Chapter 16 Judicial Branch

The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws. Civil Law: The court resolves a dispute between two parties and defines the relationship between them. Most cases are tried and resolved in state courts, not federal courts.

The Nature of the Judicial System Participants in the Judicial System Litigants Plaintiff - the party bringing the charge Defendant - the party being charged Jury - the people (normally 12) who often decide the outcome of a case Standing to sue - plaintiffs have a serious interest in the case.

Federal Court System Step 1 – DISTRICT COURTS 94 US District Courts exist. – Hear 342,000 cases/yr Trial by jury (only federal court with jury) Original Jurisdiction: courts that hear the case first and determine the facts - the trial court.

Federal Court System Step 2 – APPEAL (CIRCUIT) COURTS 12 Courts of Appeal – Hear 61,000 cases/yr Panel of 3 judges, sometimes more No cases start here, review district court decisions Appellate Jurisdiction: reviews the legal issues in cases brought from lower courts. Hold no trials and hear no testimony. Focus on errors of procedure & law

The Structure of the Federal Judicial System The Federal Judicial Circuits

Neil Gorsuch Sonia Sotomayor Brett Kavanaugh Elena Kagan Stephen Breyer Clarence Thomas Chief Justice John Roberts Samuel Alito Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The Roberts Court Justice Year Appointed Nominating President Confirmation Vote Year of Birth Clarence Thomas 1991 George H. W. Bush (R) 52–48 1948 Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1993 Bill Clinton (D) 96–3 1933 Stephen G. Breyer 1994 87–9 1938 John G. Roberts 2005 George W. Bush (R) 78–22 1955 Samuel Anthony Alito 2006 58–42 1950 Sonia Sotomayor 2009 Barack Obama (D) 68–31 1954 Elena Kagan 2010 63–37 1960 Neil Gorsuch 2017 Donald Trump (R) 54-45 1967 Brett Kavanaugh 2018 50-48 1965 SOURCE: www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx.

Federal Court System Step 3 – US Supreme Court (highest court in the land!) In 2003: Heard only 84 cases, decided 71 Petitioner must submit a petition for certiorari a brief about why lower court made wrong decision Rule of 4 – 4 justices needed to agree to hear a case for it to go the SC SC has final say, no more appeals Life-time term on good behavior. Life term= judicial independence Chief Justice John Roberts

The Structure of the Federal Judicial System The Supreme Court 9 justices – 1 Chief Justice, 8 Associate Justices Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear Some original jurisdiction, but mostly appellate jurisdiction. Most cases come from the federal courts Most cases are civil cases

Intro Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEjgAXxrkXY

Important Vocabulary Judicial Review: the right of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of a law or executive order The MOST important SC power Judicial branch’s role is to interrupt the law NOT make it or enforce it

Required Supreme Court Case #3: Marbury vs. Madison A defining moment in SC and our nation’s history… This case was key in giving the court the power of Judicial review Made the once weak Judicial branch into a more powerful one

Nominating a Justice President wants someone who will be politically aligned to him The “litmus test” – test of ideological purity, in other words, does the judge poses the same political ideals as the president who appoints them… This can take the form of interviews and interest groups giving info to the executive Power found in Article III of Constitution Judges are appointed by the President and then approved and voted on by Senate Justices have been rejected before, but not common

The Courts as Policymakers Making Decisions Oral arguments are usually made in a case. Justices discuss the case. One justice will write the majority opinion (statement of legal reasoning behind a final judicial decision) on the case. Those who might disagree with the majority will write a (dissenting opinion) Figure 16.5

The Court at work Briefs – written documents supporting one side of a case Amicus Curie (friend of the court): an additional brief submitted by a interest group or outside organization that emphasizes and supports your position Oral arguments – lawyers emphasize the major points of their case in front of the justices. Conference – judges meet in secret to discuss case Opinions – justices write opinions, there may also be concurring opinions and dissenting opinions – all may have influence on future cases!!!! (Precedent)

Important! Making Decisions Stare Decisis: to let the previous decision stand unchanged before the court. Phrase “law of the land” sometimes used Precedent: a ruling that firmly establishes a legal principle based on previous rulings. In general, justices will use previous court decisions as a model to help decide current ones Consistency and continuity of law is important If a lower court gets a parallel or similar case that a higher court already decided on, they are highly pressured then to follow that precedent!

Examples of Precedent Roe vs. Wade (1973): landmark supreme court case the legalized women’s access to abortion A key part of a right to privacy Controversial case that many want to overturn BUT, precedence is difficult to change

Court Weaknesses “John Marshall has rendered his decision; now let him enforce it!” – Andrew Jackson “All deliberate speed” – Chief Justice Earl Warren 10 years after Brown vs. Board only 1% of Southern schools were desegregated!!!! Court CANNOT make law or enforce it!!!! Court must rely on branches, states, and officials to enforce its ruling Important: A President or anyone can simply ignore a SC ruling!! Unless another government power steps in…

Power of the Court Power to make policy – by interpretation of the Constitution or by extending existing law Has declared 160 laws unconstitutional and overturned 260 cases Some support judicial activism to correct injustices of government, courts are last resort for some people Some oppose judicial activism because judges lack expertise in situations, balancing priorities, and courts are not accountable because judges not elected…

Understanding the Courts What Courts Should Do: The Scope of Judicial Power Judicial restraint: judges should play a minimal policymaking role - leave the policies to the legislative branch. Judicial activism: judges should make bold policy decisions and even charting new constitutional ground.

Judicial and Political Philosophy Judicial Activism Judges should interpret law loosely, using their power to promote their preferred political and social goals. Judges are said to be activists when they are likely to interject their own values in court decision Equality Liberal Leans to the left on public policy and would vote Democrat Conservative Leans to the right on public policy and would vote Republican Freedom Order Freedom Judicial Restraint Legislators, not judges, should make the laws. Judges are said to exercise judicial restraint when they rule closely to statutes and previous cases when reaching their decisions. They follow the “original intent” of the framers.

Strict vs. Loose Constructionist A strict constructionist/textualist attempts to interpret the law based on the words of the law itself only, while a loose constructionist applies a more open liberal reading to the text.

Restraint = Strict Constructionist/textualist Connection… Restraint = Strict Constructionist/textualist Activism = Loose Constructionist

Important Checks on the SC President appoints all judges to life-term appointments on good behavior! President will pick someone close politically to them Congress must confirm appointed judges Congress may alter the structure of the court system (# of courts and justices) Congress has the power to impeach judges for bad behavior… Congress may amend the Constitution if the Courts find a law unconstitutional Ex. Income tax originally found unconstitutional so Congress added 16th amendment