The Federal Judiciary

The Federal Judiciary Speaker: Rue Wood Thomas Paine, the author of the Revolutionary War era pamphlet, Common Sense, wrote that in America, the law will be King. He was making an argument for breaking away from Britain and monarchy. In America, there would be no kings or aristocracy, and it would be the law that would rule. Boy, was Paine a visionary on this one! The new nation WAS and still IS guided by the rule of law. Americans have great regard for the law; in fact, we re the most litigious society in the world. Every year, at least 1 million legal actions are filed in the federal courts, and about 30 million are filed in state courts. There are a couple of good historical reasons why Americans have such a high regard for the law. First, we re a nation of immigrants from different cultures, backgrounds, and traditions. A unified law has always been a peaceful means of settling disputes. Second, and ironically, our nation was born in revolution. Some would point out that the American Revolution, from the British perspective, was illegal and even treasonous. But the revolutionaries were rebelling against a system they viewed as sometimes arbitrary and repressive. To them, the revolution was civil disobedience in response to a higher calling the true rule of law and equal justice for all. It s for this reason that when studying American Government, I like to begin with the law-interpreting branch, the judiciary. Of the three branches of government, it s the one most Americans are least familiar with. It s the single branch that citizens don t elect, yet depends on to protect their rights. In this lecture we ll accomplish the following: First, we ll look at the two-tiered court system in the U.S., differentiate between types of courts, and define a few terms; Second, we ll view the three-level structure of the federal court system; Third, we ll examine the structure and ideological makeup of the Supreme Court and take a closer look at the high court s day-to-day operations Let s begin with the two-tiered court system in the U.S. The bulk of legal actions in the U.S. are dealt with in state courts. As I mentioned earlier, the state courts handle about thirty times more cases that do the federal courts. Both state courts and federal courts hear two categories of cases criminal and civil cases. A criminal case is one in which a person is charged with breaking a state or national law, where the punishment might be a fine, imprisonment, or death. A civil case is a dispute between two parties where the penalty for the losing party is monetary compensation or fines, not imprisonment or death. A higher standard of evidence is required in a criminal case. The same event might be tried as both a criminal and a civil case. For example, the former football star, O.J. Simpson, was put on trial in 1995 in criminal court for the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole, and her friend Ron Goldman. Simpson was found not guilty in the criminal trial. He then appeared in civil court on a wrongful death charge and was found guilty in the case of Ron Goldman, and assessed millions of dollars in damages to the Goldman family. Page 1 of 6

The Simpson cases took place in the state courts of California. But when is a case heard in federal court? This is the question of jurisdiction and when jurisdiction comes into play. Jurisdiction is the ability and right of a court to hear and decide a case. As far as criminal cases go, the federal courts have jurisdiction in any case that breaks a federal law; in other words, one passed by Congress. Some examples of this might be drug dealing across state lines, interstate auto theft, killing a federal official, counterfeiting of money, burglary of a federal installation, or killing an animal on the federally protected endangered species list. About one quarter of federal criminal cases are drug-related cases. Federal civil cases deal with lawsuits concerning U.S. treaties, acts of Congress, or violation of one s Constitutional rights. The federal courts hear lawsuits involving parties from two or more different states, if the amount in question exceeds a stated level right now, it s $75,000. The federal courts also deal with all bankruptcy, patent, copyright, and maritime cases. The reality isn t very glamorous. Well over two-thirds of all cases filed in federal court are bankruptcy cases. A person CAN be put on trial in both a state and federal court for the same violation. For example, in 1992 several Los Angeles Police Department officers were charged with using excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, an African American man they pursued on a high-speed chase. The jury found the officers not guilty in a California state court. The case then went to federal court, where two of the officers were convicted of violating King s civil rights and given 30-month sentences in a federal corrections facility. This is a course on American national government. So now that we ve differentiated between the state and federal court systems, let s more carefully look at just the federal courts. The first thing to remember is that there are three levels within the federal court system: District Courts Appeals Courts U.S. Supreme Court In total, there are at present 94 federal district courts. Each state has at least one district court; more populous states might have several. For instance, Iowa has two federal district courts. The one for the northern part of the state is located in Cedar Rapids; the district court for the southern part of the state is located in Des Moines. New York, Texas, and California each have four federal district courts. Each district court has a U.S. attorney which represents the United States, much as district attorney represents the state in state courts. The federal district courts have original jurisdiction. That means federal cases start in these courts; they re the ones within the federal court system where normal trial procedure applies. Attorneys examine witnesses and juries render verdicts. In criminal cases on the federal level, twelve persons make up the jury; in civil cases the jury is six individuals. The Appeals Courts and Supreme Court aren t trial courts, but instead, are appellate courts. About one in six cases heard in district courts are sent to the next level on appeal. Here, there are no trials or juries. Instead, a three-member panel of judges reviews the records from the district court to see if there was a Page 2 of 6

legal mistake in the way the case was handled. They can either uphold or strike down the lower court ruling by majority rule, meaning at least 2 of the three judges agreeing. The United States is broken up into 11 circuits for the Courts of Appeal plus an additional court for Washington D.C. and a Federal Circuit which hears mainly patent appeals and veterans claims. The final court of appeal in the federal judiciary is the U.S. Supreme Court. About 8000 cases a year are appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court chooses which of the cases it will hear and which it won t. Each year, the High Court selects about 80 cases to hear only one in one hundred sent to them. Cases come from two places from the lower federal appeals courts, and from state supreme courts. If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear a case, it issues a writ of certiorari, which is an order to the lower court to send up its records in the case. The Supreme Court then examines how the case was argued and decided in the lower courts. It s important to remember that the Supreme Court is almost entirely a court of appeals, an appellate court. It hears very few cases on original jurisdiction. The only type of case that must go straight to the Supreme Court is a case between two or more states. This is known as exclusive jurisdiction. For example, a change in course of the Sabine River, which forms the border between Texas and Louisiana, caused a dispute between those two states. In 1976, the case went straight to the Supreme Court and the High Court settled the boundary issue. And, by the way, the Supreme Court settled a similar dispute way back in 1898 between Iowa and Illinois concerning their border, the Mississippi River. At that time, steamboats were plying the river, and both states wanted to know their exact boundary so they could tax the steamboats. Taxes, taxes, taxes some things never change over time! Back to our discussion of cases that can go before the High Court... The only other cases that may go straight to the Supreme Court are those involving foreign ambassadors or consuls and cases where a state is a party. This is known as original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has the right to hear the case first, but may allow lower federal courts to hear it, instead. Today, the High Court tends not to hear these cases in their original jurisdiction, so they re filed in lower federal courts. So every term, the Supreme Court hears case after case that has made its way through the lower courts. Let s turn now to the daily operation of the Supreme Court. The High Court is one of the most traditionbound institutions in our government. By law, the term of the Court begins the first Monday in October. There s no set date for the end of the term, but it usually runs through June or into July. During the term, the Court alternates between two-week long sittings and recesses. During sittings, they hear cases and issue opinions; during the recesses they write opinions and take care of court business. So what happens when the High Court is sitting? The Court only hears cases on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays from 10am to 3pm, with an hour lunch break. The justices sit side-by-side at the front of the courtroom. The Chief Justice sits in the middle. To his right sits the longest-serving member of the court, and to his left the second longest serving member. The remaining justices alternate right and left based on this same seniority. Each side in the case gets exactly 30 minutes for presenting their case to the Court; this is known as oral argument. The justices are already very familiar with the case, having Page 3 of 6

reviewed the lower court records and the written arguments from each side. At any time during oral argument, a justice can interrupt with questions for the attorney. Talk about nerve-wracking! An attorney prepares his or her 30-minute argument flawlessly, but may never get to deliver the entire presentation due to questions from the bench. After the 30 minutes have lapsed, a light on the attorney s lectern indicates time is up. There are no juries or witnesses present. The attorney who represents the United States in cases where the U.S. is a party is called the Solicitor General. By tradition, the Solicitor General wears a formal morning jacket when arguing before the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan was the first woman to serve as U.S. Solicitor General, and she chose not to stick to this tradition. Kagan left her post in 2010 when she was appointed to the Supreme Court itself by President Obama. Thursdays are a workday for the justices, and on Fridays they meet in conference to discuss the cases heard that week in oral argument. Tradition dictates that all justices shake hands with each of the other justices at the beginning of conference. No records are kept of conferences and clerks aren t allowed in the room. No one but the justices know what they discuss. The Chief Justice presides and asks each of the other justices, in order of seniority, to offer his or her opinions in the case. It s Congress that decides how many justices make up the Supreme Court. Since 1869, Congress has set the number at nine. Following the Constitution, all Supreme Court justices and federal judges are appointed by the sitting President with confirmation by the Senate; they serve for life or until they choose to retire. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not necessarily the longest-serving member. When a Chief Justice dies or retires, the current President may appoint whomever he wishes as the new Chief. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts, was not even serving on the Supreme Court when he was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005 to replace Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who died earlier that year. During conference, the Chief Justice assigns the writing of opinions in the cases the Court has heard. It takes a majority of those justices voting to decide a case. For instance, a case may be decided by 7-2 or even 5-4. Not all justices have to vote. Sometimes a justice recuses himself from a case because he or she feels personal ties to the case compromise his or her objectivity. For example, the newest member of the court, Elena Kagan, recused herself during the 2010-2011 term from several cases, because she had worked on the cases while serving as Solicitor General. She felt there was a conflict of interest because before 2010 she was an attorney working on cases that were now before the very court that she sits on as a Justice. In any case (no pun intended) it takes at least six voting justices to render a decision. A tie vote means the lower court ruling is upheld. Once a case is decided by majority vote, the Chief Justice assigns the writing of the opinions in the case. An opinion is the written legal argument setting down the legal reasons why the court ruled the way it did. One of the justices voting with the majority is appointed to write the majority opinion. A justice voting with the minority, in other words, the losing side, is assigned the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion, naturally, sets out legal arguments against the majority. If a justice agrees with the majority, but for differing legal reasons, he or she might write a concurring opinion. Page 4 of 6

One of the most fascinating parts of studying the Supreme Court is its ideological composition. Justices, of course, follow legal precedent and the law. But as we saw in our last lecture, they often view and interpret the Constitution and law through different lenses. Conservative justices, like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito tend to vote together. So do liberal justices like Ginsburg and Breyer. The newest members of the Court, Sotomayor and Kagan, have yet to establish their Supreme Court legacy, but their past records in other positions and courts show them to be quite liberal judges. Justice Kennedy is known as the swing vote on the court. Although considered a conservative, he sometimes votes with the liberal judges. Overall, today the U.S. has a conservative court counterbalanced by a large liberal minority. All five conservative justices were appointed by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, while the four liberal justices were appointed by the Democrats, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Obviously, appointment of a Supreme Court justice has longterm, significant consequences for the entire nation, since the High Court interprets laws and the Constitution. So what do we mean by conservative and liberal judges? Once again, labeling is not easy or entirely accurate, but in general, conservative judges favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution. In rulings, they are usually pro-business (especially big business), protect gun-owners rights, are anti-abortion and not strong supporters of affirmative action. They tend to be strong law-and-order advocates, and often vote against defendants in criminal procedure cases. Liberal judges, on the other hand, tend to uphold affirmative action programs and abortion rights. They often uphold regulations limiting business and vote in favor of defendants in criminal procedure cases. Let s take a recent example. In 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, upheld the rights of corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political ads during campaigns. The High Court viewed the spending as form of speech protected by the First Amendment. The five justices voting in the majority were Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy, with Kennedy writing the majority opinion. Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Stevens dissented, and Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion. (Elena Kagan replaced Justice Stevens later in the year when he retired.) The vote clearly reflected the ideological division between conservatives and liberals on the Court. President Obama and many Democrats spoke out loudly against the ruling, saying it gave even more power in politics to big business and special interests while diminishing the role of individual citizens. As usual, the case has more complexity to it than we can go into here. Look up the case online, if you d like it s United Citizens v. Federal Election Commission. Finally, let s briefly trace an actual case through the U.S. court system. The case I ve selected is Berghuis v. Thompkins, heard by the Supreme Court in 2010. It s a Fifth Amendment case that came from the state of Michigan. The Fifth Amendment protects a person from testifying against himself in court; in other words, it protects our right to remain silent when charged with a crime. The famous 1966 Supreme Court case, Miranda v. Arizona established the precedent for the reading of rights to people detained by law enforcement. We re all pretty familiar with this from television and movies (but hopefully not personal experience!) Police read Mr. Thompkins his Miranda rights before questioning him as a suspect in a fatal shooting that occurred in 2000. Thompkins remained silent during the entire Page 5 of 6

three-hour interrogation, but he never said he wanted to invoke his right to remain silent. Nor did he say he wanted an attorney. At the end of the three hours, the exasperated police asked Thompkins if he believed in God and if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. Thompkins answered yes to the questions. This was used against him in his trial, where he was found guilty of murder in a Michigan state court and sentenced to life in prison. Thompkins attorney made a motion to suppress the statements, saying that his client never waived his Miranda rights, his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment. Thompkins appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, which rejected his appeal. Since this was more than a murder case and had to do with a Constitutional issue the Fifth Amendment Thompkins filed his case in federal district court in Michigan. The district court refused to review his case, so he appealed to the federal appeals court. Michigan is in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which encompasses Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee, and is located in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court s ruling, saying the Michigan state court was in the wrong when it implied that Thompkins had waived his right to remain silent. The state of Michigan then appealed the Sixth Circuit Court s ruling in favor of Thompkins to the U.S. Supreme Court. So how did the High Court rule in Mr. Thompkins case? It was close, but not surprising in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and upheld Thompkins conviction. The court basically said that just staying silent doesn t mean you re invoking your right to remain silent. An accused person has to actually state they want to remain silent and end the police interview. Those voting in the majority were Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy, who wrote the opinion. Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Sotomayor voted the other way, and Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion in fact, it was her first time to write a dissenting opinion since she arrived on the Court. Hopefully, after this lecture, you understand a bit more about our least visible branch of government, the judicial branch. In the United States, we have a two-tiered system of law the state and federal courts. Federal courts deal with specific issues spelled out in the Constitution; most of these are federal laws and disputes about personal rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The federal court system has three levels, and cases rarely make their way to the Supreme Court, since the High Court hears a select number of cases each year on appeal and most cases can be handled by the lower courts. I urge you to keep up with important federal court rulings and rulings of the Supreme Court. The justices preserve our rights as citizens and individuals an important function in a vibrant democracy. I look forward to speaking with you again in our next lecture on the peoples directly elected representatives, the U.S. Congress. Rue Wood and Indian Hills Community College Page 6 of 6