American Government The Federal Judiciary

Marbury v. Madison Election of 1800: Adams (Federalist) vs. Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) The winner: Jefferson On the way out, Federalists passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 Created 59 new judgeships Appointed John Marshall (former Sec. of State) to Supreme Court

Marbury v. Madison Marshall forgot to deliver 17 commissions James Madison (new Sec. of State) refused to deliver Marbury sued to get his appointment Supreme Court Justice Marshall (the old Sec. of State!) in a predicament

Marbury v. Madison What would have happened if… The actual ruling: Court ruled in favor of Marbury? Court ruled against Marbury? The actual ruling: Court lacked authority to compel delivery Judiciary Act of 1789—which authorized Court to issue orders to government officials—was unconstitutional What was required of other actors: NOTHING! How does impeachment of justices work?

Getting to the Supreme Court Original Jurisdiction Specified in the Constitution: Ambassadors, disputes between states In 200 years, Court has heard only 160 cases under original jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction Appealed through federal courts or state supreme court U.S. Supreme Court hears just 1% of appeals

How the Supreme Court Operates Writ of certiorari Rule of four If not issued, decision stands Filing briefs Oral arguments (Oct-April) Judicial Conference Opinions (Majority, Concurring, Dissenting) Every Supreme Court decision contains two elements essential to creating doctrine: The vote that decides the case in favor of one of the parties, and The opinion -- a statement or set of statements in which the majority explains the rationale for its decision in such a way as to create doctrine (that is, make policy). A unanimous Court decision: Is less likely to be reversed in the future. Creates more compelling precedent than a case decided by a 5-4 vote.

Discussion Questions Which judicial philosophy seems to be prevalent in this case? What language in the opinion leads you to this conclusion? As a result of this decision, what was required of other actors? What might have happened if the Court ruled the other way? Does this case signify a weak or powerful Supreme Court?