How the Supreme Court of the United States and federal courts work and affect Texans

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Texas sued the federal government more than 100 times during the four years of former President Joe Biden’s administration, and it was sued countless other times in state and federal court.

These legal fights, which can escalate all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, can determine the fate of controversial laws and issues, such as abortion access and immigration policies. But following the cases and their impact as they move up and down courts can be challenging. Here’s how federal and state courts work and how they can affect politics and the lives of Texans.

The federal courts system is generally made up of three levels: U.S. district courts, U.S. courts of appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, which is sometimes referred to as the high court. (There are also some separate, specialized courts, such as for bankruptcy and taxes.)

Lawsuits are filed in U.S. district courts, which are sometimes referred to as “trial courts” because they carry out the trial in a case. They may also decide what information is relevant and must be disclosed during the discovery process before a case begins. Texas has four U.S. district courts that serve their geographic regions – the northern, eastern, southern and western districts. In 2024, nearly three out of four cases filed in U.S. district courts were civil lawsuits rather than criminal lawsuits.

Lawsuits can take years to move through federal courts, but courts can choose to intervene early if one party shows they would face irreparable harm without immediate action. Courts can issue a preliminary injunction or judicial order to address the immediate situation before the case proceeds.

Plaintiffs, who file the lawsuits, and the defendants typically have to wait to appeal a ruling until a final judgment has been issued by a district court. But there can be exceptions in cases where one side seeks emergency relief.

If one side isn’t satisfied with the ruling from the district court, they can appeal to one of the circuits of courts of appeals, which serve specific geographic regions across the country. Cases from Texas, as well as Louisiana and Mississippi, go to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is considered one of the most conservative federal appeals courts. This court has helped bring once fringe legal arguments and theories into the mainstream, even if they have not always withstood the judgement of the U.S. Supreme Court, according to some court observers.

An appellate case is usually heard by a randomly selected panel of three court of appeals judges and their decision is typically final, unless the judges send the case back to the district court for reconsideration or to address procedural issues. Litigants can also ask that the court hears the case en banc, before the full bench, rather than just three judges.

The Supreme Court began hearing cases in October and usually releases opinions by the end of June. The court only chooses a fraction of cases to take up every year. Parties can also apply for immediate action through the court’s emergency docket.

Terms frequently referenced in these types of cases, as defined by Cornell Law School, include:

• Party: a person or entity, like the government or a company, who takes part in a legal transaction, such as plaintiffs and defendants in a lawsuit
• Motion: “a formal request by any party for a ruling, order or judgment”
• Judgment: “a final decision by a court or tribunal”
• Injunction: a court order to make a party do or stop something, including preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders or a permanent injunction
• Stay: a court action to stop legal proceedings or a party’s actions, which is usually temporary
• Vacate: in civil and criminal law, to “vacate means to set aside or annul a previous judgment or order”

Federal courts can have significant influence in deciding political disputes, but they have limited jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution and laws passed previously by Congress give federal courts the authority to hear cases that raise questions about the following:

• The U.S. Constitution, federal government and federal laws
• Disputes between or from different states
• Disputes between the federal government and foreign countries

High-profile cases involving state laws or federal issues are a small percentage of the many cases federal courts hear, said Charles “Rocky” Rhodes, a professor who teaches constitutional law at the South Texas College of Law Houston. There are also civil lawsuits related to employment or patent laws and criminal and bankruptcy cases.

Sometimes a lawsuit can be filed in both state and federal courts. To decide where to file a lawsuit, attorneys like David Donatti of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, look at whether a state or federal court has jurisdiction, or the power to address a case based on the defendants involved. They also consider the subject matter and the remedy a plaintiff is seeking in a case.

This is important because a court may dismiss a lawsuit based on procedural grounds, Rhodes said.

“Those are sometimes the most fundamental rules that get lost,” he said. “And especially because, you know, a lot of the spin that politicians or interest groups put on the case is about the substantive claims, rather than some of these important procedural and constitutional limitations on what the courts can do.”

Federal and state courts in Texas operate under their own rules of procedure and not all attorneys choose to operate in both court systems, Rhodes added.

When deciding which federal court should hear a lawsuit, Donatti said other factors include convenience and whether it makes sense for a case to be heard in a particular location, based on where parties and relevant information are located. For many cases involving statewide issues – like new laws and state officials – this means in front of an Austin-based judge in the Western District of Texas, which spans from Austin to El Paso.

For example, when the ACLU of Texas and Texas Civil Rights Project challenged a 2023 Texas law that sought to give Texas police the power to arrest people suspected of crossing the border illegally, they filed the lawsuit in a federal district court in Austin.

In the lawsuit, they argued the state law, known as Senate Bill 4, violates the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government authority over immigration enforcement. The Biden administration also later sued Texas over SB 4, and the two lawsuits were combined.

During the court proceedings, which were in Austin, Texas argued that it needs the law to protect itself from an “invasion.” The state also said the law does not undermine the federal government because it mirrors federal immigration laws and would allow Texas police to turn over people to federal authorities. Experts and opponents of the law have questioned the state’s use of the word “invasion” and pointed out that the law could lead to racial profiling.

Federal courts have become referees in fights between states and presidential administrations with differing agendas. This includes policies such as immigration, a complex and divisive topic in which Congress hasn’t passed major immigration legislation in almost 20 years.

“It's impossible to talk about the courts right now and the tremendous power they exercise over our day to day lives without at the same time mentioning that a lot of that is driven by the failure of Congress to enact meaningful legislation over years,” Donatti said.

Texas, for example, has also been part of a long-running lawsuit with other GOP-led states seeking to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which the Obama administration launched to give some undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children temporary protections from deportation.

These drawn-out legal cases have moved up and down various federal courts, often causing confusion and leaving the fate of policies uncertain.

This year, Supreme Court justices are expected to decide significant cases directly from Texas and from other states that could affect Texas laws. This includes cases over the following questions:

• Whether a Tennessee law banning gender affirming care for minors – similar to a Texas law – violates the equal protection clause of the U.S Constitution.
• Whether a Texas law requiring age verification for pornography websites, which suspended access to PornHub, violates First Amendment free speech protections
• How lower courts should decide if a police officer used reasonable force in a deadly incident, which was spurred in response to a lawsuit from the family of a man fatally shot by police in Texas.

Under federal court rules, cases typically aren’t supposed to quickly move up and down different courts, but it can happen when parties seek emergency intervention, Donatti said.

That's what happened in the case over Texas' immigration law, known as Senate Bill 4, as parties in the lawsuit sought emergency intervention from the courts to decide whether the law could be enforced as the case proceeded. A district judge initially issued an injunction that blocked the law, leading the state to appeal. The case then ping-ponged between courts.

Later, the Supreme Court let a Fifth Circuit order take effect without taking up the case. This allowed Texas to enforce the law for roughly nine hours, though no arrests were made, before the 5th Circuit issued another order, blocking the law again.

Amid the chaos, the 5th Circuit faced criticism, including from a few Supreme Court justices, for not answering if the law should be enforced for the duration of the lawsuit and issuing administrative stay orders, which courts typically use to temporarily buy more time when making a decision.

The district court’s injunction has remained pending since March 2024. More recently, a trial for the lawsuit was set by the district court.

A concern some have about federal courts is the practice of “judge shopping,” in which a plaintiff files a lawsuit in a court where they will get a judge who may be more favorable to them based on their political background and past rulings. Some district courts, like the Western District of Texas, have rules to prevent plaintiffs from securing a specific judge, but others like the Northern District of Texas court do not and have become a favorite for conservative plaintiffs.

“A place to file a lawsuit has now morphed into attempts to choose a particular judge which is not against any rules or statutes, but it is very unseemly,” Rhodes said. “And it has at least to many, the appearance of impropriety for you to direct lawsuits to a particular judge rather than just a favorable location, which lawyers have pursued for the last two centuries in America.”

For instance, Elon Musk of Tesla and X has been criticized for requiring all lawsuits against his companies be filed in North Texas courts, even though his companies are headquartered in Central Texas. Democratic U.S. Senators have made attempts to end the practice through legislation.

The federal judiciary, the policymaking body that oversees courts, says judges in cases with state or nationwide significance should be assigned randomly, but some district chief judges pushed back, asserting it is ultimately up to them.

In the face of long-standing gridlock in Congress, appointed federal judges are the ones increasingly deciding divisive policy issues even though they are not elected by voters.

“That's a lot of power to put in the hands of an unelected life-tenure judge,” Donatti said.

But voters do elect the president, who appoints federal judges, and U.S. Senators, who confirm appointments.

“One of the tools that is available to you as a citizen in a democracy is to vote, vote for people who you believe reflect your policy priorities,” Donatti said.

Nationally, Republicans have control of the White House, U.S. House and Senate after winning the presidency and key congressional seats during the November election, but their slim majority in the House could limit their power and ability to successfully push through legislation.

The Trump administration could drop federal lawsuits against states that were filed by the Biden administration, such as those contesting Texas’ Senate Bill 4 and Tennessee’s ban on gender affirming care. Even if the Trump administration discontinues these federal challenges, the separate cases over these state laws could proceed, Donatti said.

Trump’s presidency will also give Republicans the opportunity for more federal judge appointments. Federal judges themselves are nonpartisan, but Republicans and Democrats tend to support judges based on conservative and liberal ideologies, respectively.

State and local courts are more likely to directly affect Texans’ lives, said Aron Thorn, a senior attorney for the Texas Civil Rights Project, which is also involved in Senate Bill 4 litigation.

“If you're ever going to have to be in front of a judge, it's probably not going to be a federal judge. It's going to be a state judge that is supposed to come from the community and have your best interests at heart,” he said.

State and local courts address a wider variety of cases and issues, including proceedings such as misdemeanors, evictions, divorces and contested elections. Texas courts also consist of various levels and courts with specific jurisdiction:

• Justice Courts and Municipal Courts
• County Courts
• District Courts
• Courts of Appeals
• Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
• The Texas Supreme Court

In addition, the Texas Legislature passed legislation in 2023 to establish a state business court to resolve complex business disputes and a 15th Court of Appeals to hear appeals in civil cases and cases involving state government. All other state appeals courts have regional jurisdiction over cases appealed from district or county courts.

State courts are supported by the Office of Court Administration, which is overseen by the Texas Supreme Court and Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock.

Civil cases tried in the state can be appealed until they reach the Texas Supreme Court. Decisions made there are final. Criminal cases can be appealed up to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Both have nine justices elected by Texas voters. In some instances, like those involving constitutional issues, the U.S. Supreme Court can choose to review decisions made by Texas’s highest courts.

In recent years, the Texas Supreme Court has upheld state laws banning abortion and transition-related care for minors. During the pandemic, it overturned mask mandates. Since these lawsuits raised questions about Texas laws or state officials’ power, they were contested in Texas courts.

This year, the Texas Supreme Court halted the execution of Robert Roberson, a man who the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly ruled should be executed for killing his 2-year-old daughter in 2002, based on evidence and science that has since been questioned. Experts believe this is the first time the Texas Supreme Court has halted an execution approved by the Court of Criminal Appeals.

In Texas, voters elect judges for both state and local courts, but these down-ballot races tend to have lower participation. During the 2024 elections, Republicans defeated Democrat challengers backed by groups that support expanding abortion access and retained control of the Court of Criminal Appeals. In the state’s lower appellate courts, Republicans beat Democrats in 25 of the 26 contested races.

We can’t wait to welcome you to the 15th annual Texas Tribune Festival, Texas’ breakout ideas and politics event happening Nov. 13–15 in downtown Austin. Step inside the conversations shaping the future of education, the economy, health care, energy, technology, public safety, culture, the arts and so much more.

Hear from our CEO, Sonal Shah, on TribFest 2025.

TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.