The Federal Courts Chapter 15 Government in America Updated with 16 h Edition Edwards/Wattenberg

The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: Introduction: Two types of cases: Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws; robbery, rape, murder, etc. Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws; robbery, rape, murder, etc. Civil Law: The court resolves a dispute between two parties and defines the relationship between them; divorce, violations of civil rights, law suits, etc. Civil Law: The court resolves a dispute between two parties and defines the relationship between them; divorce, violations of civil rights, law suits, etc. Most cases are tried and resolved in state, not federal courts. Most cases are tried and resolved in state, not federal courts.

The Nature of the Judicial System Participants in the Judicial System Participants in the Judicial System Litigants Litigants Plaintiff - the party bringing the charge Plaintiff - the party bringing the charge Defendant - the party being charged Defendant - the party being charged Jury - the people (normally 12) who decide the outcome of a case Standing to sue: plaintiffs have a serious interest in the case; have sustained or likely to sustain a direct injury from another party or an action of the government; class action lawsuits have expanded the idea of standing to sue Justiciable disputes: A case must be capable of being settled as a matter of law.

The Nature of the Judicial System Participants in the Judicial System Participants in the Judicial System Attorneys Attorneys 800,000 lawyers in United States today 800,000 lawyers in United States today Legal Services Corporation: lawyers to assist the poor, funded by the federal government Legal Services Corporation: lawyers to assist the poor, funded by the federal government Access to quality lawyers is not equal. Access to quality lawyers is not equal. Groups Groups NAACP, ACLU, etc. NAACP, ACLU, etc. Use the courts to try to change policies Use the courts to try to change policies Amicus Curiae briefs used to influence the courts Amicus Curiae briefs used to influence the courts “friend of the court” briefs used to raise additional points of view and information not contained in briefs of formal parties “friend of the court” briefs used to raise additional points of view and information not contained in briefs of formal parties

Figure 16.1 The Structure of the Federal Judicial System

Structure of the Federal Judicial System US Supreme Court was the ONLY court established by the Constitution. All other courts in the federal system were left to the discretion of Congress to create. They did so through the Judiciary Act of These “Constitutional Courts” include 94 district courts and 12 courts of appeal US Supreme Court was the ONLY court established by the Constitution. All other courts in the federal system were left to the discretion of Congress to create. They did so through the Judiciary Act of These “Constitutional Courts” include 94 district courts and 12 courts of appeal Legislative Courts: courts for specialized purposes: Court of Military Appeals, Court of Claims, Court of International Trade, Tax Court Legislative Courts: courts for specialized purposes: Court of Military Appeals, Court of Claims, Court of International Trade, Tax Court Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction: Original: courts in which a case must be heard FIRST, usually in a trial. They determine the facts in the case. Can be criminal or civil cases. 90% of cases start and end here. Original: courts in which a case must be heard FIRST, usually in a trial. They determine the facts in the case. Can be criminal or civil cases. 90% of cases start and end here. Appellate: courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from the lower courts. They don’t review the facts of the case, just the legal issues involved Appellate: courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from the lower courts. They don’t review the facts of the case, just the legal issues involved

The Structure of the Federal Judicial System District Courts () District Courts (94 federal district courts) Original Jurisdiction: courts that hear the case first and determine the facts - the trial court. ONLY federal court that holds trial and empanels a jury Original Jurisdiction: courts that hear the case first and determine the facts - the trial court. ONLY federal court that holds trial and empanels a jury Deals with the following types of cases: Deals with the following types of cases: Federal crimes Federal crimes Civil suits under federal law or involving litigants across state lines (diversity of citizenship cases) Civil suits under federal law or involving litigants across state lines (diversity of citizenship cases) Bankruptcy Bankruptcy Review of some federal agencies Review of some federal agencies Admiralty and maritime law cases Admiralty and maritime law cases Naturalization of aliens Naturalization of aliens

The Structure of the Federal Judicial System Courts of Appeal (also called Circuit Cts) Courts of Appeal (also called Circuit Cts) Appellate Jurisdiction: reviews the legal issues in cases brought from lower courts Appellate Jurisdiction: reviews the legal issues in cases brought from lower courts Hold no trials and hear no testimony Hold no trials and hear no testimony 12 circuit courts, 179 judges total, most cases heard by a panel of 3 judges, decisions made by majority vote 12 circuit courts, 179 judges total, most cases heard by a panel of 3 judges, decisions made by majority vote U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – specialized cases (patents, claims against the US, international trade) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit – specialized cases (patents, claims against the US, international trade) Focus on errors of procedure and law Focus on errors of procedure and law Their decisions set precedent for all the courts and agencies within their jurisdiction Their decisions set precedent for all the courts and agencies within their jurisdiction

The Structure of the Federal Judicial System

The Supreme Court The Supreme Court Ensures uniformity in interpreting national laws, resolves conflicts among states and maintains national supremacy in law Ensures uniformity in interpreting national laws, resolves conflicts among states and maintains national supremacy in law 9 justices – 1 Chief Justice, 8 Associate Justices 9 justices – 1 Chief Justice, 8 Associate Justices Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear— controls its own agenda Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear— controls its own agenda Some original jurisdiction, but mostly appellate jurisdiction Some original jurisdiction, but mostly appellate jurisdiction Most cases come from the federal courts Most cases come from the federal courts Most are civil cases Most are civil cases

US Supreme Court 2009 Front Row: Kennedy born 7/23/36 – Reagan, Stevens born 4/20/20 – Ford, Chief Justice Roberts born 1/27/55 – GW Bush, Scalia born 3/11/36 – Reagan, Souter born 9/17/39 – GHW Bush Back Row: Breyer born 8/15/38 – Clinton, Thomas born 6/23/48 – GHW Bush, Ginsburg born 3/15/33 – Clinton, Alito born 4/1/50 – GW Bush

Supreme Court

The Structure and Flow of the Federal Judicial System

The Structure of the Federal Judicial System

The Politics of Judicial Selection Presidents appoint members of the federal courts with “advice and consent” of the Senate. Presidents appoint members of the federal courts with “advice and consent” of the Senate. The Lower Courts The Lower Courts Appointments handled through Senatorial Courtesy: Appointments handled through Senatorial Courtesy: Unwritten tradition where a judge is not confirmed if a senator of the president’s party from the state where the nominee will serve opposes the nomination Unwritten tradition where a judge is not confirmed if a senator of the president’s party from the state where the nominee will serve opposes the nomination Has the effect of the president approving the Senate’s choice Has the effect of the president approving the Senate’s choice President has more influence on appellate level President has more influence on appellate level White House, DOJ and FBI do background checks of initial nominees White House, DOJ and FBI do background checks of initial nominees

The Politics of Judicial Selection The Supreme Court The Supreme Court Fewer constraints on president to nominate persons to Supreme Court Fewer constraints on president to nominate persons to Supreme Court President relies on Attorney General and DOJ to screen candidates President relies on Attorney General and DOJ to screen candidates 1 out of 5 nominees will not make it 1 out of 5 nominees will not make it Presidents with minority party support in the Senate will have more difficulty. Presidents with minority party support in the Senate will have more difficulty. Chief Justice can be chosen from a sitting justice – Rehnquist (has to go through a new confirmation hearing), or as a new member to the Court - Roberts Chief Justice can be chosen from a sitting justice – Rehnquist (has to go through a new confirmation hearing), or as a new member to the Court - Roberts

The Backgrounds of Judges and Justices Characteristics: Characteristics: Generally white males Generally white males 4 women – O’Connor, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan 4 women – O’Connor, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan 2 African Americans – Marshall and Thomas 2 African Americans – Marshall and Thomas Lawyers with judicial and often political experience Lawyers with judicial and often political experience Other Factors: Other Factors: Generally of the same party and ideology as the appointing president Generally of the same party and ideology as the appointing president Judges and justices may not rule the way presidents had hoped they would have. Judges and justices may not rule the way presidents had hoped they would have.

Figure 16.4 Accepting Cases Accepting Cases Use the “rule of four” to choose cases Use the “rule of four” to choose cases Issues a writ of certiorari to call up the case Issues a writ of certiorari to call up the case Supreme Court accepts few cases each year Supreme Court accepts few cases each year

Figure 16.5 The Courts as Policymakers Making Decisions Making Decisions Oral arguments heard by the justices Oral arguments heard by the justices Justices discuss the case Justices discuss the case One justice will write the majority opinion (statement of legal reasoning behind a judicial decision) on the case One justice will write the majority opinion (statement of legal reasoning behind a judicial decision) on the case

The Courts as Policymakers Accepting Cases (continued) Accepting Cases (continued) The Solicitor General: The Solicitor General: a presidential appointee and third-ranking office in the Department of Justice a presidential appointee and third-ranking office in the Department of Justice is in charge of appellate court litigation of the federal government is in charge of appellate court litigation of the federal government Four key functions Four key functions Decide whether to appeal cases the government lost Decide whether to appeal cases the government lost Review and modify briefs presented in appeals Review and modify briefs presented in appeals Represent the government before the Supreme Court Represent the government before the Supreme Court Submit a brief on behalf of a litigant in a case in which the government is not directly involved Submit a brief on behalf of a litigant in a case in which the government is not directly involved

The Courts as Policymakers Making Decisions (continued) Making Decisions (continued) Dissenting opinions are written by justices who oppose the majority. Dissenting opinions are written by justices who oppose the majority. Concurring opinions are written in support of the majority but stress a different legal basis. Concurring opinions are written in support of the majority but stress a different legal basis. Stare decisis: let previous decision stand unchanged Stare decisis: let previous decision stand unchanged Precedent: how similar past cases were decided Precedent: how similar past cases were decided May be overruled May be overruled Originalism: the idea that the Constitution should be viewed according to the original intent of the framers Originalism: the idea that the Constitution should be viewed according to the original intent of the framers

The Courts as Policymakers Implementing Court Decisions Implementing Court Decisions Judicial implementation: how and whether court decisions are translated into actual policy, thereby affecting the behavior of others Judicial implementation: how and whether court decisions are translated into actual policy, thereby affecting the behavior of others Must rely on others to carry out decisions Must rely on others to carry out decisions Interpreting population: understand the decision Interpreting population: understand the decision Implementing population: the people who need to carry out the decision – may be disagreement Implementing population: the people who need to carry out the decision – may be disagreement Consumer population: the people who are affected (or could be) by the decision Consumer population: the people who are affected (or could be) by the decision

The Courts and Public Policy A Historical Review A Historical Review John Marshall and the Growth of Judicial Review John Marshall and the Growth of Judicial Review Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review— courts determine constitutionality of acts of Congress Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review— courts determine constitutionality of acts of Congress The “Nine Old Men” (New Deal Era) The “Nine Old Men” (New Deal Era) New Deal actions were challenged in the Court New Deal actions were challenged in the Court FDR starts Court-packing plan FDR starts Court-packing plan The Warren Court ( ) The Warren Court ( ) VERY active in shaping public policy VERY active in shaping public policy Brown v Board, Gideon v Wainwright, Mapp v Ohio, Miranda v Arizona, Baker v Carr, school prayer Brown v Board, Gideon v Wainwright, Mapp v Ohio, Miranda v Arizona, Baker v Carr, school prayer The Burger Court The Burger Court Nixon chose Burger because he wanted a more conservative court Nixon chose Burger because he wanted a more conservative court Roe v Wade, US v Nixon Roe v Wade, US v Nixon The Rehnquist Court (1990s) The Rehnquist Court (1990s) Conservative court Conservative court Bush v Gore Bush v Gore

Understanding the Courts The Courts and Democracy The Courts and Democracy Courts are not very democratic. Courts are not very democratic. Not elected Not elected Difficult to remove judges and justices Difficult to remove judges and justices The courts often reflect popular majorities. The courts often reflect popular majorities. Groups are likely to use the courts when other methods fail, which promotes pluralism. Groups are likely to use the courts when other methods fail, which promotes pluralism. There are still conflicting rulings leading to deadlock and inconsistency. There are still conflicting rulings leading to deadlock and inconsistency.

Understanding the Courts What Courts Should Do: The Scope of Judicial Power What Courts Should Do: The Scope of Judicial Power Judicial restraint: judges should play a minimal policymaking role Judicial restraint: judges should play a minimal policymaking role Judicial activism: judges should make bold policy decisions and even chart new constitutional ground Judicial activism: judges should make bold policy decisions and even chart new constitutional ground Political questions: means of the federal courts to avoid deciding some cases Political questions: means of the federal courts to avoid deciding some cases Statutory construction: the judicial interpretation of an act of Congress. If Congress doesn’t like the interpretation they can pass new laws to clarify the legislation Statutory construction: the judicial interpretation of an act of Congress. If Congress doesn’t like the interpretation they can pass new laws to clarify the legislation

Summary Judicial policymaking and implementation occur in lower federal and state courts. Judicial policymaking and implementation occur in lower federal and state courts. Many important questions are heard by the courts. Many important questions are heard by the courts. Much decision making is limited by precedent. Much decision making is limited by precedent. Even the unelected courts promote democratic values. Even the unelected courts promote democratic values.