-Define:

+ To guarantee justice and equity for all US citizens and residents, The US
Legal System is a comprehensive and ever-evolving network of laws,
judicial precedents, regulations, and procedures. One of the major
foundations of the US Legal System is the Common Law tradition, which
traces its origins to the British legal system. Under the common law,
judges' decisions in individual cases shape the law, and these decisions
become binding precedents that guide future cases with similar facts or
legal issues.

-Origins of common law in the United State:

+ Common Law in the United States, the unwritten law, the law that
receives its binding force from immemorial usage and universal reception,
in distinction from the written or statute law. That body of rules, principles
and customs which have been received from our ancestors, and by which
courts have been governed in their judicial decisions. The evidence of this
law is to be found in the reports of those decisions, and the records of the
courts. Some of these rules may have originated in edicts or statutes which
are now lost, or in the terms and conditions of particular grants or charters;
but it is most probable that many of them originated in judicial decisions
founded on natural justice and equity, or on local customs. [1]
- Some of the most relevant aspects of common law:
1. Precedent and Stare Decisis:
While a court faces a criminal argument, if a preceding court docket has
ruled on the same or a closely related problem, then the courtroom will
make their choice in alignment with the previous court’s decision. The
previous identifying-court docket ought to have binding authority over the
court; in any other case, the previous selection is simply persuasive
authority. In Kimble v. marvel organizations, the U.S. ultimate court
docket defined the cause in the back of stare decisis as “promoting the
evenhanded, predictable, and steady improvement of prison concepts,
fostering reliance on judicial selections, and contributing to the actual and
perceived integrity of the judicial manner.”
The doctrine operates horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis
refers to a court adhering to its very own precedent. As an instance, if the
7th Circuit court docket of Appeals adhered to the ruling of a previous 7th
Circuit court docket of Appeals case, that might be horizontal stare decisis.
A court docket engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent
from a higher court docket. As an instance, if the seventh Circuit
courtroom of Appeals adhered to a previous ruling from the U.S. ultimate
court, that could be a vertical stare decisis. Or, additionally, if the Federal
District courtroom for the Southern District of recent York adhered to a
previous ruling through the second Circuit, that might be vertical stare
decisis.

Even though courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. ultimate court
docket in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida explained that stare decisis
isn't an “inexorable command.” while prior decisions are “unworkable or
are badly reasoned,” then the very best courtroom won't follow precedent,
and this is “specifically genuine in constitutional cases.” For example, in
figuring out Brown v. Board of education, the U.S. ultimate court docket
explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the
doctrine of stare decisis.
2. Judicial Interpretation:
In the United States, the judiciary serves as the primary interpreter of the
law1. Courts issue their interpretations as judicial opinions, which then act
as precedent to create lasting legal rules 1. This is often referred to as the
common law or precedent, and it helps ensure similar results in similar
cases2. Courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts on similar
matters, a principle known as "stare decisis"2.
The Supreme Court’s decision to use purposivism or textualism to
interpret a legal text in one case is not binding in future cases 3. However,
the Supreme Court’s directions about how to interpret legal texts already
have a soft and salutary authoritative force 3. This is achieved by a series of
smaller decisions converging on a set of norms for interpreting legal texts,
a process referred to as "methodological precedent" 3. As certain methods
become accepted in the case law, even opponents may employ them, or
feel that they have some constraining force3.
This methodological common law is normatively desirable because it
balances goals of stability and predictability while respecting the value of
interpretive pluralism3. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared
that statutory interpretation cases almost always start with a careful
consideration of the text3. This approach to interpretation is already
happening and has both horizontal and vertical effects, causing judges to
adopt specific interpretive approaches or engage in specific modes of
analysis.
3. Flexible and Evolving
The common law system in the United States is known for its flexibility
and adaptability1. This system allows judges to apply legal principles to
new situations or changing circumstances1. Such flexibility enables the
law to evolve and respond to societal changes over time1.

This adaptability is a key feature of the common law system and is rooted
in the role of judges. Judges in the U.S. common law system play a crucial
role in interpreting and applying the law1. They analyze legal precedents,
statutes, and constitutional provisions to reach their decisions1. This
process allows for the evolution of law through primarily political judicial
decisions2.

Moreover, the evolution of common law is beneficial on average, even if

judges are extremely biased2. This is because legal evolution washes out
judicial biases and renders the law more precise2. This principle is referred
to as the "Cardozo theorem"2.

In conclusion, the flexibility and adaptability of the U.S. common law

system allow it to evolve over time, respond to societal changes, and
maintain a level of precision and efficiency21.

Structure:
· The federal legal system includes laws passed by the United
States Congress, rules issued by federal executive agencies, and
precedents set by the United States Supreme Court.
 ● The state legal system includes laws passed by state legislatures,
rules issued by state executive agencies, and precedents set by state
courts.
● In addition, there are a number of other legal systems that exist
alongside these two main systems, such as the legal system of Native
American tribes, the legal system of religious organizations, and the
legal system of professional organizations.

- Property right law:

+ Define:
· Property law in the United States is the area of law that governs
the various forms of ownership in real property (land and buildings)
and personal property, including intangible property such as intellectual
property. Property refers to legally protected claims to resources, such
as land and personal property. Property can be exchanged through
contract law, and if property is violated, one could sue under tort law to
protect it. [3]
+ Source:
· The English common law is the foundation of property law
in the United States. The common law is a body of law that was
developed in England over centuries and was brought to the
United States by the colonists.

· State statutes are laws that have been enacted by the

legislatures of the individual states. State statutes can modify or
supplement the common law.

· Federal statutes are laws that have been enacted by the

United States Congress. Federal statutes can preempt state law,
which means that they can take precedence over state law.

· Court decisions are decisions that have been made by judges

in court cases. These decisions can interpret and apply the
common law, statutes, and regulations.

Property Rights and the Constitution:

 ○ The Constitution protects property rights through the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments’ Due Process Clauses. (which
prohibits the government from depriving any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law —to protect
certain fundamental constitutional rights from government
interference, regardless of the procedures that the government
follows when enforcing the law)
○ More directly, it safeguards property rights through the Fifth
Amendment’s Takings Clause, which states, “nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just
compensation.”
○ There are two primary ways the government can take property:
■ Outright condemnation: The government takes title to
the property.
■ Regulatory takings: The government restricts property
use through regulations, leaving the title with the owner.
○ Owners can seek compensation when the title is taken, when
the property is physically invaded, when regulation
significantly devalues the property, or when unreasonable
conditions are attached to permits 3.
In summary, property rights in the USA are protected through a
combination of common law principles, state laws, and constitutional
provisions, ensuring that individuals can acquire, use, and dispose of
property freely.