasses three main categories; the first of which is "federal questions". This category stipulates that the federal district courts may hear any case involving a federal law, the Constitution, admiralty or maritime issues, or a ruling of an agency of the federal government.
The second category is "federal government as litigant". This grants the federal courts jurisdiction over cases in which the federal government is a party to the case, either as plaintiff or defendant.
The third designation of jurisdiction is in regard to "diversity". This involves cases between litigants residing in different states in which the amount of money at stake is over $50,000.
Though these boundaries of jurisdiction seem clearly defined, there are some instances in which either the federal courts or the state courts can hear cases. This scenario is called concurrent jurisdiction, and is evident in cases regarding diversity. When diversity is an issue, litigants may choose which judicial entity they would like to file the case with. This is assuming that the monetary figure is in the vicinity of $50,000, and can be manipulated to fit the situation.
Concurrent jurisdiction is the basis for the federal courts trying an "increased" number of criminal cases. This theory of federal courts devoting more attention to criminal matters is termed Federalization.
Who should adjudicate criminal matters, in her work Myths and Principles of Federalization..............
