The American legal system is a complex web of hierarchical and overlapping laws that emanate from various sources. These include the federal and state constitutions; federal and state legislation; federal, state and local agency decisions; federal, state and local executive decisions; and federal and state court decisions.

Several important features of American law include:

• American law can only be comprehensively defined as the cumulative effect and intersection of all of the various sources of the law (no one single source of the law is necessarily definitive);

• American law reflects a hierarchical system of laws, with the federal and state constitutions representing the ultimate source of law, followed by statutes, regulations, and judge-made law which fill in the gaps;

• Even within the court system, there is a hierarchy as to the interpretation of the law;

• American law has a common law tradition whereby judicial review (a review of law by judges in adjudication) allows for the final determination of the law;

• American law reflects a system of federalism, whereby federal, state and local systems promulgate and enforce the law; and

• As there are many sources of the law, there is both a potential for overlapping laws (creating confusion) and gaps in the law (creating uncertainty).

It should be understood that the United States Constitution is the ultimate source of the law. The Constitution created our system of government and continues to define the boundaries of governmental power; it defines the role of the courts in interpreting, making and enforcing the laws; it establishes the structure of federalism and the notion of a balance of power among the branches of government; and perhaps most importantly, it defines and continues to be the source of rights for all citizens of the United States. The constitutions of the various states serve a similar purpose at the state level, although it is important to remember that state constitutions are at all times subservient to the U.S. Constitution.

Another source of the law is the federal and state legislatures which promulgate statutes. The vast majority of laws in the United States are statutory in nature. For this reason, legislatures are characterized as the primary "makers" of the law.

The executive branches of government (the President and the state governors) are also a source of the law, although these functions are primarily responsible for administering the law.

Agencies, including those that are independent and those that reside in the legislative as well as the executive branches of government, also make laws and these generally take on the form of regulations.

Finally, the court system is an important source of laws. The primary role of the judiciary is to arbitrate over disputes that arise from the application of the law to particular parties. Through this arbitration, the courts help to refine the laws or fill in gaps, and thus can also be characterized as "makers" of the law.

The U.S. legal system, and that of most English-speaking countries, has a common law tradition. The common law tradition has its beginnings in England, and it is distinguished from Roman Law, modern civil law, and other systems of law. The distinguishing feature of the common law system is the doctrine of stare decisis which essentially means that once a court establishes a principle of law applicable to a particular set of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same. In addition, there is a hierarchy inherent in the common law system whereby the decisions of some courts carry more weight than the decisions of other courts. Thus, so-called lower courts are sometimes bound by precedent to adhere to the decisions of higher courts. In other cases, courts may view other court decisions as merely persuasive, but not binding, authority.

There are three important hierarchies to keep in mind when examining the laws.

One hierarchy can be illustrated by the following:

This diagram reflects the hierarchical nature of the sources of the law. It depicts the constitution as the primary and most important source of the law and source of the general boundaries of governmental power and citizen rights. Statutes provide further definition by "filling in" the boundaries provides by the constitution. (Again, most of the laws in our legal system are statutory.) Regulations perform essentially the same function as statutes but may be promulgated by agencies rather then the legislatures. Finally, judicial decisions, which make up the common law, clarify and refine the law for particular parties and act as the final interpretation of all laws. (For example, the Supreme Court of the United States is the interpreter of the U.S. Constitution.)

A second hierarchy reflects the nature of Federalism:

Our allied states came together to form a union of states and create a separate central power, the federal government. They did this in a manner that did not destroy their separate organization or deprive them of their own sovereignty with respect to the administration of their local concerns. The central power, the federal government, possesses both internal sovereignty over United States citizens generally and an external power - that is, it relates to other national governments and protects the freedoms of the citizens as a whole.

Inherent in our system of federalism is the practice whereby state and local laws take their cues from federal laws. While federal laws define the fundamental boundaries in which state and local laws may operate, this does not mean that state and local laws are completely subservient to federal laws. In fact, federal powers are considered to be limited whereas state powers are much more broad. An enactment of federal law can only be made pursuant to one of the powers granted the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. In this way, the federal government is one of enumerated rather than inherent powers. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights serves as a check of federal powers. (So, even if the federal government is acting pursuant to one of its enumerated powers, it may not disregard these constitutional limitations.) Also, the enumerated federal powers are quite broad and general, leaving a lot of room within which states can operate.

State governments are not creatures of limited powers. They are instead recognized as having a general "police power", which is the inherent power to protect the health, safety and welfare of persons within their jurisdiction. This police power is quite broad, although there are some fundamental checks on state powers contained in the U.S. Constitution.

It is the state governments which can create and confer power upon public and private entities as well as individuals within the state boundaries. State legislatures, for example, have the ability to create and define the powers of municipal corporations (such as public hospital districts). Those entities created by the state are also limited to those enumerated powers spelled out in the enabling statute. Thus, public hospital districts do not have any inherent powers beyond those defined by the state legislature in statute. (See Chapter One: "Special Purpose Districts: Powers and Limitations".)

The final hierarchy shows the relationship among courts in the federal and state systems.

Depending on the circumstances, cases may be brought before the federal court system or the state court system. Under either option, cases are normally brought into the system at the lowest level - at the courts of general jurisdiction. In the federal system, these courts are called district courts, whereas in the state system they are usually called superior courts. Virtually any kind of dispute between parties can come before a court of general jurisdiction for arbitration. There are, however, some courts of limited jurisdiction which may only hear certain kinds of matters, such as family court.

After a court of general jurisdiction has decided a case, that case may be appealed as a matter of right. In the federal court system, the appeals courts follow eleven geographical boundaries, or circuits. The Western and Eastern District Courts of Washington are in the Ninth Circuit whose court is located in San Francisco. Thus, if a case is brought before the U.S. District Court for Eastern Washington, it is appealed at the Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco. There are also appellate courts in the state systems, and they are similarly comprised of lower court districts.

A decision by an appellate court may also be appealed, although this is not as a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. The Washington State Supreme Court, located in Olympia, hears cases from the appellate courts of Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court hears appeals from the circuit courts and also reviews certain kinds of cases which have been decided by the various state supreme courts. Very few cases are ever heard by the supreme courts of the state or the United States, since this level of review is granted only at the discretion of the supreme court justices.

Diagram C also reflects the role of precedent in the judicial system. Courts are bound to respect the decisions promulgated by higher courts of the same jurisdiction when deciding a case with a closely similar factual pattern and question of law. Thus, if the District Court of Western Washington is faced with interpreting a question of law, and the Ninth Circuit Court has already decided this question under a similar factual situation, the District Court is bound to follow the lead of the Ninth Circuit. Similarly, an appellate court in the State of Washington must follow the lead by the State Supreme Court on a question of law. Higher courts within the same jurisdictional system are binding authorities. Factual dissimilarities are what distinguishes cases and conclusions of law.

Binding authority does not cross jurisdictional boundaries, however. For example, the District Court of Eastern Washington need not follow the precedent set by the District Court in Western Washington nor must it follow the precedent set by the Eighth Circuit which does not cover the territory including Washington State. In this case, the courts may look to the other court decisions as persuasive authority, but their authority is not binding.

It should be quite clear that the legislative and executive branches of government in this country are not capable of anticipating every possible situation which might need legal resolution. Neither have all possible disputes come before the courts to create a fully comprehensive body of common law. Thus there are natural gaps in the law that no amount of legal research can fully resolve. In such cases, the prudent step is to proceed cautiously. Counsel can often use legal analogies to suggest limits, and to distinguish among the permissible, the impermissible, and the probably-not-permissible.

It may also be the case that some laws overlap or work at cross purposes. If there are no jurisdictional boundaries to help determine which law has precedent, then another legal gray are exists. Again, the course to follow is to proceed cautiously.

The process of legal research is a complicated matter and an understanding of the American Legal System beyond the basics described above is necessary for successful research. While it is not anticipated that members of a public hospital district's board and administrative team will engage in extensive legal research, we offer some words of advice.

An important concept to remember about legal research is that all sources of the law must be consulted: constitutions, statutes, agency and executive decisions, and case law. Each source is not necessarily implicated in each legal question, but for one to come to this conclusion requires that one thoroughly consult each source.

Another important element of legal research is timing. The law is not a static organism; it can change daily with new or amending legislation and court decisions. Thus, legal research must be as up-to-date as possible. Up-to-date research is a tricky undertaking, requiring knowledge of the tools designed for that purpose. This manual is an accurate expression of the law as of the publication date. The manual will require updates as the law changes.

A third point to consider in doing legal research is whether higher court decisions are binding or persuasive in authority. Has a higher court already decided the issue or, perhaps, overruled a lower court decision? The current status of the law can only be discerned by an examination of the disposition, if any, of a decision in the higher courts.

Finally, it is always wise to remember that the courts tend to be very narrow and conservative when they are considering the powers conferred upon governments (such as special purpose districts). This is because the courts see their role, in part, as protecting the rights of citizens from infringement by governments. Thus, courts will consider powers of special purpose districts very narrowly. From the courts' perspective, municipal corporations possess only those powers expressly granted by statute as well as powers necessarily implied. In other words, when no statute that specifically authorizes a special purpose district to engage in an activity can be found, or such authority cannot be necessarily implied, it is best to assume that the district is prohibited from engaging in such activity.