King's Bench jurisdiction or King's Bench power is the extraordinary jurisdiction of an individual state's highest court over its inferior courts. In the United States, the states of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Wisconsin[1] use the term to describe the extraordinary jurisdiction of their highest court, called the Court of Appeals in New York or the Supreme Court in the other states, over the courts below it. King's Bench jurisdiction includes the power to vacate the judgments of inferior courts when acting in extraordinary circumstances, for example, where the importance of an issue to public well-being or the expediency with which action must be taken in the interest of justice requires superseding normal judicial or appellate procedures. Federal courts in the United States possess the power to issue similar extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act. The term originates from the English Court of King’s Bench.
The Court of King's Bench at work. This illuminated manuscript from about 1460 is the earliest known depiction of the English court. It shows the judges of the court, clerks, lawyers and, at the bottom of the illustration, guards watching chained prisoners awaiting trial.
As presently-codified, Pennsylvania statutes state that, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Supreme Court may, on its own motion or upon petition of any party, in any matter pending before any court ... involving an issue of immediate public importance, assume plenary jurisdiction of such matter at any stage thereof and enter a final order or otherwise cause right and justice to be done."[4][5]
The King’s Bench Powers also are described in Pennsylvania Statutes Title 42, § 502, in language taken from the 1722 Act:
The Supreme Court shall have and exercise the powers vested in it by the Constitution of Pennsylvania, including the power generally to minister justice to all persons and to exercise the powers of the court, as fully and amply, to all intents and purposes, as the justices of the Court of King's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, at Westminster, or any of them, could or might do on May 22, 1722. The Supreme Court shall also have and exercise the following powers: (1) All powers necessary or appropriate in aid of its original and appellate jurisdiction which are agreeable to the usages and principles of law. (2) The powers vested in it by statute, including the provisions of this title.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in In re Bruno, 101 A.3d 635, 677, 627 Pa. 505, 575 (2014), however, that its King’s Bench powers are constitutionally-inherent and are not dependent upon any statute:
[T]he jurisdiction necessary to the exercise of the Court's King's Bench powers — constitutionally-granted powers that are by nature comprehensive and inherently vested in the highest authority of the judicial branch — may be divested only by the people, expressly or by necessary implication. See Ebersoll, 3 Binn. at 531 (“It is fully settled that the jurisdiction of the Court of King's Bench is not ousted unless by express words.”); accord Stander, 250 A.2d at 487 (Roberts, J., concurring) (General Assembly has no constitutional authority to diminish, curtail or interfere with functions of Supreme Court); Robinson Twp., 83 A.3d at 977 (citing Commonwealth ex rel. Carroll v. Tate, 442 Pa. 45, 274 A.2d 193, 196–97 (1971) ) (General Assembly has no authority to remove by statute attributes of governmental entity implicitly necessary to carry into effect entity's constitutional duties).
Troubles and public feuds involved the supreme court in the early 1990s,[6] specifically including Justice Rolf Larsen, who was criminally convicted and impeached by the house, then subsequently convicted and removed from office by the state senate.[7] The public image of Larsen illustrated the need for court reform. The upheaval surrounding Justice Larsen's time on the bench served as a catalyst for a change in the state judicial discipline system.[7] Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts credits the public turmoil he caused with leading to the overwhelming passage of a constitutional amendment that strengthened the way judges are disciplined for misconduct.[7] In 1993, Pennsylvania voters amended the state constitution. The change created a new system for the oversight of judges through a state Judicial Conduct Board, which independently investigates misconduct complaints, and a Court of Judicial Discipline, which independently determines a Pennsylvania judge's innocence or guilt,.[3] The supreme court, nevertheless, retains ultimate power over the Commonwealth`s judicial system and judges.
For an example of the exercise of King's Bench jurisdiction, see the Pennsylvania "kids for cash" scandal. In 2020 the King's Bench jurisdiction was exercised three times; this was a rare instance of the jurisdiction being exercised multiple times in one year:
In April 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercised its King's Bench prerogative to take up Friends of Danny DeVito v. Wolf, regarding the Governor's executive order which forced businesses and a political campaign office to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
In June 2020, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exercised its King's Bench prerogative to take up Scarnati v. Wolf, regarding the separation of powers between the Legislature and the Executive Branch to determine whether Title 35 of the PA code as written allows the legislature to force an end to Emergency Decrees made by the Governor.
In October 2020, the King's Bench power was invoked in ruling that ballots in an election cannot be discarded due to any subjective person deeming there to be a signature mismatch.[8]
Further reading
William S. Stickman IV (2018). "The King's Bench Powers," in John J. Hare, ed., The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: Life and Law in the Commonwealth, 1684-2017.
Related Research Articles
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government. Under Article Three, the judicial branch consists of the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower courts created by Congress. Article Three empowers the courts to handle cases or controversies arising under federal law, as well as other enumerated areas. Article Three also defines treason.
"Prerogative writ" is a historic term for a writ that directs the behavior of another arm of government, such as an agency, official, or other court. It was originally available only to the Crown under English law, and reflected the discretionary prerogative and extraordinary power of the monarch. The term may be considered antiquated, and the traditional six comprising writs are often called the extraordinary writs and described as extraordinary remedies.
Canadian federalism involves the current nature and historical development of the federal system in Canada.
The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, is a clause in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws, in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined abilities to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the drafting of the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is the highest court in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Unified Judicial System. It also claims to be the oldest appellate court in the United States, a claim that is disputed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania began in 1684 as the Provincial Court, and casual references to it as the "Supreme Court" of Pennsylvania were made official in 1722 upon its reorganization as an entity separate from the control of the royal governor. Today, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania maintains a discretionary docket, meaning that the Court may choose which cases it accepts, with the exception of mandatory death penalty appeals, and certain appeals from the original jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Court. This discretion allows the Court to wield powerful influence on the formation and interpretation of Pennsylvania law.
The court system of Canada forms the country's judiciary, formally known as "The King on the Bench", which interprets the law and is made up of many courts differing in levels of legal superiority and separated by jurisdiction. Some of the courts are federal in nature, while others are provincial or territorial.
The Supreme Court of Nepal is the highest court in Nepal. It has appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the seven High Courts and extraordinary original jurisdiction. The court consists of twenty Justices and one Chief Justice.
The Delaware Court of Chancery is a court of equity in the American state of Delaware. It is one of Delaware's three constitutional courts, along with the Supreme Court and Superior Court. Since 2018, the court consists of seven judges. The chief judge is called the Chancellor, and the remaining judges are called Vice Chancellors. The chancellor and vice chancellors are nominated by the governor and confirmed by the state senate for 12-year terms.
The unitary executive theory is a theory of United States constitutional law which holds that the President of the United States possesses the power to control the entire federal executive branch. The doctrine is rooted in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the United States in the President. Although that general principle is widely accepted, there is disagreement about the strength and scope of the doctrine.
The High Court of Singapore is the lower division of the Supreme Court of Singapore, the upper division being the Court of Appeal. The High Court consists of the chief justice and the judges of the High Court. Judicial Commissioners are often appointed to assist with the Court's caseload. There are two specialist commercial courts, the Admiralty Court and the Intellectual Property Court, and a number of judges are designated to hear arbitration-related matters. In 2015, the Singapore International Commercial Court was established as part of the Supreme Court of Singapore, and is a division of the High Court. The other divisions of the high court are the General Division, the Appellate Division, and the Family Division. The seat of the High Court is the Supreme Court Building.
The Constitutional Court of Korea is one of the highest courts—along with the Supreme Court—in South Korea's judiciary that exercises constitutional review, seated in Jongno, Seoul. The South Korean Constitution vests judicial power in courts composed of judges, which establishes the ordinary-court system, but also separates an independent constitutional court and grants it exclusive jurisdiction over matters of constitutionality. Specifically, Chapter VI Article 111(1) of the South Korean Constitution specifies the following cases to be exclusively reviewed by the Constitutional Court:
The constitutionality of a law upon the request of the courts;
Impeachment;
Dissolution of a political party;
Competence disputes between State agencies, between State agencies and local governments, and between local governments; and
Constitutional complaints as prescribed by [the Constitutional Court] Act.
In the United States, judicial review is the legal power of a court to determine if a statute, treaty, or administrative regulation contradicts or violates the provisions of existing law, a State Constitution, or ultimately the United States Constitution. While the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly define the power of judicial review, the authority for judicial review in the United States has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.
In most legal jurisdictions, a supreme court is the highest court within the hierarchy of courts. Other descriptions for such courts include court of last resort, apex court, and highcourt of appeal. Broadly speaking, the decisions of a supreme court are not subject to further review by any other court. Supreme courts typically function primarily as appellate courts, hearing appeals from decisions of lower trial courts, or from intermediate-level appellate courts.
Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided four important points of constitutional law.
In United States law, jurisdiction-stripping, is the limiting or reducing of a court's jurisdiction by Congress through its constitutional authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and to exclude or remove federal cases from state courts.
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws which they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution. There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.
Rolf Larsen, a Democrat originally from Allegheny County, was first elected to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1978.
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy as belonging to the sovereign and which have become widely vested in the government. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out.
The Federal Government of Brazil is the national government of the Federative Republic of Brazil, a republic in South America divided in 26 states and a federal district. The Brazilian federal government is divided in three branches: the executive, which is headed by the President and the cabinet; the legislative, whose powers are vested by the Constitution in the National Congress; and the judiciary, whose powers are vested in the Supreme Federal Court and lower federal courts. The seat of the federal government is located in Brasília.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
