On Feb. 13, South Carolina federal district court judge Richard M. Gergel split a libel suit brought by Richard Alexander (“Buster”) Murdaugh in two, with claims against some defendants remaining in federal court and claims against other defendants being sent back to South Carolina state court.
The ruling illustrates an important aspect of libel litigation that is often overlooked by non-attorneys: the importance of where a case is heard. This includes both which type of court—federal or state—and the court’s physical location.
The U.S. Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction over several types of cases, including “Controversies … between Citizens of different States.” The rationale behind giving federal courts the ability to hear cases involving parties from different states is, as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist Paper number 80, that “State tribunals cannot be supposed to be impartial and unbiased,” so that such cases must be entrusted to courts which, “having no local attachments, will be likely to be impartial between the different States and their citizens.” The goal, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter explained in a 1945 case, is “assurance to nonresident litigants of courts free from susceptibility to potential local bias.”
As further justification, legal scholars cite the fact that federal judges are appointed and can be impeached only for “Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Most state judges, on the other hand, are elected, and thus subject to the whims and must on some level cater to voters. In South Carolina, of course, most judges are elected by the state legislature. Read more