1. Constitutions Article I, Section 8.9 Article III, Section 1
2 sets of courts
And then 1 more set! – state level

2. II. Federal Court System – has 2 types
Article III courts
fall under rules of Article III
Life terms
Judges appointed by president and approved by senate
We Will be focusing on these
Special Courts fall under the rules set by Congress
Vary depending on court:
Terms range 7-14 yrs
Appointment/election
Rules
We will NOT be looking at these
Find sections in Constitution and read. Then review with slide

3. Judicial Branch

4. Judicial Branch All those cases! I. Some basics to our Judicial System
Adversary system
Due process
Equal Protection Clause
Presumption of innocence
This unit we are referencing many SC cases. This is because those cases clarify the Constitution, specifically many of your rights that are protected by the Constitution
Adversary system: 2 sides presented in court
Due Process: there is an organized way for justice to be served and in whatever it does, gov’t must act fairly and in accordance with rules. See 5th and 14th
Equal justice under the law: nothing can make people = in a literal sense. Const does not say word equality, but 14th Amendment has Equal Protection Clause, setting forth the democratic ideal that demands that government must treat all persons alike
Innocent until proven guilty: burden of proof falls on the accuser, need for unanimous verdict

5. Other basics of our judicial system
Civil law and criminal law
Federal Law vs State Law  2 court systems
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court to hear (to try and to decide) a case
Exclusive: only one court can hear a case
Concurrent: multiple courts can hear a case
Civil Law: involves cases between two parties – plaintiff and defendant in court, seeking damages for some wrong doing
Criminal Law: involves cases in which gov’t is charging one with crime (breaking the law) – prosecutor and defendant
Breaking federal law, will land you in federal court
Breaking state law will land you in a state court
Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court to hear (to try and to decide) a case.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the federal courts may hear a case because of either:
the subject matter or
the parties involved in the case.

6. Federal District Courts
94 courts throughout the US
The district courts hear a wide range of criminal cases and civil cases.
6th Amendment
Must have Federal District Courts throughout the US
The 94 federal judicial districts include at least one district in each State, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Larger and more populous States are divided into two or more districts, reflecting the larger amount of judicial work done there.
Read 6th Amendment – must have trial where the crime was committed, so need to have courts throughout country

7. III. How federal cases are appealed?

8. Appeals to the Supreme Court
A case may be appealed, potentially up to the Supreme Court
Supreme Court is just 9 people, how can they hear all the appeals from 94 District courts?
Appellate Courts/Circuit Courts/Courts of Appeals created in handle much of the burden that the Supreme Court faced in ruling on appealed cases.

9. The Appellate Courts

10. Jurisdiction
Original
Appellate
Exclusive
concurrent

11. The Constitution A vague document A framework (not a blueprint)
Judicial Review
The Constitution
A vague document
A framework (not a blueprint)

12. Examples of the Constitution’s ambiguity
Enumerated Powers + Elastic Clause
Implied powers
SCOTUS MAY define these powers, but if not, then Congress’s laws stand.
Supremacy Clause + 10th Amendment
Federalism: tension between gov’ts
War Powers (Articles I and II)
Tension between branches over war powers

13. Jurisprudence Judicial Activism Judicial Restraint
Defer to legislative and executive branches (elected officials) to make policy
Like strict constructionist thinking
Promote desirable social ends
Like loose constructionist thinking
“original intent” – framers’ intent
This moves with time. It is always relative:
during the New Deal of 1930s liberals opposed activism of the court in striking down social welfare programs
today many liberals favor court activism on behalf of civil rights

14. Judicial Review Not explicitly in Constitution
1803 Marbury v Madison (John Marshall – chief justice)
Marbury v Madison
Adams, Marshall – Federalists
Jefferson, Madison – Dem-Reps
Adams attempts court packing just before Jefferson takes office in Papers all signed, but not all delivered. Jefferson throws them away, so Madison does not deliver papers to Marbury.
Marbury really wanted to be Justice of the Peace for DC. Goes to SC to request a writ of mandamus (which would make Madison do his job). He believed the SC could issue mandamus b/c of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (which created all lower courts)
Marshall’s opinion
Marbury deserves commission b/c all legal steps completed. (Jefferson is a crook if he doesn’t make appt)
Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicts with III, which says SC has original and appellate jurisdiction – no room for mandamus
B/C Marshall struck down JA 1789 this gave SC power of judicial review

15. SCOTUS process Rule of 4 Writ of certiorari (certificate petition)
Stare decisis
Amicus Curiae
Majority Opinion = Opinion of the Court
Dissenting and Concurring opinions
Precedent established
Per curiam

16. The Power of a Court
Unanimous versus 5-4 decisions (9-0 = Establishing the principle)
Can make policy that violates majority will
Can make policy when Congress doesn’t (Civil Rights)
May (but often avoids b/c its too political) determine line between branches
Not taken case on War Powers Resolution
Clinton v NYC: no line-item veto
The power of the opinion and dissent

17. Court history Marshall Court (1801-35): Marbury, McCulloch, Gibbons.
Warren( ): civil rights, incorporating the Bill of Rights, ending prayer in school
Burger ( ): busing, brings back death penalty, Roe, anti gay rights, Chadha, US v Nixon
Rehnquist ( ): limited, but did not reverse, decisions from prior liberal courts
Marshall Court:
Marbury – strengthens court
Mcculloch – elastic clause, states cannot tax fed entitity
Gibbons – Commerce clause
Effects: strengthens national government, protect private property
Taney (1836) Dred Scott ;-(
how the economy should be regulated? Concerned with protecting private property. Upheld laws against labor union activities, struck down fed income tax, struck down child labor laws, interpreted 14th very narrowly – undermining its purpose. Segregation upheld: Plessy
1936 – 1953: changed interpretation of commerce clause to allow new deal policies. FDR was able to appoint several justices (8, including Hugo Black)
Warren Court : activist court Brown, Miranda, Gideon, Griswold, Mapp, Tinker. Former Ca Gov, Warren was political, able to get 9-0 on Brown decisions
Burger Court : Burger apptd by Nixon, Court becoming made up of Rep Pres nominees, but nonetheless, handed down many liberal decisions: Roe v Wade, US v Nixon
Rehnquist Court : by this time 7/9 justices appointed by Rep Pres. Conservatives dissatisfied with court decsions of Texas v Johnson and not overturning Roe. Court began to finally limit Congressional use of Commerce Clause in US v Morrison (Congress no power to pass VAWA) and US v Lopez (which overturned fed statute prohibiting guns in schools. Court also passed Printz v US (overturns part of Brady Bill)

18. Court today: Roberts Court
Citizens United and Speechnow.org
Upheld Obamacare (as a tax, not using commerce clause)
Marriage:
DOMA struck down
Voting Rights Act: parts struck down
Clockwise:Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg
Liberals: Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, Breyer
Conservative: Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts
Kennedy is middle man, with maybe Roberts, who was deciding vote in ObamaCare case

20. Since Marbury v Madison
Barron v Baltimore (1833)
Dred Scott v Sanford (1857)
US v Nixon (1974)
Roe v Wade(1973)
Texas v Johnson (1989)
Dred Scott: 1. Blacks could not become citizens of the US and were not entitled to rights/privileges of citizenship 2. Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional (banning slavery in new states unconstitutional) this case was disastrous, resolved by Civil War and 14th Amendment
US v Nixon: 9-0 forced Nixon to turn over tapes. First court test of scope of executive privilege. Exec privilege reasonable for protecting the process of presidential decision making and as vital ingredient of SOP doctrine. But, exec privilege must yield to rule of law so that criminal justice system would be preserved
Roe v Wade: 5-4 striking down state laws prohibiting abortion. Criminal laws that prohibit abortions except to save the life of the mother are unconstitutional violations of right to privacy embraced within the personal liberty protected by due process clause of the 14th. States may regulate. Many cases since add to policy (spouse consent not needed, state doesn’t have to provide funding for abortions, etc)
Texas v Johnson: American flag burning does not justify a criminal prosecution, therefore, no state law prohibiting it. At the time, 95% of Americans were outraged and supported laws to ban flag burning. Today, most agree with SC’s decision

21. Congressmen’s way of thinking about their job
Strict Constructionists
led by Jefferson, argued Congress should only be able to exercise:
its expressed powers and
those implied powers absolutely necessary to carry out those expressed powers.
Liberal/loose Constructionists
led by Hamilton, favored a liberal interpretation of the Constitution, a broad interpretation of the powers given to Congress.
Constitution is supposed to change with times