1. The Judicial Branch

2. National Judiciary Under the Articles of Confederation, each state interpreted and applied the law as they saw fit. Our current judicial system was est. under Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution We work under a dual court system - National or Federal System - each State has a separate system(hear most of the cases)

3. The Federal Courts  The Constitution created the Supreme Court, and allowed Congress to create the lower federal courts. Two Types: 1. Constitutional Courts - 12 U.S. Courts of Appeals - 94 U.S. District Courts - Bankruptcy, International Trade 2. Special Courts - Federal Claims, Tax, Territorial - U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Services and Veterans Claims

4. The Federal Courts What “jurisdiction” do they have?  Hear cases involving: - the Constitution - Federal laws - law of the high seas - disputes involving the Federal government - disputes between states - disputes involving foreign governments  Everything else falls to the state or local courts

6. Terms and Pay of Judges Judges to the Constitutional Courts are appointed for life - or until they resign, die, or retire - can be removed via impeachment (13 total) - appointments are confirmed by the U.S. Senate Judges to the Special Courts are appointed to terms that vary from 4 to 15 years. Salaries are est. by Congress - U.S. District Judge, $189K - U.S. Court of Appeals, $200K - U.S Supreme Court, $230K Judges can retire at age 70, w/10 yrs. of service and full pay or at 65 w/15 years of service and full pay

7. The Supreme Court Highest court in the land. Est. by the Constitution. Supreme Court rarely has “ original jurisdiction”, meaning that the cases that they hear come from appeals. Two Instances: 1. a State is a party in a case 2. Cases affecting ambassadors, or other public ministers/consuls

8. Supreme Court How do cases reach the high court? Some 8,000 cases are appealed to the Supreme Court every year Court agrees w/the lower courts or the case involves “no significant point of law” “Rule of Four”: 4 of the 9 justices must decide to put a case on their docket “writ of certiorari”: Latin for “to be made certain” - either party in a case can petition the Supreme Court to issue a “writ”, directing the lower court to send up the record for its review

9. How the Court Operates Briefs are filed with the Court - Brief is a written document presenting arguments built on facts and the citation of previous cases Court hears oral arguments from lawyers on both sides Opinions: Majority opinion: officially called the Opinion of the Court Precedents: examples to be followed in similar cases in the future Dissenting opinion: written by justices who do not agree with the Court’s majority decision

10. U.S. Supreme Court 9 Justices: John Roberts, Chief Justice Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan

11. For Review……… 1. The Constitution created the ____________________, and allowed Congress to create the ________________________. Answers: Supreme Court/lower federal courts 2. What are the two types of courts? Answers: Constitutional/Special 3. Judges to the Constitutional Courts are appointed for ______________. Answer: life 4. Judicial appointments are confirmed by the _______________________. Answer: U.S. Senate 5. What is the “Rule of Four” Answer: 4 of the 9 justices must decide to put a case on their docket

12. The Supreme Court : Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism The Framers of our Constitution, by creating the Supreme Court, put it on an equal plane w/the President and Congress. Marbury v. Madison (1803), established the high courts power of “ judicial review”. Judicial review is the power of the courts to declare acts of the legislative and executive branches of government null and void if they violate provisions of the Constitution. Since the early 19 th Century, the debate has continued over how Federal judges should use the power. - practice restraint???? - or expand the scope of the Constitution via interpretation????

13. Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism  Proponents of Judicial Restraint believe that judges should always attempt to decide cases on the basis of: 1. original intent of those that wrote the Constitution 2. precedent that is line w/previous decisions 3. elected legislators, not appointed judges, should make the law  Supporters of Judicial Activism think judges should act more boldly. 1. The law should be interpreted and applied as our country has evolved (civil rights/social welfare issues).

14. Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism Restraint Judges should: look to the original Intent of the Constitution Look at the intent of the legislators that wrote the law Respectful of precedents Argue that changes to the Constitution can only be made thru the Amendment process Activism Judges should: Look beyond the original intent of the Framers “Living Constitution” (changes over time) Active action is necessary and appropriate at times Can be involved in interpreting and enlarging laws

15. Judicial Restraint Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Facts of the case: - Homer Plessy, an African-American, refused to sit in a “black- only” passenger rail car, breaking a Louisiana law - Judge John Ferguson upheld the law - Plessy appealed the decision stating it conflicted w/the 13 th and 14 th Amendments - court ruled 7-1 in favor of Ferguson, “ separate but equal” is constitutional - Dissenting opinion by Justice Harlan of KY., “ our Constitution is color-blind……..In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law”.

16. Judicial Activism Roe v. Wade (1973) Facts of the case: - Dallas resident Norma L. McCorvey, aka “Jane Roe”, sued claiming a Texas law criminalizing most abortions violated her constitutional rights - Texas law banned all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother - Roe claimed that while her life was not endangered, she could not afford to travel out of state and had a right to terminate her pregnancy in a safe medical environment - a 7-2 decision, Justice Blackmun wrote, “Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy” - Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" - Court then argued that the "zone of privacy" was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

17. Read the Handout entitled, “Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint”. Write a paragraph to the following prompt. If I were a Supreme Court judge, I would embrace the philosophy of (“Judicial Activism” or “Judicial Restraint”), because ………….