1. Supreme Court Continued American Government

2. Activism v. Restraint  The Supreme Court has the potential to have a massive effect on public policy  Courts can be considered to be activist or restrained depending on the outcome of the case  Judicial Activism  Judicial Activism is a philosophy of judicial review that results in decisions that overturn precedent  Judicial Restraint  A court that maintains the status quo or mirrors what the other branches of government have established as current policy  Judicial Restraint is based upon the concept of stare decisis, or in English, let the decision stand  The Supreme Court has the potential to have a massive effect on public policy  Courts can be considered to be activist or restrained depending on the outcome of the case  Judicial Activism  Judicial Activism is a philosophy of judicial review that results in decisions that overturn precedent  Judicial Restraint  A court that maintains the status quo or mirrors what the other branches of government have established as current policy  Judicial Restraint is based upon the concept of stare decisis, or in English, let the decision stand

3. Marbury v. Madison (1803)  In this case, William Marbury was to be appointed to be Justice of the Peace in Washington D.C  Then Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the confirmation  Marbury then sued to receive the letter of appointment  The Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for Madison to not deliver the letter, but refused to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver the letter  The Supreme Court did however rule that the case had not followed the proper channels to reach the Supreme Court and that the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expanded the power of the Supreme Court.  This allowed the Supreme Court to nullify Marbury’s petition to have the case heard  This case established the precedent of judicial review  In this case, William Marbury was to be appointed to be Justice of the Peace in Washington D.C  Then Secretary of State, James Madison, refused to deliver the confirmation  Marbury then sued to receive the letter of appointment  The Supreme Court ruled that it was illegal for Madison to not deliver the letter, but refused to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver the letter  The Supreme Court did however rule that the case had not followed the proper channels to reach the Supreme Court and that the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutionally expanded the power of the Supreme Court.  This allowed the Supreme Court to nullify Marbury’s petition to have the case heard  This case established the precedent of judicial review

4. Writs  Writ of Certiorari  A writ of certiorari is a common law writ issued by a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction demanding the record of a particular case  This gives the Supreme Court the information they need to take part in judicial review  Writ of Habeas Corpus  A writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring jailers to explain to a judge why they are holding a prisoner in custody  Writ of Mandamus  A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion;  This is only used when all other judicial remedies fail  Writ of Certiorari  A writ of certiorari is a common law writ issued by a superior court to one of inferior jurisdiction demanding the record of a particular case  This gives the Supreme Court the information they need to take part in judicial review  Writ of Habeas Corpus  A writ of habeas corpus is a court order requiring jailers to explain to a judge why they are holding a prisoner in custody  Writ of Mandamus  A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for the official's discretion;  This is only used when all other judicial remedies fail

5. McCullough v. Maryland (1819)  In the case of McCullough v. Maryland, Maryland wanted to impose taxes on all bank notes not chartered in Maryland  This was a major issue as this law was believed to specifically targeted the U.S. Bank (national bank) since it was the only non-state bank in Maryland at the time  This case established that Congress could use their implied powers to implement Constitutional powers and also established that state action can not legally impede valid Constitutional exercises  In the case of McCullough v. Maryland, Maryland wanted to impose taxes on all bank notes not chartered in Maryland  This was a major issue as this law was believed to specifically targeted the U.S. Bank (national bank) since it was the only non-state bank in Maryland at the time  This case established that Congress could use their implied powers to implement Constitutional powers and also established that state action can not legally impede valid Constitutional exercises

6. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)  In this case, Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton had set up an in state monopoly where they dominated all navigation routes on the waters of New York  Those who challenged their monopoly were bought out or were allowed to purchase franchises that would enable them to navigate New York waters for trade  Gibbons and Ogden had worked a route together through a mutual franchise for 3 years  Gibbons then violated the partnership by running another ship on their mutual route  In this case, Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton had set up an in state monopoly where they dominated all navigation routes on the waters of New York  Those who challenged their monopoly were bought out or were allowed to purchase franchises that would enable them to navigate New York waters for trade  Gibbons and Ogden had worked a route together through a mutual franchise for 3 years  Gibbons then violated the partnership by running another ship on their mutual route

7. Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)  Ogden then sued Gibbons for violation of their partnership under a state law that stated that Gibbons could not independently run his own shipping company on New York waters  When this case reached the Supreme Court, it was ruled that if there is commerce between the states then the Federal Government had the authority to regulate that trade  This allowed the Federal Government to break up the monopoly and police interstate trade throughout the nation  Ogden then sued Gibbons for violation of their partnership under a state law that stated that Gibbons could not independently run his own shipping company on New York waters  When this case reached the Supreme Court, it was ruled that if there is commerce between the states then the Federal Government had the authority to regulate that trade  This allowed the Federal Government to break up the monopoly and police interstate trade throughout the nation

8. FDR 1937 (Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937)  During the New Deal, many of Roosevelt’s programs were being ruled as unconstitutional  In order to garner more support in the Supreme Court for his programs, Roosevelt wanted to expand the number of Supreme Court Justices in the court  This would have given FDR the ability to add judges that would have his opinion, therefore guaranteeing that his programs would remain Constitutional  Congress refused to increase the number of Justices that sat on the court, but the court became more amenable to the programs that FDR was trying to put in place  During the New Deal, many of Roosevelt’s programs were being ruled as unconstitutional  In order to garner more support in the Supreme Court for his programs, Roosevelt wanted to expand the number of Supreme Court Justices in the court  This would have given FDR the ability to add judges that would have his opinion, therefore guaranteeing that his programs would remain Constitutional  Congress refused to increase the number of Justices that sat on the court, but the court became more amenable to the programs that FDR was trying to put in place