What Are the Differences Between State and Federal Crimes?

Of the nearly 2 million people incarcerated in the United States, almost 1.1 million are serving their sentences in state prisons, and roughly 203,000 are confined to federal prisons, according to the nonprofit Prison Policy Initiative. 

Where a person is held depends on whether they committed state or federal crimes. Here’s how they differ—and why some cases fall into both categories.

State crimes—offenses that violate state laws—are investigated by state or local police departments and sheriffs’ offices. They may include traffic accidents, driving under the influence, thefts, arsons, murders and rapes, generally committed within a single state or jurisdiction. 

The state courts hear a vast majority of criminal and civil cases in the United States. That’s because the U.S. Constitution limits the federal government to prosecuting a smaller subset of crimes that violate U.S. laws, cross state lines or take place on federal property.

Federal agencies like the FBI or DEA investigate federal crimes. These cases are prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys who are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they're heard in the U.S. District Courts, with at least one located in every state.

Examples of federal crimes can include terrorism, piracy, cybercrime, money laundering and tax evasion. Federal courts also hear cases involving bankruptcy, intellectual property, the constitutionality of laws or habeas corpus issues.

State courts vary in their sentencing laws and criminal codes. Guilty verdicts can result in jail or prison time but also probation, treatment programs, community service, fines, payment for loss or injury or the returning of stolen property.

Federal prison sentences are more uniform, and many convictions for specific crimes carry mandatory prison sentences. In 1984, the federal court system abolished discretionary parole, once commonly granted based on factors like good behavior—but 33 states allow it as of August 2024.

Following a sentencing, a convicted person can appeal by asking a higher court to review a lower court’s decision on the grounds that legal errors or constitutional violations occurred during trial. Federal appeals start in the U.S. Courts of Appeals (or circuit courts), which handle more than 50,000 cases annually. Up to 10% of those cases are then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which hears fewer than 100 cases each year.

While state appeals procedures and deadlines vary, cases typically move to the intermediary appellate courts and then possibly to the state supreme court. Federal appeals courts occasionally hear cases that originated at the state level if they involve the constitutionality of local or state laws.

Federal authorities may become involved in state-led investigations upon suspicion that crimes were committed in multiple states, affected interstate commerce or otherwise violated federal law.

Infamous outlaws Bonnie and Clyde were originally wanted for murder, robbery and state charges of kidnapping when Texas and Louisiana authorities launched a manhunt for the duo in the early 1930s. The FBI became involved only after tracking one of the couple’s stolen vehicles from Oklahoma to Michigan—across state lines. (Bonnie and Clyde were fatally shot in an ambush with officers in Louisiana in 1934.)

Some crimes, like bank robbery or drug trafficking, can be prosecuted in either state or federal courts—or in both. Such was the case for John Leonard Orr, who set an estimated 2,000 fires in the Southern California area by the time of his 1991 arrest. Federal authorities charged Orr, himself an arson investigator, with committing offenses at retail stores and other commercial properties that involved interstate trade.

Orr was found guilty on three arson charges and sentenced to 30 years in federal prison. Orr was again convicted in 1998—this time in California state court, on 21 counts of arson and four counts of first-degree murder—and received four life sentences. 

In cases involving multiple sentences, judges may order a convicted person to serve their sentences consecutively (one after the other) or concurrently (at the same time)—meaning they would remain behind bars for the length of the longer sentence.