The Structure of the Federal Judiciary Jamie Monogan University of Georgia March 26, 2019

Objectives By the end of this meeting, participants should be able to: Describe the structure of the federal judiciary and the appointment process.

Constitutional Basis Article III establishes Supreme Court Checked by Congress and the president President appoints Senate gives “advice and consent” Confirmation Senatorial courtesy Congress funds the courts Article III is quite short. Leaves most of federal judicial system to be set up by Congress.

Federal Court Structure Judiciary Act of 1789 created lower courts District courts are the lowest level Circuit courts of appeal above them Amendments expanded this structure 94 federal district courts Organized into 13 circuits Each circuit has a court of appeal Dual court system: state and federal Remind students that the Constitution only created the Supreme Court, but that it granted Congress the power to establish lower courts. Congress did just that in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Appeals made after a district court verdict go to the circuit containing that district (see next slide for figure). Cases that reach the Supreme Court can originate in either state or federal courts. Either the Supreme Court or a federal circuit court of appeals can overrule findings of a state supreme court. There are two special courts with national jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with civil cases in which the national government is a party. The U.S. Court of International Trade deals with cases involving matters of trade and customs.

Note that the number of judges in a district court or court of appeals varies. Source: https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/u.s._federal_courts_circuit_map_1.pdf

Establishing Judicial Power Little in the Constitution regarding judicial checks on other branches Closest clause: Article III, Section 2 extends judicial power to all cases “arising under this Constitution.” Powers established over time Judicial review suggested by Hamilton in Federalist 78 Supremacy of federal courts Have students look at Article III of the Constitution to reinforce how little is explicitly written about the courts. The federal courts’ greatest powers (judicial review and supremacy) were established over time. Judicial review is the power to determine if a law or an act of government conforms to the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Judiciary Act of 1789 also allowed federal officials to ask court for a writ of mandamus Midnight appointments Court in a vulnerable position A ruling for Marbury would likely be ignored A ruling against Marbury would confirm subordinate status Clever opinion written by Marshall established the procedure of judicial review Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) had called the judiciary (which was now filled with Federalists thanks to John Adams) a “hospital of decayed politicians” and had asked Congress to repeal the Judiciary Act. In Marshall’s decision he called out the Democratic-Republicans for not giving Marbury his commission and violating the legal rights of appointees while also ruling that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to settle the matter. According to the Constitution, the Judiciary Act’s provision that the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to settle the matter was unconstitutional. Marshall’s decision was politically brilliant. He claimed a major power for the court—judicial review—while issuing a decision that pleased both President Jefferson and the majority in Congress.

Assignments The Chapter 15 critical thinking exercise is due Thursday at 11:59pm. Login to TopHat to complete. Also for Thursday: Read Maltese, Pika, & Shively, pp. 541-554 For Friday: Read Bullock and Gaddie, Chapter 7

Additional Material

Politics of Judicial Appointments Appointments have become more contentious and confirmations have slowed down The more ideological the nominee, the more contentious Judicial appointments are a way for presidents to leave a legacy Use Robert Bork’s nomination as an example. Nominated by Reagan for the Supreme Court. There was heated debate in the Senate (use Senator Ted Kennedy’s speech on the Senate floor as an example) and strong resistance from interest groups. The final vote in the Senate was 58 against and 42 for.

Supremacy of Federal Courts and Federal Law Marshall also asserted federal court supremacy over state law and courts: McCulloch v. Maryland (1813) A state cannot tax the national bank Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Congress can regulate interstate commerce Supreme Court as “Court of Last Resort”: Resolves conflicts between the states and national government, different branches, and parties or candidates Article VI says the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution are “the supreme Law of the Land” (the supremacy clause). McCulloch v. Maryland (1813) The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allows Congress the authority to establish a bank in Maryland and protects the bank from being taxed by the state. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) The Supreme Court struck down a New York monopoly over steamboat ferry services and ruled that other steamboat ferry companies in New Jersey licensed by Congress could not be prevented from competing with companies licensed by New York.

State Courts and the Electoral Connection Separate hierarchy from federal courts Many states elect judges and prosecutors Georgia elects judges in nonpartisan elections States have their own hierarchy of courts with the court of last resort (usually a state supreme court) above the others. At the bottom of the pyramid are trial courts and in the middle are state appellate courts. Setting state courts in the U.S. apart from the federal courts and from most other courts around the world, many of the states (currently 37) elect some of their judges and prosecutors. For discussion: Ask students to think of potential positives and negatives of electing judges. On the positive side, elections help democratize the judicial system. If they are corrupt or out of line with preferences they can be voted out of office. On the negative side, many of these elections are not contested. This could mean that people are satisfied with the incumbent or it could simply be that people are not very well informed. Additionally, elections mean campaigning for office and raising money. This might affect their ability to be impartial.