The Judicial Branch Interprets Laws

The Supreme Court  Established by the US Constitution  Nine members  1937, FDR’s court-packing plan  Jurisdiction of federal courts (as opposed to state courts): Federal laws, treaties, maritime law, interpretation of the Constitution, states suing other states, foreign governments.  Established by the US Constitution  Nine members  1937, FDR’s court-packing plan  Jurisdiction of federal courts (as opposed to state courts): Federal laws, treaties, maritime law, interpretation of the Constitution, states suing other states, foreign governments.

Supreme Court Justices  No specific qualifications for office  Serve For life  Appointed by President  Confirmed by Senate  No specific qualifications for office  Serve For life  Appointed by President  Confirmed by Senate

Robert Bork  In 1987, when he was a U.S. Appeals Court judge, then-President Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court. However, Senate democrats, wary of his conservative philosophy and positions on abortion, affirmative action and First Amendment rights, rejected his nomination.

Clarence Thomas, 1991  Appointed by Bush  Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment  Narrowly confirmed,  Appointed by Bush  Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment  Narrowly confirmed,

Recent changes in the Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist dies: Judge John Roberts (US Circuit Court of Appeals for District of Columbia) is nominated by President Bush,and then confirmed by the US Senate.

Two Newest Justices Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan

Jurisdiction  Original – first time a case is heard  Appellate – court hears a case if appealed  Original – first time a case is heard  Appellate – court hears a case if appealed Vocabulary terms

 One event establishes a model for all future events.  Court has a legislative function.  One event establishes a model for all future events.  Court has a legislative function. Precedent vocabulary

Judicial Review  Part of Unwritten Constitution  Marbury v. Madison, 1803  Chief Justice John Marshall  Supreme Court can declare an act unconstitutional  Specifics: Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional  Part of Unwritten Constitution  Marbury v. Madison, 1803  Chief Justice John Marshall  Supreme Court can declare an act unconstitutional  Specifics: Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional Vocabulary

Supreme Court over time  Marshall Court – strengthen power of federal govt.  Taney Court – Civil War  Chase Court – turn back Reconstruction  Prog. Era and Gr. Dep. – econ issues  Warren Court – civil rights  70s-90s – conservative  1990s – cases with slim margins (5-4)  Marshall Court – strengthen power of federal govt.  Taney Court – Civil War  Chase Court – turn back Reconstruction  Prog. Era and Gr. Dep. – econ issues  Warren Court – civil rights  70s-90s – conservative  1990s – cases with slim margins (5-4)

Types of Cases: Civil Case  Parties: Civilian vs. civilian  Government is not usually a party  Title for parties: Plaintiff v. Defendant  Standard of Evidence: Preponderance of the evidence  Penalty: Damages - money paid to the party who was wronged  Parties: Civilian vs. civilian  Government is not usually a party  Title for parties: Plaintiff v. Defendant  Standard of Evidence: Preponderance of the evidence  Penalty: Damages - money paid to the party who was wronged IMPORTANT STUFF!! - Remember this!!

Types of Cases: Criminal  Government vs. Civilian  Prosecution v. Defendant  (The State vs ???????)  Beyond reasonable doubt  Fine, imprisonment, or both  Government vs. Civilian  Prosecution v. Defendant  (The State vs ???????)  Beyond reasonable doubt  Fine, imprisonment, or both SOME MORE IMPORTANT STUFF TO REMEMBER!!

An example: O.J. Simpson

verdict

The Civil Trial

“We award damages against defendant Simpson and in favor of plaintiffs (Fred) Goldman and (Sharon) Rufo, in the aggregate, as follows: Amount: $8.5 million”

Title  Plaintiff/Prosecution v. Defendant  (in that order)  Plaintiff/Prosecution v. Defendant  (in that order) Writing a Case Brief

Facts  What happened

Concepts  What the case is REALLY about  How it might apply to other people  How it’s related to the Constitution and its principles  Ex’s: equal protection, rights of the accused, interstate commerce, federal supremacy, etc.  What the case is REALLY about  How it might apply to other people  How it’s related to the Constitution and its principles  Ex’s: equal protection, rights of the accused, interstate commerce, federal supremacy, etc.

Issue Statement  Whether [defendant] violated [plaintiff’s] right to [right] under [relevant law].

Opinion  The court’s finding or ruling, based on interpretation of the law

Precedent Established New or reinforced rules as a result of this decision (a legislative function)

“Test”  Used to determine whether or not the case facts violate the law(s).  Must meet all of the criteria  Derived from the relevant law  Used to determine whether or not the case facts violate the law(s).  Must meet all of the criteria  Derived from the relevant law

Negligence Test 1. Duty of care 2. Breach of duty occurred 3. Proximate Cause 4. Damage resulted

Schools Test / 1. Disrupt orderly and efficient operation of schools? / 2. Actual/significant threat? / 3. Rules consistently applied? / (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969) / 1. Disrupt orderly and efficient operation of schools? / 2. Actual/significant threat? / 3. Rules consistently applied? / (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969)

Freedom of Expression in Schools / Does the school finance the activity? / Substantially disrupt school’s educational process? / Impinge on the rights of others? / (Tinker v Des Moines, 1969) / Unprofessional, ungrammatical, obscene, or goes against fundamental purpose of a school / (Hazelwood School Dist v. Kuhlmeier, 1988) / Does the school finance the activity? / Substantially disrupt school’s educational process? / Impinge on the rights of others? / (Tinker v Des Moines, 1969) / Unprofessional, ungrammatical, obscene, or goes against fundamental purpose of a school / (Hazelwood School Dist v. Kuhlmeier, 1988)

Student Search and Seizure Test / Reasonable suspicion / (as opposed to probable cause) / (NJ v TLO, 1985) / (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995) / Reasonable suspicion / (as opposed to probable cause) / (NJ v TLO, 1985) / (Vernonia v. Acton, 1995)

Representative Cases  Marbury v. Madison  Gibbons v. Ogden  Dred Scott v. Sanford  Schenck v. U.S.  Brown v. Board of Ed.  Miranda v. Arizona  Tinker v. Des Moines  New Jersey v. TLO  Marbury v. Madison  Gibbons v. Ogden  Dred Scott v. Sanford  Schenck v. U.S.  Brown v. Board of Ed.  Miranda v. Arizona  Tinker v. Des Moines  New Jersey v. TLO