THE FEDERAL COURTS
***JURISDICTION: A court s power to rule on a case. There are two primary systems of courts in the U.S.: STATE COURTS Jurisdiction over ordinances (locals laws) and state laws (laws passed by state legislatures).
FEDERAL COURTS Jurisdiction over: Cases in which the federal government is a party Cases involving federal laws and treaties Representatives of foreign governments Cases between state governments Cases between a state and citizens of another state Cases between citizens of different states Cases between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
STRUCTURE OF THE FEDERAL COURTS TWO TYPES Legislative & Constitutional Courts I. LEGISLATIVE COURTS: Courts established for some specialized purpose. For example, U.S. Tax Court, Territorial Courts, U.S. Military Court of Appeals II. ***CONSTITUTIONAL COURTS: Federal courts authorized by Article III of the Constitution. District Courts : Lowest level of federal courts where most trials take place. Original jurisdiction over most cases. Appellate (Circuit) Courts: Hear appeals from district courts. Appellate jurisdiction only. SCOTUS: Hears appeals from federal appeals, state supreme courts or through original jurisdiction. Original AND appellate jurisdiction.
***JUDICIAL REVIEW: The power of the federal courts to declare laws of Congress or acts of the executive branch unconstitutional, formalized after Marbury v. Madision. TWO METHODS OF APPLYING JUDICIAL REVIEW I. ***JUDICIAL RESTRAINT: Philosophy proposing that judges should interpret the Constitution to reflect what the framers intended and what its words literally say. AKA: Strict Constructionist; Originalist Key Elements Allow states and other 2 branches to solve social, economic, political problems Only act on clear constitutional questions Merely interpret, not make law, so they are less likely to overturn one.
II. ***JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: The philosophy that the supreme court should play an active role in shaping national policies by addressing social and political issues. AKA: Loose Constructionist Key Elements More likely to overturn laws viewed as unconstitutional. More likely to address an issue that the Constitution does not View the Constitution as a Living, breathing document.
NATIONAL SUPREMACY Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Supreme Court could declare a congressional act unconstitutional. Fletcher v Peck (1810): SCOTUS can declare a state law unconstitutional.
CASES TWO TYPES OF FEDERAL CASES ***FEDERAL QUESTION CASES: involving the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or treaties ***DIVERSITY CASES: involving different states, or citizens of different states
GETTING HEARD BY THE COURT Under its appellate jurisdiction, the court considers petitions for certiorari from state supreme or federal circuit courts (most). WHEN WILL SCOTUS HEAR A CASE? The case raises an important constitutional or legal question Involves conflicting decisions by different circuit courts on a similar issue Involves a constitutional ruling by a state supreme court The petitioner must have standing (legally be able to bring the case) ***RULE OF FOUR***Four justices must agree to hear the case
HOW A CASE IS ARGUED Lawyers then submit briefs that: Set forth the facts of the case Summarize the lower court decision Gives the argument of that side of the case Include ***AMICUS CURIAE (Friend of the Court) briefs: Briefs submitted by interested parties that raise additional points of view and information not previously briefed by the main parties.
WHY ORAL ARGUMENTS ARE IMPORTANT Allows members of the public to hear judicial proceedings via media coverage Allows Justices to ask hypothetical questions in order to gauge what the effect of a decision might be in practice. They help identify issues that were not properly briefed by the parties. Magnify the strengths and weaknesses of each side's arguments. At the conclusion of oral arguments, justices take a preliminary vote and write their opinions.
DECISION ***STARE DECISIS (Let the decision stand): Informal rule stating that courts should base their decisions on precedents set by courts in prior cases. IMPORTANT FOR TWO REASONS: I. Constant changes to the meaning of the law and unpredictable rulings by courts cause chaos. II. Equal justice means similar cases should be tried in a similar manner.
TYPES OF OPINIONS A. Majority Opinion--Ruling of the court based on a majority vote of the justices. B. Concurring Opinion-- Written by the justices(s) who agree with the majority, but for different reasons. C. Dissenting Opinion--Written by the justice(s) who disagree with the decision of the Court D. Per Curium Opinion--Brief opinion where all justices agree.
GETTING ON THE COURT FACTORS INFLUENCING NOMINATIONS/NOMINEES Likelihood of confirmation Age Ideological Compatibility Prior relationship with the President Religion Race Current Presidential approval The Senate has the Constitutional right to advise and consent to nominees.
Chief Justice John Roberts (2005- Present) George W. Bush Elana Kagan (2010-Present) Barack Obama Neil Gorsuch (2017-Present) Donald Trump Anthony Kennedy (1988-Present) Ronald Reagan Clarence Thomas (1991-Present) George H. W. Bush Ruth Bader Ginsberg (1993-Present) Bill Clinton Stephen Breyer (1994-Present) Bill Clinton Samuel Alito (2006-Present) George W. Bush Sonia Sotomayor (2009-Present) Barack Obama
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARINGS WHAT TO ASK THEM ABOUT I. Judicial record II. Nominee s stance on Constitutional issues WHAT NOT TO ASK THEM ABOUT How they would rule on issues currently before the Court The confirmation process has grown more adversarial as SCOTUS has taken on a greater role in policymaking.
***BORKING: Systematic destruction of a nominee s reputation to prevent their confirmation. PUBLIC OPINION The Court is insulated from public opinion due to: Lifetime tenure Being appointed rather than elected BUT overt defiance of public opinion may undermine SCOTUS legitimacy, especially elite opinion EX: Bush v Gore; NFIB v Sebelius (Obamacare)
Public confidence in the Supreme Court since 1966 has varied with popular support for the government generally The court has also grown more activist due to: The expanded role of the federal government Increasing acceptance of judicial activism The increasing role of The Court in policy-making
Opinion in realigning eras may energize court EX: Rise of the Democratic-Republicans and fall of the Federalists influenced principles of judicial review (Marbury) and national supremacy (Peck, McCullough). Taney pro-slavery decisions came around the Civil War
CHECKS ON JUDICIAL POWER Congress can check the judiciary/limit their independence by: Passing laws or Constitutional amendments that circumvent rulings Restricting the judicial branch s budget Impeachment Increasing/decreasing the number of SCOTUS justices Changing the appellate jurisdiction of circuit courts
CHECKS ON JUDICIAL POWER POTUS can check the judiciary/limit their independence by: Refusing to enforce rulings (Andrew Jackson) Proposing legislation/making executive orders to sidestep rulings Using the Bully Pulpit to exert pressure on the Court