Let's say you put out a few issues of your paper, and then the school decides to take disciplinary action. They basically want you silenced, and you are either expelled or suspended from school. Your next options would be to either transfer schools and give up, or fight the system.

If your parents are cool and just as outraged by the administration's attempts to censor your freedom of speech, they will hire you a lawyer. Chances are, your parents aren't that cool. And you will have to resort to the American Civil Liberties Union to bail your ass out. Luckily for you, this is the sort of thing they tend to care highly about.

The ACLU will most likely send a threatening legal letter to the school informing them of various case law in support of the existence of your publication. Should the school proceed to expel you, a lawsuit could be in order, filed pro-bono (i.e., for free) by an ACLU lawyer.

I'm not a lawyer, but I can, for purposes of the imagination, make an educated guess as to what may well happen. For the most part, the lawyer will probably seek an injunction, or court order, asking them to let you back into school with various stipulations intact regarding the content or nature of your publication.

But before we begin with our hypothetical, you need to understand that we have two court systems: state and federal. While each state may differ slightly, the general setup of both is the same: There is a trial or superior level court, an appellate or appeals court, and a supreme or high court.

State Court System

Jurisdiction is the authority a court has over a case and the people and property involved. The court that first hears the case has "original" jurisdiction. This is usually the trial court.

Trial Courts: The trial court is the first level in the court system, where facts of the case are determined. In a criminal case this means determining whether the defendant is guilty. In a civil case it means determining what actually happened between the parties. After the facts are found by a judge acting alone or a jury, the judge applies the law to the facts and renders a decision. In my state, California, the trial level courts are called superior courts.

Appellate Courts: The losing party in a trial court may appeal to the appellate or appeals court. Everyone has the right to one appeal request, but the appeal is only on matters of law, not of fact. The question for the appellate court is whether the trial judge applied the proper legal principles to the presentation of the evidence or to the facts found. For example, the judge may have given jury instructions improperly, whereby impacting the decision of the case. Basically, it's pointless thereafter to dispute the facts in your case, but you can say to the appellate court, "Hey judge, they misapplied the law and here's why."

State Supreme Courts: In most states the high court is called the supreme court, though some states like Massachusettes operate by different names. The state supreme court doesn't have to hear every appeal made to them. It can pick and choose cases that have significant impact or that will resolve conflicting decisions in the lower state courts.

Federal Court System

Federal District Court: This is the trial court in the federal court system. There is at least one district court in each state, several more in the more populous states. New York, for example, has four district courts: southern, eastern, northern, and western districts. My state of California has four district courts, while Utah has only one district court. Anyway, it gets kinda complicated, so on to the next level.

Federal Court of Appeals: The party who loses in the district court may appeal the decision to the federal appellate court, the court of appeals. There are 13 federal courts of appeals. Each is responsible for hearing appeals from the district courts under its jurisdictions. Thus, California belongs to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, along with other western states like Washington, Oregon, Nevada, and Idaho.

I'm sure by now all these names are confusing you, so just keep in mind, once again, the basics: Trial Court, Appeals, High Court.

U.S. Supreme Court: As everyone and their mother knows, this is the highest court of the land. What most don't know is that the Supreme Court is extremely picky as to what cases they will hear. In fact, out of the thousands of cases filed each year for writ of certiorari, (i.e. "Hey dude, hear my case, will ya?), the supreme court will only take on less than 1% of all cases. Usually, the justices will limit themselves to important cases involving new or developing principles of law - especially those that are constitutional in nature, or to resolve conflict decisions made by two or more federal courts of appeals acting on similar issues. Sometimes, as my UCSB professors often expounded, they choose to pointedly ignore controversial issues such as same sex unions, leaving it up to the states to decide.

Precedent: One of the basic principles of Anglo-American law is stare decisis, which means, "Let the decision stand." Our system is based on the idea of case law, or precedent, governing the decisions of the courts today. Think of it as a judge from the past making a decision on an issue, and then having another judge follow him, and so and so forth, through the development of legal principles, theories, and interpretations of statutes and the constitution. The more judges agree on an issue or interpretation or developed principle, the stronger that case becomes until a consensus of many years is reached.

Judges who disagree with each other can distinguish the facts of their case from precedent, and develop their own interpretations. Sometimes, a judge can go against precedent, and completely overrule a previous case and give his own spin on things. Cases that cause tremendous waves in history for the positive good of society become landmark case law. Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas (1954), which desegregated public schools, is one such example of a landmark case.

To overule precedent entirely is a controversial move and seldom done. Judges either criticize precedent or they agree. Generally, if the facts are similar, judges must adhere to precedent.

Although our system of judge-made law provides for some flexibility, the stare decisis principle allows for an element of predictability in legal decisions. On similar sets of facts, lower courts must follow the rulings of higher court in their jurisdiction. For example, if the California Supreme Court made it against the law to drink, the decision would be binding on only California's lower state courts. The remaining 49 states don't need to follow the decision.

Conflicts in Case Law: Many times, you have conflicts in the federal circuit level. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may find it okay for physician-assisted suicide, the Second Circuit of Appeals may think differently on the issue. Keep in mind that the states assigned to each circuit will be bound by differing opinions. How can this be, you ask?

Well, I don't have a good answer to that. Just keep in mind that courts on the same judicial level - such as the thirteen federal courts of appeals - are not bound to follow each other's decisions since they are all on equal terms. Therefore, as a California citizen, I am bound by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while someone from New York is bound by the Second Circuit.

Sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court, as the highest court of the land, steps in to clear up an especially controversial issue. Other times, they leave it up to the circuit courts to do their thing.

Respect: It's often assumed that the federal courts supersede the state courts. Federal supremacy right? Not always. A decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals only binds federal district courts in its jurisdiction (their federal trial courts), but not state courts. Basically, the states are free to determine their own law, with the exception of the U. S. Supreme Court. Keep in mind the idea of state's rights. A state court does not have to listen to a federal court if the issue is a matter of state law. The federal courts generally respect the authority of state courts to hear their own matters.

So back to our hypothetical. Your ACLU lawyer files pro bono in federal court. First of all, you wonder, why is he filing in federal court? Well, if yours is a First Amendment claim, you're eligible for federal court. You see, there are two ways to get into federal court:

1. The dispute arises under federal law or is constitutional in nature. For example, if two companies are arguing over patent rights, their claims will arise under federal copyright and patent laws.
2. Diversity jurisdiction, or where opposing parties to the suit are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

Your case would obviously fall under the first prong, as a First Amendment claim. Chances are, you just may end up in the Circuit Court of Appeals for your state. Given the odds, don't expect to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the lawyer files for an injunction, it will be in your state's trial or superior court. Chances are, he may also file claims under your state's constitution for violations of your rights. If you are charged by the school, or (god forbid) by law enforcement, for violations of various disorderly statutes, you may dispute the legality of those statutes in state court. Interestingly enough, depending on the discipline the school hands you, the case may have concurrent jurisdiction. Meaning, you'll have a basis for claims in both your state court and federal court as well. Later on, the state claim may be removed to federal court for consolidation.