1. The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law
Chapter 12

2. Definitions
jurisdiction (of a court): A given court’s authority to hear cases of a particular kind. Jurisdiction may be original or appellate.
original jurisdiction: The authority of a given court to be the first court to hear a case.
appellate jurisdiction: The authority of a given court to review cases that have already been tried in lower courts and are appealed to it by the losing party; such a court is called an appeals court or appellate court.

3. Definitions
judicial review: The power of courts to decide whether a governmental institution has acted within its constitutional powers and, if not, to declare its action null and void.
precedent: A judicial decision that serves as a rule for settling subsequent cases of a similar nature.
writ of certiorari: Permission granted by a higher court to allow a losing party in a legal case to bring the case before it for a ruling; when such a writ is requested of the U.S. Supreme Court, four of the Court’s nine justices must agree to accept the case before it is granted certiorari.

4. Definitions
brief: A written statement by a party in a court case that details its argument.
judicial conference: A closed meeting of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to discuss and vote on the case before them; the justices are not supposed to discuss conference proceedings with outsiders.
 decision: A vote of the Supreme Court in a particular case that indicates which party the justices side with and by how large a margin.

5. Definitions
opinion (of a court): A court’s written explanation of its decision, which serves to inform others of the legal basis for the decision. Supreme Court opinions are expected to guide the decisions of lower courts.
majority opinion: A court opinion that results when a majority of the justices are in agreement on the legal basis of the decision.

6. Definitions
plurality opinion: A court opinion that results when a majority of justices agree on a decision in a case but do not agree on the legal basis for the decision. In this instance, the legal position held by most of the justices on the winning side is called a plurality opinion.
concurring opinion: A separate opinion written by one or more Supreme Court justices who vote with the majority in the decision on a case but who disagree with its reasoning.

7. Definitions
dissenting opinion: The opinion of a justice in a Supreme Court case that explains his or her reasons for disagreeing with the majority’s decision.
senatorial courtesy: The tradition that a U.S. senator from the state in which a federal judicial vacancy has arisen should have a say in the president’s nomination of the new judge if the senator is of the same party as the president.

8. Definitions
facts (of a court case): The relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense as determined by a trial court. The facts of a case are crucial because they help determine which law or laws are applicable in the case.
originalism theory: A method of interpreting the Constitution that emphasizes the meaning of its words at the time they were written.
living constitution theory: A method of interpreting the Constitution that emphasizes the principles it embodies and their application to changing circumstances and needs.

9. Definitions
judicial restraint: The doctrine that the judiciary should closely follow the wording of the law, be highly respectful of precedent, and defer to the judgment of legislatures. The doctrine claims that the job of judges is to work within the confines of laws set down by tradition and lawmaking majorities.
 judicial activism: The doctrine that the courts should develop new legal principles when judges see a compelling need, even if this action places them in conflict with precedent or the policy decisions of elected officials.

10. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court opened the door to unrestricted corporate and union spending in federal election campaigns.
A 5 – 4 majority of the Supreme Court concluding that the spending restriction infringed on the free speech rights of corporations and unions.

11. The Court’s campaign finance ruling illustrates three key points about court decisions.
First, the judiciary is an important policymaking body. Some of its rulings are as consequential as a law of Congress or an executive order of the president.
Second, the judiciary has considerable discretion in its rulings.
Third, the judiciary is a political as well as legal institution.

12. The Federal Judicial System
The Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court, is created by the Constitution and is given both original and appellate jurisdiction.
Original jurisdiction is the authority to be the first court to hear a case, and is exercised by the Supreme Court in legal disputes involving two or more states or foreign diplomats.
Appellate jurisdiction is the authority to review cases originating in lower courts and appealed by the losing party. The Supreme Court does most of its significant work through this jurisdiction.

13. The Federal Judicial System
A primary function of the Supreme Court is to establish legal precedents which then guide lower courts in future rulings.
The Supreme Court’s ability to set legal precedent is strengthened by its discretionary authority to choose its cases, most of which reach the Court through a writ of certiorari.
 writ of certiorari: Permission granted by a higher court to allow a losing party in a legal case to bring the case before it for a ruling; when such a writ is requested of the U.S. Supreme Court, four of the Court’s nine justices must agree to accept the case before it is granted certiorari.

14. The Federal Judicial System
Judicial conferences after oral and written arguments are attended only by the nine justices, and these private discussions form an important part of the decision-making process.
Supreme Court decisions indicate which party the Court sides with and by how large a margin—a majority or a plurality opinion.
Supreme Court opinions are explanations of the reasons behind its decisions, and are meant to serve as precedent for lower-court decisions. Opinions are the most important part of a Supreme Court decision. In addition to the majority opinion there may be concurring and dissenting opinions.

15. The Supreme Court at Work
Decisions and Opinions:
Opinions contain the Court’s ruling on the issue or issues presented, the reasons for its decision, and the rules of law that apply.
Can affirm lower court’s decision.
Can reverse lower court’s decision.
Can remand, or send back, the case to the lower court for retrial.

16. The Supreme Court at Work
Types of Opinions
Unanimous opinion
Concurring opinion
Dissenting opinion

18. The Federal Judicial System
Other federal courts
U.S. district courts
U.S. courts of appeals
Special U.S. courts
The state courts
Political appointment
Elected judges (most common form)
Merit-plan judges

19. The Federal Judicial System
Contrary to the upper-court myth, the lower courts do not dutifully follow the rulings handed down by the courts above them.
U.S. district courts are trial courts that hear most federal cases and exercise considerable discretion in their judgments. Most of their decisions are not appealed to a higher court.
Cases are appealed from the district courts to the federal court of appeals. Courts of appeals offer the only real hope of reversal for many appellants, because the Supreme Court hears so few cases.

20. The Federal Judicial System
The U.S. judicial system also contains a few specialty courts such as the U.S. Claims Court, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. court of Military Appeals.
Each state has its own system of laws and courts which, contrary to the federal-court myth, possess considerable autonomy and authority. These judges are selected in a variety of ways. About 95 percent of court cases originate in state court systems and are resolved there.
Some issues traditionally within the jurisdiction of the states can become federal issues through the rulings of federal courts.

22. The Federal Court System

23. The Federal Court System

24. The Selection of Federal Judges
Judicial Appointments
Federal District Court Judgeship Nominations
Federal Courts of Appeals Appointments
Supreme Court Appointments
Partisanship and Judicial Appointments
The Senate’s Role

25. Federal Court Appointees
Presidents have always sought to appoint federal judges who share their political and ideological beliefs.
Because they serve for life until retirement, nomination of a Supreme Court justice is an opportunity for a president to influence judicial policy long after the presidential term is over.

26. Federal Court Appointees
With some notable exceptions, most modern Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. Senatorial courtesy is a factor in lower-court nominations.
Partisanship is a crucial test for potential appointees. Some observers argue merit should play a larger role in the selection process.
Recent appointees, with the exception of Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general, have all come from the appellate courts.

27. Federal Court Appointees
Lower-court nominees
Senatorial courtesy
Presidents typically select members of same party
Personal backgrounds of judicial appointees
Increasingly federal court appointees have prior judicial experience
Most are white men, but diversity has increased in recent decades

30. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
Judges serve in a legal institution and make their decisions in a legal context.
The facts of a case are the relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense, determined by trial courts. The Supreme Court must respond to the facts of a dispute, relating them to legal provisions.

31. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
The laws of a case are constitutional provisions, legislative statutes, or judicial precedents that apply to the particular dispute. The Supreme Court justices must base their decisions on interpretations of the relevant laws.
 The large majority of cases that arise in courts involve issues of statutory and administrative law rather than constitutional law.
The U.S. legal system developed from the English common-law tradition, which includes the principle that a court’s decision on a case should be consistent with previous judicial rulings—the concept of precedent.

33. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
The Court can exercise powers of judicial discretion in interpreting the laws, which is influenced by political factors, both outside and inside the Court.
Judges’ political beliefs are a strong internal influence on judicial discretion inside the courts. Studies have shown that the Supreme Court justices tend to vote in line with their political attitudes.
The vague wording of the Constitution and of some statutory law can require judges and justices to exercise discretion in their ruling on an issue.

34. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
Public opinion is one of the outside influences, though the courts give it less importance than do other officials.
Interest groups often exert pressure on the Court through amicus curiae (friend of court) briefs or lawsuits.
Both the president and Congress have direct and indirect means of influencing the Supreme Court’s decisions. Congress can establish the Court’s size and appellate jurisdiction, while the executive branch plays a vital role in influencing the political and ideological membership of the Court.

35. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
The personal views of individual justices have a strong influence on the positions they take on issues and cases. Many scholars contend that the justices’ personal beliefs are the most significant influence on their legal opinions

36. Judicial Power and Democratic Government
The Supreme Court’s decisions inevitably reflect the political philosophy of its justices
They constitute a small political elite wielding significant power.
Most evident when courts declare laws enacted by Congress to be unconstitutional (or constitutional).
The judiciary has become more extensively involved in policymaking in part because social and economic changes have required government to play a larger role in society, which has generated more legal controversies.

37. Judicial Power and Democratic Government
Originalism theory holds that the Constitution should be interpreted in the way that a reasonable person would have interpreted it at the time it was written.
An opposing view, the living constitution theory, holds that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in light of changing circumstances.

38. Judicial Power and Democratic Government
The dispute over judicial activism and judicial restraint reflects competing values which cannot be resolved by appeal to dogma or fact.

39. Judicial Power and Democratic Government
Critics of an activist Court point out that it has adopted the legislative role in enforcing broad social policies. This point of view supports the doctrine of judicial restraint, which holds that the judiciary should respect precedent and defer to the judgment of legislatures.
Supporters of an activist Court claim that judicial activism is both necessary and proper. A dominant view of judicial activism holds that the Court is obligated to promote social justice by vigorously protecting and expanding the rights of individuals.

40. Judicial Power and Democratic Government
Judicial restraint versus judicial activism
Restraint: judges should abide by precedent and legislation
Activism: judges should interpret Constitution and statutes in light of established principles when elected officials fail to do so
What is the judiciary’s proper role?