Although the United States and the United Kingdom both legally descend from
English common law, their paths diverged in each country's development under unique political circumstances, constitutional structures, and procedural frameworks. The following essay will seek to highlight some of the main differences and similarities between the two, based on constitutional structure, judicial hierarchy, court procedures, and appointments to the judiciary. This essay will be a comparative analysis of the unique traits each system operates under in terms of law and governance.
Constitutional Structure
One of the differences between the legal systems of the US and the UK emanates from their constitutional structure. The United States operates under a codified constitution instituted in 1787, which clearly outlines the powers of the three arms of government: the executive, legislative, and judiciary (White 2024). It is an inflexible, written constitution intended to restrain the government from easily abusing its powers, as well as to protect the rights of the citizens. Judicial review, as in Marbury v. Madison (1803), gives the U.S. Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby giving the judiciary a check on the other branches of government, outlining the constitution as the highest law of the land, dictating all facets of governance and law (White 2024).
The United Kingdom has an uncodified constitution; hence, there are various sources: statutes, common law, and historical documents like the Magna Carta. The absence of one single written document allows flexibility but sometimes allows ambiguity in the application of constitutional conventions (Pratt, 2022). One of the most applauded cases that demonstrates this flexibility is Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in which the UK Supreme Court ruled that the government required parliamentary consent to trigger Article 50 and formally commence Brexit (Pratt 2022). This decision emphasized the tradition of parliamentary sovereignty-a fundamental principle in the law of the United Kingdom-in which Parliament is considered to be the ultimate legislature.
Judicial Hierarchy and Precedent
The United States and the United Kingdom both use judicial systems that are organized into hierarchical levels, yet each is distinct in its application of precedent or previously ruled cases and interpretation of laws by judges. The United States has federal district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court, the highest judiciary (Goldner 2020, p.10). Precedent plays an important role, as the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts. A typical example of such a system is that of Brown v. Board of
Education, 1954, whereby the Supreme Court reached a binding precedent outlawing racial segregation in public schools and thus consequently influenced every court to adhere to this principle (Goldner 2020, p.10)
The judicial hierarchy in the UK includes magistrates' courts, Crown Courts, and the Supreme Court at the top. Due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the UK Supreme Court is not able to strike down parliamentary statutes, as its counterpart does in the United States (Ramsundar 2020, p.120). In the UK courts, while they do adhere to the rules of precedent, there is a large degree of latitude, as can be seen in the case of Regina v. Jogee, 2016, where the UK Supreme Court revisited its long-standing "joint enterprise" doctrine and changed interpretations it had earlier ruled on (Ramsundar 2020, p.120). This allows for flexibility in courts in the UK to interpret the application of legal principles in a way that is subject to relevant variations on new developments without having to observe outdated precedents.
Conclusion
Though both the United States and the United Kingdom have their origins in English common law, each country has developed and adopted different systems in form and character, largely influenced by their constitutional principles, procedural structures, and legal conventions. The US system has a strong emphasis on a written Constitution and judicial independence through judicial review, while the UK places its emphasis on parliamentary sovereignty and flexibility in legal interpretation. Cases like Marbury v.
Madison and Miller are landmark cases that signal some of the divergences between these systems and how they have adapted to their national context. Such divergences represent the varied legal landscapes around the world and are a testament to how different historical and political factors shape contemporary legal structures.
