<<
>>

general jurisdiction courts below

Overwhelming majority of lawsuits which to some extent mention prospecting departments, are considered not by the Supreme Court of the USA, and the vessels subordinated to it which concern:

- Federal district appeal courts (Circuit Court of Appeals);

- Federal regional courts (Federal District Courts).

Now in territory of the USA operate 13 federal district appeal courts, each of which functions, according to a territorial principle, on the space covering territory from one to ten states (except the Federal appeal court having national jurisdiction). Besides it, in the USA operate 91 federal regional court, 89 from which one operates in territory of the separate states, in territory of Federal District of Columbia and one in territory of Puerto Rico. Judges both appeal, and regional vessels are appointed the president for life by council and with the consent of the Senate. The number of judges of federal appeal courts fluctuates from 6 to 28, regional - from 2 to 28 [881].

As prospecting activity is interpreted as one of directions of activity of the president on maintenance of safety of the state, that is konstitutsionno is carried to the federation competence, courts of states actually do not consider the affairs connected with activity of prospecting services. The lowest degree of jurisdiction assorting has put, in which interests of prospecting services are infringed or prospecting activity federal regional courts act.

In federal regional vessels as in first instance federal courts, the overwhelming majority of lawsuits in which vessels realise control powers of the judicial authority concerning prospecting services and activity carried out by them understands. Accepted to a legal investigation have the most various character. Basically it is civil suits of private persons to prospecting services or their officials in which legitimacy of actions of special services and their officials is challenged and are protected fixed by the Constitution of the USA and federal acts of the right and freedom of citizens broken as a result of illegal activity of prospecting departments.

Federal district appeal courts are federal courts of the second instance and consider appeals on decisions of federal regional vessels. With reference to functions of the control over activity of prospecting services, appeal courts, usually, resolve such questions which are connected with difficulties of interpretation of positions of the Constitution of the USA, federal acts, subordinate legislation normative acts.

Often enough federal appeal courts consider cases in which the question on balance between interests of national safety of the USA and, entering with them in the contradiction is brought up, constitutional laws and freedom of the American citizens. In some cases level of statement of a similar problem in the federal regional vessels more inclined to kazualnomu to the permission of a question, does not allow the last adequately, from the state positions, to resolve arising contradictions. Appeal courts, in difference from regional, at the permission of the similar contradiction are guided not only the formal letter of the law, but also extensive weight of judicial precedents, real legislative designs.

Differentiation of functions of regional vessels is the most evident, district appeal courts and the Supreme Court it is possible to show on an example of lawsuit Central Intelligence Agency et al v. Sims et al [882] which, as sequence, has been considered by all federal degrees of jurisdiction.

The essence of this lawsuit consists in the following. With 1953 for 1966 of CIA carried out the program under the code name MKULTRA [883], directed portiv the USSR and China. In work on CIA program has involved a number of scientific institutes and universities. In 1977 attorney John S.Sims [884], on the basis of the Law on freedom of the information [885] has directed to CIA inquiry about granting of the list of institutes and the private persons participating in realisation of the program. CIA has refused to give the enquired information, having referred to position of the Law on information freedom in which it was specified, that department is not obliged to give the information "... Which protection against disclosure is statutory". Thus CIA pleaded statute about national safety of 1947 which established, that "... The director of the central investigation is responsible for protection of prospecting sources and methods against their not authorised disclosure" [886].

CIA refusal, has been appealed in federal regional court and the court has satisfied the requirement of the claimant, having obliged CIA to give the required information. The regional court motivated the decision with that "prospecting sources", protected according to positions of the Law on national safety, it is necessary to consider only such sources, "... Which CIA guaranteed confidentiality". That is, with reference to participants of program MKULTRA the information only about those participants of the program who have received from CIA of a guarantee of confidentiality of their participation in the program [887] cannot be given.

The district appeal court has left the decision of regional court without changes, however has essentially corrected motivation of the decision. According to appeal court wrongly instituirovat only owing to that CIA guaranteed confidentiality to the organisations participating in the project and that the participants of the project designated as "prospecting sources" can receive judicially immunity from disclosure of the information on them in only in the event that CIA will give information nondisclosure powerful that proof, that the similar information should not be divulged [888].

Business, has been obtained on demand in the exercise of supervisory powers (certiorari) to manufacture in the Supreme Court of the USA which has cancelled decisions both regional, and district vessels. According to the higher degree of jurisdiction of the United States, the director of the central investigation has legally given up in granting of the information, program MKULTRA concerning participants. Having analysed the maintenance of the Law on freedom of the information and the Law on national safety of 1947, and also the materials of the Congress connected with working out and acceptance of specified laws, the Supreme Court has concluded, that the Law on national safety in the widest plan means a duty of the director of the central investigation to protect prospecting sources and recognised as inadmissible and contradicting the law narrow interpretation of "prospecting sources" only as those sources, to which CIA has given guarantees of confidentiality [889].

1.3.

<< | >>
A source: Dundukov Michael Jurevich. INVESTIGATION In the MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT of the USA (ISTORIKO-LEGAL ASPECT). The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the doctor of juridical science. Moscow 2014. 2014

More on topic general jurisdiction courts below:

  1. 3. A competition of jurisdiction of arbitration courts of the Russian Federation and the arbitration courts
  2. courts of special jurisdiction
  3. § 6. Features of realisation by the international criminal courts of jurisdiction concerning crimes against delivering justice
  4. expansion of sphere of the international criminal jurisdiction and creation of the international courts of justice for the purpose of impeachment of the persons guilty, including, in infringements customs of the person
  5. § 1. Jurisdiction and jurisdiction of affairs about entering of corrections or changes in civil registration
  6. 3. Jurisdiction Judging EU. A recognition of the compulsory jurisdiction as an indispensable condition of membership in EU
  7. §3. The basic directions of perfection of the legislation on administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels
  8. §2. Practice of consideration of administrative affairs in general jurisdiction vessels: results and problems
  9. §1. Concept and features of the administrative affairs considered in vessels of the general jurisdiction
  10. § 2.2. Jurisdiction and jurisdiction of the isolated disputes
  11. § 6.1. Jurisdiction and jurisdiction of disputes with state participation
  12. 3. Application of judiciary practice by general jurisdiction vessels
  13. §1. Efficiency of the Russian legislation establishing administrative legal proceedings in vessels The general jurisdiction
  14. §2. Administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation and the judiciary reform
  15. §3. The Primary goals, functions and principles of administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels
  16. CHAPTER 3. Efficiency of administrative legal proceedings in general jurisdiction vessels in the Russian Federation