________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Step into a London courtroom and you will notice barristers in horsehair wigs and flowing gowns. Head over to a US federal court, and you’ ll see everyone dressed in business suits. The visual contrast highlights deeper differences between two legal systems that share common law roots but diverged after 1776.
The US operates under a written Constitution, giving courts the power to strike down laws and executive orders. Every judge- from district courts to the Supreme Court- reviews legislation against the Constitution’ s text. Commonwealth countries like the UK work in another way. Parliament holds ultimate authority, and there’ s no single codified constitution. Courts interpret statutes and apply common law, but they rarely override legislative decisions on constitutional grounds.
This difference shapes how each legal system evolves. US courts“ constitutionalize” questions through precedent, developing doctrine around constitutional text. Federal judges craft limited common law, always linked to statutes or constitutional mandates. In contrast, Commonwealth systems defer to parliament as the final authority, keeping judicial power focused on interpreting law, not creating constitutional doctrine in the same way.
US federalism creates complexity
The federal structure adds another layer of complexity. The US has both federal and state governments, each operating under its own constitution with independent courts. Laws vary dramatically from California to Texas to New York. A contract that’ s valid in one state might need different terms in another. Criminal codes, family law, and business regulations all change at state lines.
Most Commonwealth countries use unitary parliamentary systems, where the central government holds the most power. Canada has a federal system, though provincial powers aren’ t quite like those of US states. Technically, the UK Parliament can legislate on any issue, though devolution has created regional assemblies with their own responsibilities.
Commonwealth courts retain tradition
Commonwealth jurisdictions inherited English court procedures wholesale, including traditional legal attire. Wigs and gowns became key markers of authority and continuity. The costume isn’ t just about looks; it depersonalizes advocates and judges, showing they’ re acting as officers of the court, not as private individuals. The formality reinforces the seriousness of legal proceedings.
Wigs became part of legal practice in the late 1600s, when they were considered high fashion. Louis XIV of France and Charles II of England turned wigs into status symbols. As wigs became standard for gentlemen and officials, English judges and barristers adopted them for daily use. Even after wigs went out of style in the 1700s and 1800s, courts kept them as professional uniforms.
14