Institutions of Government Unit 4, Part III: Judicial Branch 35-45%

Evolution of the Judiciary Role of the Judicial Branch interpret the law Intent of the Framers judges explain and apply existing laws expected judicial review but not such a big stake in policy making federal judges have became more activist over time and retained authority to create policy liberal judges tend to be more activist and conservative tend to be more strict judge can be both conservative and activist and liberal and strict

Evolution of the Judiciary 1789 to 1861 federal v. state authority interstate commerce under federal authority state law conflicting with federal law void Marbury v. Madison, 1803 Judicial review McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 federal authority interpreted broadly

Evolution of the Judiciary 1865 to 1936 economic authority of state and federal governments narrow interpretation of 14th and 15th amendments segregation poll taxes Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 private property protected by 14th amendment

Evolution of the Judiciary 1936 to the present political liberty court packing plan (FDR) Court defers to legislature for economic regulation Warren Court established civil liberties incorporation of Bill of Rights in 1990s, the Court allowed states to resist some federal authority

Selecting Justices Presidential Nomination All federal judges require senate approval the process is partisan delays in approval leave vacancies in appellate and district courts Senatorial Courtesy nominees for federal courts receive approval from senators of that state if they are from the President’s party

Selecting Justices Litmus Test President looks for justices that share ideology concern that ideology too dominant and senate approval slower

Structure of the Federal Courts Legislative Courts created to help Congress carry out expressed powers judges have fixed terms and can be removed Tax Court Military Court

Structure of the Federal Courts Constitutional Courts shoulder workload with the Supreme Court under Article III judges have life terms and can be impeached but not removed District Courts (94) Courts of Appeals (12)

Structure of the Federal Courts Judiciary Act, 1789 est. Supreme Court with six justices created 13 judicial districts created traveling “circuit” courts created Attorney General

Structure of the Federal Courts Federal District Courts 89 districts in 50 states, 1 in D.C., 1 in Puerto Rico (632 judges) life term - $140,000 hear 80% of federal workload (300,000 cases per year) criminal and civil cases that do not create new public policy regularly use jury

Structure of the Federal Courts Federal Courts of Appeal (12) 179 justices serve in 12 courts all 50 states and territories divided into 11 districts plus one in D.C. life term hear 19% of federal workload (30,000 cases per year) typically sit in panels of three with no jury more difficult cases demanding interpretation of Constitution

Federal Jurisdiction Dual-Court System cases fall under state and/or federal jurisdiction Federal Jurisdiction federal jurisdiction applies for two factors 1.subject matter case involves federal laws, treaties, or the Constitution 2.parties involved case involves federal government diversity cases: different states or citizens of different states

Federal Jurisdiction Multiple Jurisdiction if both federal and state laws have been broken State Courts State court – state Supreme Court – Supreme Court State court rulings may still be appealed to the Supreme Court Supreme Court State Supreme Court State Court

Supreme Court State Supreme Court Appeals Court District Court State Court Line of Jurisdiction

Federal Jurisdiction Standing personal harm must be demonstrated sovereign immunity historically only citizens can challenge the government Worcester v. Georgia Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

Road to the Supreme Court Rule of Four takes four Supreme Court justices to issue a writ of certiorari only about 100 cases heard each year by the Supreme Court most cases rejected by the courts leaves diversity of constitutional interpretation across the nation

Road to the Supreme Court Reasons for Writ of Cert significant Federal/Constitutional question conflicting decisions by lower courts clarifying or reversal of Constitution interpretation made by lower court

The Supreme Court in Action Presentations to the Court each side of a case submits a brief this is a summary of the case plus case precedent justices can question you during that time solicitor general represents the U.S. before the Supreme Court gets to review cases before they get to Supreme Court (has influence) amicus curiae a brief submitted by an uninvolved party

The Supreme Court in Action Deliberations John Roberts, the chief justice, speaks first and votes last each of the nine justices gets one vote reasoning for the case is summarized as an opinion

The Court Today Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg

Elena Kagan born in NY in 1960 Princeton University Worcester College Oxford University dean of Harvard Law Obama – 2010 Sonia Sotomayor born in Bronx in 1954 Princeton University Assistant DA in NYC 2 nd Court of Appeals Obama – 2009 Samuel Alito, Jr. born in NJ in 1950 Princeton University Yale Law Assistant US Attorney 3 rd Court of Appeals Bush – 2006 Stephen Breyer born in SF in 1938 Stanford University Oxford Harvard Law School 1 st Court of Appeals Clinton – 1994 Ruth Bader Ginsberg born in NY in 1933 Cornell, BA Harvard Law Columbia Law DC Court of Appeals Clinton – 1993 Clarence Thomas born in GA in 1948 Holy Cross College Yale Law School DC Court of Appeals Bush – 1991 Anthony M. Kennedy born in CA in 1936 Stanford University London School of Economics Harvard Law 9 th Court of Appeals Reagan – 1988 Antonin Scalia born in NJ in 1936 Georgetown University University of Fribourg Harvard Law DC Court of Appeals Reagan – 1986 John G. Roberts, Jr. born in NY in 1955 Harvard College Harvard Law DC Court of Appeals Bush – 2005

The Supreme Court in Action majority opinion explanation of courts decision (considered as important as the decision itself) concurring opinion gives other reasoning for the majority decision (considered as important as the decision itself) dissenting opinion explains an alternative understanding of the case

The Power of the Federal Courts Measures of Judicial Power over 130 laws have been declared unconstitutional since 1810, over 260 cases have been overturned stare decisis “to stand by things decided” lawyers reference previous decisions of the court similar in circumstances or content to the case at hand

The Power of the Federal Courts Checks on Judicial Power courts rely on others to implement their decisions South after Brown v. Board Jackson and Indian Removal overturning Supreme Court decisions 1.revising legislation 2.amending the Constitution 3.future Supreme Court decisions 4.altering the jurisdiction of the courts (changing boundaries) 5.changing number of justices

Policy-making Power of the Courts Judicial Activism making a ruling that creates a new policy for the entire nation this has increased over the years Roe vs. Wade, 1973 Gideon vs. Wainwright, 1963 when a justice’s personal convictions ignore the rule of law declaring a law unconstitutional when it is not upholding an unconstitutional law overturning a standing precedent (Bush v. Gore, 2000)

Policy-making Power of the Courts Arguments for activism 1.the other two branches are too politically biased, only the courts are able to make fair, objective policy 2.streamlines the process, because judges aren’t bogged down by the lawmaking process

Policy-making Power of the Courts Judicial Restraint courts should merely review actions of the other two branches

Policy-making Power of the Courts Arguments for Restraint 1.courts are not accountable (not elected) 2.lawmaking is strictly the job of the legislative branch who are elected specifically for that purpose 3.judges lack the expertise to create and manage policy

Policy-making Power of the Courts Public Opinion and the Courts outside the pressure of public opinion affects judges when getting appointed to the courts may affect public’s perception of the court’s legitimacy