1. Chapter 15 The Courts Part II
Instructor: Kevin Sexton
Course: U.S. Political Systems
Southeast Missouri State University

2. The Federal Court System “What the Constitution Says”
Article III (Judicial Article)
Supreme Court shall be top court in the land.
It is created by the Constitution (not Congress)
It’s judges shall serve for life (during times of good behavior)
All other federal courts are created by Congress
These judges are also appointed for life (times of good behavior)

3. How Federal Judges Get Their Jobs
ALL FEDERAL JUDGES ARE:
Appointed by the President of the United States
And
Confirmed by the United States Senate

4. Powers of the Federal Courts
Article VI Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme Law of the Land.
Does this give the Federal Courts the ability to determine if an act of Congress (a law) is appropriate or constitutional?
This power to review and declare actions of Congress null and void has become known as
JUDICIAL REVIEW

5. Judicial Review Marybury v. Madison(1803)
John Adams appointed 42 new judges just before leaving office. His administration failed to deliver the official commissions. Therefore Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (Secretary of State) refused to seat these new judges.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 allowed these appointees to request a court order forcing Jefferson and Madison to grant the appointments and seat these judges.
William Marbury, one of the appointees sued Madison for his judgeship appointment before the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice John Marshall, and the rest of the Supreme Court Justices refused to seat the new judges, not because they believed Jefferson and Madison did not violate the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Rather, because the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. This was the first time the Supreme Court (or any Federal Court) had declared null and void an act of Congress.
This power has been one of the most extensive and important powers that the Federal Courts have had.

6. The Federal Court System

7. The Federal Court System

8. Types of Judicial Jurisdiction
Who has authority to “hear” the case.
Original:
The first court to “hear” the case.
Most of the time it is the District Court.
Supreme Court has this in limited instances
Appellant:
A court that hears an argument that a lower court has violated the Due Process rights of a defendant.
Appeals Courts and Supreme Court have this jurisdiction.

9. U.S. District Courts There are 94 Federal District Courts.
They have ONLY original jurisdiction.
Also known as trial courts.
One judge presides over each case.
Only level of the federal system where:
There is a jury.
Where witness testimony is heard.
Where GUILT OR INNOCENCE is determined.
In short, only place that a true trial takes place.

10. U.S. Appeals Courts 13 Circuits Has ONLY appellant jurisdiction.
Hears appeals from District Court cases heard in their circuit.
These courts DO NOT determine guilt or innocence. They only determine if a defendant has had his/her DUE PROCESS violated.
If DUE PROCESS was violated, then the case is sent back to the Court that had original jurisdiction.
The appeals are heard by a panel of judges usually 3. But sometimes all the judges in a circuit will hear an appeal.

11. U.S. Supreme Court Nine Judges or Justices.
Has BOTH original and appellant jurisdiction.
In cases of original jurisdiction:
guilt or innocence is determined.
In cases of appellant jurisdiction:
Only DUE PROCESS issues are addressed.
Hears appeals from any Federal or state court.

12. How Many Cases Does the Supreme Court Handle Each Year

13. Getting on the Docket. Very Hard to do!
Rule of Four

14. Politics of Supreme Court Appointments
Why are Supreme Court appointment so important to a president?
Legacy
Why doesn’t President Bush appoint whomever he wants?
His party
He has to get the person confirmed.

15. Supreme Court Decision Making Process
Majority Needed
(5 Votes) By
Rule of Four
Precedent is Set
Majority Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Concurring Opinion

16. Majority Opinion
Written by a justice on the prevailing side. It explains why the court decided the case in the manner that they did. If the case addressed a new issue or addresses an issue in a unique way this is where the new standard or “precedent is explained.”
ie. Plessy v. Ferguson
precedent was “separate but equal”
Brown v. Board of Ed.
precedent was “separate not equal”

17. Dissenting Opinion
Written by a justice on the side that did not prevail. It will explain why they disagreed with the majority of the court. Is used in future cases to try and overturn the precedent set. Especially important in close (5-4, 6-3) votes.

18. Concurring Opinion
Written by a justice on the prevailing side of the vote. It is written when the justice writing it disagrees with some part of the Majority Opinion. It can also be used to elaborate on an aspect of the case that the Majority Opinion did not address.

19. How do the justices decide a case.
Stare decisis
Literally means “Let it Stand”
The cases is determined based on previous precedent.
Most appeals are not heard by the Supreme Court because they believe the case should or is addressed by previous precedents related to the central issue of the appeal.
New Precedent is set
When something new comes up, or a unique issue need be addressed the justices will sometimes reverse the precedent set earlier and set a new precedent.
This very rare!

20. Constitutional Interpretation
Original Intent
What did the writers of the Constitution mean when they wrote the document.
Hard to determine.
Living-constitution
The meaning of the Constitution changes as society and history changes.
Constitution is an ever changing document.
Plain-meaning-of-the-text
The document means exactly what it appears to be saying.
It was not written in modern English and what is says to me may not mean the same thing to you.
i.e. does the 2nd Amendment mean I can have an AK-47 and a M-16 in my house?

21. Voting Patterns of Justices
There are three distinct voting patterns that have developed over the years into which most justices fall.
Judicial Activists
Stare decisis should be ignored sometimes. These believe that the ever-changing aspects of society and the country calls for the Constitution to change also.
Restorationists
believe we must get back to the original meaning of the Constitution and the only way to do that is ignore stare decisis until all the “liberal” decisions have been reversed.
Judicial Restraint
Stare decisis should be maintained in all but the most extreme cases. The court should not change laws, it should be the people whom change the laws through their elected representatives.