1. Federal Court System SSCG 16 SSCG 6 Ch.11 Ch. 12

2. Federal courts are generally created by the United States Congress under the constitutional power described in Article III. Federal courts are generally created by the United States Congress under the constitutional power described in Article III. These courts are much more independent of Congress and the President. These courts are much more independent of Congress and the President. Article III requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction. Article III requires the establishment of a Supreme Court and permits the Congress to create other federal courts, and place limitations on their jurisdiction.

3. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear certain cases. Jurisdiction is the authority to hear certain cases. Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases that involve United States laws, treaties with other countries, or interpretations of the Constitution. Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases that involve United States laws, treaties with other countries, or interpretations of the Constitution.

4. There are three main types of judicial jurisdiction: Personal jurisdiction is an authority over a person, regardless of their location. Territorial jurisdiction is an authority confined to a bounded space, including all those present therein, and events which occur there. Subject Matter jurisdiction is an authority over the subject of the legal questions involved in the case. There are three main types of judicial jurisdiction: Personal jurisdiction is an authority over a person, regardless of their location. Territorial jurisdiction is an authority confined to a bounded space, including all those present therein, and events which occur there. Subject Matter jurisdiction is an authority over the subject of the legal questions involved in the case.

5. Federal courts use 2 types of juries: grand jury and petit jury. Federal courts use 2 types of juries: grand jury and petit jury. Grand jury has 16 – 23 people and hears evidence against the accused. If they think there is enough evidence, they pass an indictment – a formal accusation charging the person with a crime. Grand jury has 16 – 23 people and hears evidence against the accused. If they think there is enough evidence, they pass an indictment – a formal accusation charging the person with a crime. The petit jury has 6 – 12 people and is a trial jury. They find the accused guilty or innocent. In some states, they pass sentence on the convicted. The petit jury has 6 – 12 people and is a trial jury. They find the accused guilty or innocent. In some states, they pass sentence on the convicted.

7. The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

8. The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. Within limits set by Congress and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal matters. Within limits set by Congress and the Constitution, the district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal matters. Every day hundreds of people across the nation are selected for jury duty and help decide some of these cases. Every day hundreds of people across the nation are selected for jury duty and help decide some of these cases.jury dutyjury duty There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three territories of the United States have district courts that hear federal cases, There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three territories of the United States have district courts that hear federal cases,

9. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

10. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created by Congress with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 making the judges of the former courts into circuit judges. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created by Congress with passage of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 making the judges of the former courts into circuit judges.Congress It is housed in Washington, D.C. It is housed in Washington, D.C.

11. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. appellate jurisdictionUnited States armed forces active duty Uniform Code of Military Justice appellate jurisdictionUnited States armed forces active duty Uniform Code of Military Justice Statistics show that the court only reviews approximately 10 percent of all court-martial convictions Statistics show that the court only reviews approximately 10 percent of all court-martial convictionscourt-martial convictionscourt-martial convictions

12. The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces - The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces - The cases before the court may only be reviewed upon a granted petition for review, by certificate from an individual service Judge Advocate General, a sentence of death, a petition for extraordinary relief or a writ appeal petition. The cases before the court may only be reviewed upon a granted petition for review, by certificate from an individual service Judge Advocate General, a sentence of death, a petition for extraordinary relief or a writ appeal petition.Judge Advocate General sentence of deathJudge Advocate General sentence of death

13. The United States Tax Court specializes in adjudicating disputes over federal income tax, generally prior to the time at which the formal tax assessments are made by the Internal Revenue Service. The United States Tax Court specializes in adjudicating disputes over federal income tax, generally prior to the time at which the formal tax assessments are made by the Internal Revenue Service. federal income taxInternal Revenue Service federal income taxInternal Revenue Service The Tax Court is the only forum in which taxpayers outside of bankruptcy may do so without having first paid the disputed tax in full. The Tax Court is the only forum in which taxpayers outside of bankruptcy may do so without having first paid the disputed tax in full.bankruptcy Tax Court judges are appointed for a term of 15 years, subject to removal for cause. Tax Court judges are appointed for a term of 15 years, subject to removal for cause.

14. The United States Court of International Trade replaced the old United States Customs Court. The United States Court of International Trade replaced the old United States Customs Court. The Court has nine Judges, of whom no more than five can be of the same political party, as well as Senior Judges. The Court has nine Judges, of whom no more than five can be of the same political party, as well as Senior Judges. The Court possesses limited subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that it may hear only cases involving particular international trade and customs law questions. The Court possesses limited subject matter jurisdiction, meaning that it may hear only cases involving particular international trade and customs law questions. subject matter jurisdiction international trade subject matter jurisdiction international trade

15. The United States Court of Federal Claims hears non- tort monetary claims against the U.S. government. The United States Court of Federal Claims hears non- tort monetary claims against the U.S. government.U.S. governmentU.S. government It hears claims for money that arise from the United States Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or an express or implied in fact contract with the United States Government. It hears claims for money that arise from the United States Constitution, federal statutes, executive regulations, or an express or implied in fact contract with the United States Government.United States Constitutionfederal statutesimplied in fact contractUnited States Constitutionfederal statutesimplied in fact contract Judges serve for 15-year terms and are eligible for reappointment. The sixteen judges of the court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Judges serve for 15-year terms and are eligible for reappointment. The sixteen judges of the court are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.PresidentconfirmedSenatePresidentconfirmedSenate

16. Federal courts are also given jurisdiction when certain people are involved. Examples are: (1.) ambassadors and other representatives of foreign governments; (2.) 2 or more state governments; (3.) the U.S. government or one of its agencies; (4.) citizens who are residents of different states; and (5.) citizens who are residents of same state but claim lands under grants of different states. Federal courts are also given jurisdiction when certain people are involved. Examples are: (1.) ambassadors and other representatives of foreign governments; (2.) 2 or more state governments; (3.) the U.S. government or one of its agencies; (4.) citizens who are residents of different states; and (5.) citizens who are residents of same state but claim lands under grants of different states.

17. Courts may have jurisdiction that is concurrent (shared). Courts may have jurisdiction that is concurrent (shared). Concurrent jurisdiction exists in a case involving people from different states in a dispute. In such a case, a person may sue in either federal or state court. Concurrent jurisdiction exists in a case involving people from different states in a dispute. In such a case, a person may sue in either federal or state court. If the person being sued insists, the case is heard in federal court. If the person being sued insists, the case is heard in federal court.

18. The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary. The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary.United States statute1789First United States CongressU.S. federal judiciaryUnited States statute1789First United States CongressU.S. federal judiciary Article III, section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court", and such inferior courts as Congress saw fit to establish. Article III, section 1 of the Constitution prescribed that the "judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court", and such inferior courts as Congress saw fit to establish. Constitution

19. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the United States.United StatesUnited States It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the of the Senate. It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the of the Senate.Chief Justice of the United States Associate JusticesPresidentSenateChief Justice of the United States Associate JusticesPresidentSenate Once appointed, Justices effectively have life tenure, serving "during good Behaviour“, which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment. Once appointed, Justices effectively have life tenure, serving "during good Behaviour“, which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.impeachment The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but it has original jurisdiction over a small range of cases The Court meets in Washington, D.C. in the United States Supreme Court building. The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court, but it has original jurisdiction over a small range of casesWashington, D.C.United States Supreme Court buildingappellate courtoriginal jurisdictionWashington, D.C.United States Supreme Court buildingappellate courtoriginal jurisdiction

20. The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

21. John Marshall shaped American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court a center of power. John Marshall shaped American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court a center of power. Marshall established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Marshall established that the courts are entitled to exercise judicial review, the power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. judicial review judicial review He repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law and supported an expansive reading of the enumerated powers. He repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law and supported an expansive reading of the enumerated powers. enumerated powers enumerated powers

22. Marbury v. Madison, formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the U.S. under Article III of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison, formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the U.S. under Article III of the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government).Supreme Courtunconstitutional judicial reviewbranch of governmentSupreme Courtunconstitutional judicial reviewbranch of government

23. Fletcher v. Peck (1810), was one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. Fletcher v. Peck (1810), was one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. It is the earliest case of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws conflicting with the Constitution. It is the earliest case of the Court asserting its right to invalidate state laws conflicting with the Constitution.

24. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819), was a case dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. (The state of New Hampshire converted the school from a private to a public institution.) Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819), was a case dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations. (The state of New Hampshire converted the school from a private to a public institution.)Contract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionContract ClauseUnited States Constitution Contracts, no matter how they were procured (in the case of Fletcher v. Peck, a land contract had been illegally obtained), cannot be invalidated by state legislation. Contracts, no matter how they were procured (in the case of Fletcher v. Peck, a land contract had been illegally obtained), cannot be invalidated by state legislation. Fletcher v. Peck Fletcher v. Peck

25. McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) – McCulloch v. Maryland, (1819) – Established the following two principles: Established the following two principles: The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. The Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government.implied powersimplied powers State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government. State action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.

26. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. Dred Scott v. Sandford ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.slavescitizens United Statesslavescitizens United States It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.United States Congressslavery territoriesUnited States Congressslavery territories The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. could not sue could not sue Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves — as private property — could not be taken away from their owners without due process. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves — as private property — could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

27. The Slaughter-House Cases, (1873) was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Slaughter-House Cases, (1873) was the first United States Supreme Court interpretation of the relatively new Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. United States Supreme CourtFourteenth AmendmentConstitution United States Supreme CourtFourteenth AmendmentConstitution It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it. It is viewed as a pivotal case in early civil rights law, reading the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the "privileges or immunities" conferred by virtue of the United States citizenship to all individuals of all states within it.civil rightscivil rights The 14 th Amendment, partially overturned the Dred Scott decision. The 14 th Amendment, partially overturned the Dred Scott decision.

28. Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal". constitutionalityracial segregationseparate but equal constitutionalityracial segregationseparate but equal "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in 1954. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in 1954.

29. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, (1954), overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, (1954), overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities.Plessy v. Fergusonpublic schoolsPlessy v. Fergusonpublic schools As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.de jureracial segregationEqual Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitutionde jureracial segregationEqual Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment United States Constitution This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement. This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement. integrationcivil rights movement integrationcivil rights movement

30. Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. Gideon v. Wainwright, (1963), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.Sixth Amendment ConstitutionSixth Amendment Constitution

31. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - The Court held that statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - The Court held that statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.Court interrogationdefendant policetrial prosecution attorneyself-incriminationCourt interrogationdefendant policetrial prosecution attorneyself-incrimination

32. United States v. Virginia, (1996), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute's long- standing male-only admission policy. United States v. Virginia, (1996), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute's long- standing male-only admission policy. Supreme Court of the United StatesVirginia Military Institutemale-only admission policy Supreme Court of the United StatesVirginia Military Institutemale-only admission policy The high court effectively struck down any law which "denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature — equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society." The high court effectively struck down any law which "denies to women, simply because they are women, full citizenship stature — equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society."

33. How do they decide which cases to hear? The Supreme Court decides to hear a case on three major factors. (1.) Whether it was an appeal by the federal court and is in conflict with the decisions of other circuits, (2.) the general importance of the case, and (3.) whether the lower court's decisions may be wrong in light of the Supreme Court's opinions. The Supreme Court decides to hear a case on three major factors. (1.) Whether it was an appeal by the federal court and is in conflict with the decisions of other circuits, (2.) the general importance of the case, and (3.) whether the lower court's decisions may be wrong in light of the Supreme Court's opinions.

34. A petition for a writ of certiorari is the documentation sent to the Supreme Court of the United States to request that they review a case. A petition for a writ of certiorari is the documentation sent to the Supreme Court of the United States to request that they review a case. A writ of certiorari ( L., "to be informed") is issued from any appellate court to a lower court requesting more information about a case - seeking judicial review. A writ of certiorari ( L., "to be informed") is issued from any appellate court to a lower court requesting more information about a case - seeking judicial review.

35. How do they decide a case? Once the Supreme Court accepts a case, (1.) the lawyers give the Court a written copy of the trial court proceedings, called the "record on appeal." Once the Supreme Court accepts a case, (1.) the lawyers give the Court a written copy of the trial court proceedings, called the "record on appeal." (2.) Then they write lengthy, detailed documents – called "briefs" – arguing their points and providing legal support for them. (2.) Then they write lengthy, detailed documents – called "briefs" – arguing their points and providing legal support for them. Next, (3.) the attorneys typically argue the merits of their cases orally before the Supreme Court. The Court considers these briefs and arguments in researching and deciding the cases. Next, (3.) the attorneys typically argue the merits of their cases orally before the Supreme Court. The Court considers these briefs and arguments in researching and deciding the cases.briefs and argumentsbriefs and arguments

36. The Supreme Court can transfer the case back to the court of appeals, affirm the trial court’s decision, reverse the trial court's decision or remand (send) the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court can transfer the case back to the court of appeals, affirm the trial court’s decision, reverse the trial court's decision or remand (send) the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.

37. The philosophy of judicial activism is the charge that judges are going beyond their appropriate powers and engaging in making law and not merely interpreting it. The philosophy of judicial activism is the charge that judges are going beyond their appropriate powers and engaging in making law and not merely interpreting it. Judicial activism is a critical term used by some to describe judicial rulings are based more upon the judge's personal bias than by existing law. Judicial activism is a critical term used by some to describe judicial rulings are based more upon the judge's personal bias than by existing law.judicial

38. Judicial restraint is a philosophy that upholds the tenets of democracy by meeting a responsibility to limit power in deference to policy governed by constitutional law. Judicial restraint is a philosophy that upholds the tenets of democracy by meeting a responsibility to limit power in deference to policy governed by constitutional law. philosophy constitutional law philosophy constitutional law Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power - judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional. Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power - judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.judges