1. 14: The Federal Judicial System
Applying the Law

2. Differences between civil and criminal cases
Criminal cases: murder, assaults, burglary, rapes
Beyond a reasonable doubt
A possibility of prison time/jail
All 12 need to convict, one person can cause a mistrial and send it back to the prosecutor
Civil cases: divorce, child custody, property damage, contracts, torts (personal injury)
Preponderance of the evidence
No jail time/money compensated. Need 3 of 12
Need 10 out of 12 to convict in civil case

3. Indictment/Jurisdiction
The formal document issued by the grand jury which authorizes the government to proceed to trial against the defendant is called an indictment. Issue a true bill. A no bill is where they will not proceed to trial.
It does not prove guilt or innocence. It just that there is enough cause to proceed to trial. It is at trial that they determine the facts and how the law applies to those facts
Before any state or court can hear a case it must have jurisdiction, the authority to hear the case as defined by law or constitution

4. Check on the Powers of the Supreme Court
Presidents appoint justices to the Supreme Court and the Senate confirms the appointments
Congress can alter the jurisdiction of Supreme Court (seldom done because of the importance of preserving the objectivity of the Court
The Court’s decisions can be reversed by constitutional amendment (by Congress). Also, reverse or mitigate ruling by going back and rewording law to pass the concerns of the Supreme Court.
Judges can be impeached and removed from office

5. The Federal Judicial System
Constitution of the United States established the judiciary as a separate and independent branch
Also established the U.S. Supreme Court
Gave Congress the power to establish lower federal courts
All federal judges are nominated and appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate
No age, residency, or citizenship requirements are delineated in the Constitution; doesn’t require legal training, though by tradition they do
Nor does it set a limit on the time they can serve
Judges “hold their offices during good behavior”

6. The Supreme Court of the United States
Original jurisdiction: the authority to be the first court to hear a case
Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction:
Disputes involving foreign diplomats
Suits between states. Very rare. (South Carolina v. North Carolina ; dispute of water in the Catawba River).
Appeals to the Supreme Court from the numerous Court of Appeals is more common

7. The Supreme Court of the United States (2)
Appellate jurisdiction: the authority to review cases that have already been heard; Do not retry cases
Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction:
Cases arising under the Constitution, federal law and regulations, and treaties
Appeals to legal controversies that cross state or national boundaries
Appeals to the Supreme Court from the numerous Court of Appeals is more common
Article III of the constitution gives Congress the power to create “exceptions” to the Supreme court’s appellate jurisdiction, but cannot change its original

8. Selecting and Deciding Cases
Selecting a case:
Losing party in a lower court case appeals
If at least four justices agree to hear the case, the Court issues a writ of certiorari—a request for a record of the case
Court seldom accepts routine cases
Accepts fewer than 100 cases each year
There must be “compelling reasons” for accepting a case
About three-fourths of Supreme Court decisions reverse the lower court’s judgment

9. Figure 14-1 The Supreme Court’s Docket
The Supreme Court accepts only a small fraction of the roughly 8,000 cases appealed to it each year. The Court normally agrees to hear only those cases that have broad legal significance.
Source: Supreme Court of the United States. Figures based on yearly average for 1990–2015 period.

10. Figure 14-2 The Federal Judicial System
The simplified diagram shows the relationships among the various levels of federal courts and between state and federal courts. The losing party in a case can appeal a lower-court decision to the court at the next-highest level, as the arrows indicate. Decisions normally cannot be moved from state courts to federal courts unless they raise a U.S. constitutional issue, such as whether a defendant’s right to a fair trial has been violated.
Jump to long image description

11. Selecting and Deciding Cases (2)
Supreme Court hearing:
Attorney for each side presents oral argument, typically limited to 30 minutes
Each also provides a written brief
Only the nine justices attend the judicial conference, where the case is discussed and the justices vote
Proceedings are secret, allowing the justices to speak freely

12. Issuing Decisions and Opinions
Decision: indicates which party won the case
Opinion: explains the legal basis for the decision
Opinion types:
Majority opinion: a majority agree on the legal basis
Plurality opinion: view held by most justices who vote with the winning side but they disagree on the legal basis;
Concurring opinion: a separate view by a justice who agrees with the majority but disagrees with at least some of the reasoning
Dissenting opinion: one or more justices on the losing side explain the reason they disagree with the majority position

13. Issuing Decisions and Opinions
If Chief Justice part of the majority decision, he can write the decision itself or assign it to someone. If 9-0 decision, the chief justice will determine who will write the opinion.
If not part of the majority, the senior justice in the majority will write or assign to someone in the majority. 6-3 decision, then chief justice part of the 3, will not determine who will write the opinion
Possible combinations, 9-0, 8-1, ,5-4
Must have at least 5 to come to a decision and write the opinion

14. Other Federal Courts There are 94 U.S. district courts
Lowest of the federal courts
Chief trial courts of the federal system
Hear cases, evidence, cross-examination, jury
Courts of appeals offer the only real hope of reversal for most appellants

15. US Courts of Appeals (Intermediate Appellate Courts)
There are 13 Court of Appeals (4-26 judges but usually hear in panels of 3) also known as Circuit courts of appeals) for the Federal Court. Usually One for each of the 11 judicial circuits (or regions)
12th one DC Court of Appeal-Agency Regulations
The 13th court hears appeals in specialized cases, such as patent law, and cases appealed from the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims (cases in which US government is being sued for damages
Also, a US Court of Military appeals (court martial)

16. US Court of Appeals
Courts of appeals offer the only real hope of reversal for most appellants
Appellate courts do not retry cases; rather they determine whether the trial court has applied the law properly. Was a procedure omitted or is there a constitutional question (Fair trial/ omission of evidence)
You will not have cross-examinations, evidence presented. The attorneys will present briefs as to whether it should be reversed and/or oral arguments if requested by the judges

17. US Court of Appeals
Entire appeals court is called “en banc”(26 judges)
Usually here case in panels of 3;

18. Figure 14-3 Geographic Boundaries of U.S. Courts Of Appeals
The United States has 13 courts of appeals, each of which serves a “circuit.” Eleven of these circuit courts serve anywhere from three to nine states, as the map shows. The other two are located in the District of Columbia: the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in appeals involving patents and international trade. Within each circuit are federal trial courts, most of which are district courts. Each state has at least one district court within its boundaries. Larger states, such as California (which has four district courts, as can be seen on the map), have more than one.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.

19. The State Courts
Each state has its own court system and decides the structure of its courts and selection of judges
Election of judges is the most common form
In some states the governor appoints judges
Other states use the merit plan (or “Missouri Plan”)
Governor or legislature appoints judges from a list of acceptable candidates
Retention election decides whether a judge stays in office
More than 95 percent of the nation’s legal cases are decided by state or local courts (most of the murders, robberies, assaults, rapes etc.)

20. Principal Methods of Selecting State Judges
The states use a variety of methods for selecting judges on their highest court, including the merit system, election, and political appointment.
Source: The Council of State Governments. Reprinted with permission.

21. Federal Court Appointees
President selects nominees and the Senate confirms
Appointment of federal judges is a partisan issue
Federal judges and justices are not free of political views, and the courtroom gives them an opportunity to promote their beliefs

22. Supreme Court Nominees
Nominations allow a president to influence judicial policy for years, sometimes decades
Presidents nominate those with a similar political philosophy
George H. W. Bush replaced a very liberal justice (Marshall) with a very conservative one (Thomas). Clinton appointed Beyer and Ginsburg (liberal). Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan (both very liberal)

23. Supreme Court Nominees
Most nominee rejections occurred before 1900 for partisan reasons
Despite partisan reasons, can expect confirmation if they have a clean personal record and a strong professional record and are able to demonstrate during Senate confirmation hearings (temperate and intellect expected of a Supreme Court justice)
Bork an exception
2016 Gorsuch (very partisan battle)

24. Lower-Court Nominees
Task of identifying nominees is often delegated to the deputy attorney general
Presidents typically nominate members of their own political party
Nominees must be confirmed by the Senate
Senatorial courtesy: a tradition holding that a senator from the state with the vacancy should be consulted and can request confirmation be denied if the senator is the same party as the president ; Otherwise will try and delay
If not consulted, the senator can request that confirmation be denied and other senators will grant the request

25. Personal Backgrounds of Judicial Appointees
White males are overrepresented
Women and minority-group members have made substantial gains in recent decades
Most have been appointed by Democratic presidents
About two-thirds of Obama’s appointees are in this group
Supreme Court has also become more demographically representative
Supreme Court’s diversity of experience has diminished
Most appointees today come from the appellate courts

26. Figure 14-4 Political Parties, Presidents, and Women and Minority Judicial Appointees
Reflecting differences in their parties’ coalitions, recent Republican and Democratic presidents have quite different records in terms of the percentage of their judicial appointees who have been women or minority-group members. Note: The figures here are based on appointees of Presidents Carter, Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, Clinton, G. W. Bush, and Obama.
Sources: Various sources.

27. Table 14-1 Justices of the Supreme Court*
Year Appointed
Nominating President
Position before Appointment
Anthony Kennedy
1988
Reagan
Judge, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Clarence Thomas
1991
G. H. W. Bush
Judge, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
1993
Clinton
Stephen Breyer
1994
Judge, 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
John Roberts Jr.
2005
G. W. Bush
Samuel Alito Jr.
2006
Judge, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
Sonia Sotomayor
2009
Obama
Judge, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
Elena Kagan
2010
Solicitor general of the United States
* At the time of this book’s publication, there were only eight justices. The vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia had not yet been filled.

28. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making
Although federal judges make their decisions within the context of a legal system, they are political officials
Constitute one of three coequal branches of the national government
Decisions can have both legal and political impact

29. Legal Influences on Judicial Decisions
Constraints on federal courts
Court may only rule upon cases presented to it
Reactive instead of proactive. Can’t reach down and snatch a case before it goes through the channels of the Courts
Facts of a case: the relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense

30. Legal Influences on Judicial Decisions
Three primary sources of the law:
U.S. Constitution
Legislative statutes-sometimes judiciary has to impose meaning on statutory law because it was so vague. What the law or regulation was intended to protect but the statutory limitations are just as important to this meaning
Legal precedents (stare decisis).

31. Table 14-2 Sources of Law that Constrain the Decisions of the Federal Judiciary
U.S. Constitution: The federal courts are bound by the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The sparseness of its wording, however, requires the Constitution to be applied in the light of present circumstances. Thus, judges are accorded some degree of discretion in their constitutional judgments. Statutory law: The federal courts are constrained by statutes and by administrative regulations derived from the provisions of statutes. Many laws, however, are somewhat vague in their provisions and often have unanticipated applications. As a result, judges have some freedom in deciding cases based on statutes. Precedent: Federal courts tend to follow precedent (or stare decisis), which is a legal principle developed through earlier court decisions. Because times change and not all cases have a clear precedent, judges have some discretion in their evaluation of the way earlier cases apply to a current case.

32. Legal Influences on Judicial Decision
Law is not always a precise guide
Judicial leeway-Constitution sparsely worded document and must be adapted to new and changing situations. That is not the question however, it is when you take an existing statute and deny its existence. (death penalty and abortion was allowed, no technological changes but because we feel circumstances have changed we have the leeway to deny what the statute states ( Breyer and Scalia debate) and some judges deny the death penalty

33. Legal Influences on Judicial Decision
“Making” law ( Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998). Involved sexual harassment in the workplace.
It was deciding how legislation enacted by Congress (Civil Rights Act anti-discrimination)_ applied to behavior that Congress had not specifically addressed when it wrote the legislation.
Court was unwilling to dismiss sexual harassment as an irrelevant form of job-related discrimination

34. Political Influences on Judicial Decisions
Inside the Court
Judges’ political beliefs do play a role
Often vote in line with their political attitudes
Not all issues are clear-cut (reason why progresses up to Supreme Court). Supreme Court has less leeway in making their decisions than elected officials have in making their choices. Operate within the confines of established laws and legal principles which constrain their choices
But US v. Jones illustrates decisions based on law rather than politics ( GPS must have warrant)

35. Political Influences on Judicial Decisions
Outside the Court
Expectations of the public, groups, and elected officials also have importance
Court cannot move too far from public opinion
Interest groups file amicus curiae briefs to make their positions known
Elected Officials- Congressional legislation may be rewritten to address decisions they feel the judiciary (Supreme Court ) has misinterpreted. Cannot change constitutional decision (21 to vote, had to change to 18)
Judicial appointments offer the biggest opportunity to influence the courts

36. Judicial Power and Democratic Government
Judicial review: the power to declare a law to be unconstitutional
Precedent established in Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Court’s judgment is almost always the final word
Judiciary’s power has been a source of controversy
Unelected judiciary and the principle of majority rule
Judiciary at times has acted almost legislatively
Addressing broad social issues
Making policy (church-state relations, abortion)
Result of social and economic changes that have required government to play a larger role in society and generated series of new legal controversies

37. Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism
Judicial restraint: judges should abide strictly by precedent and legislation
Apply the law, never create it
Have the elected lawmakers not unelected judges create the law; address if blatantly overstep their authority (Unlike book, core principles are also addressed)
Judicial activism: courts should not blindly uphold the decisions of elected officials when core principles are at issue
Practiced by both liberal and conservative courts
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

38. What Is the Judiciary’s Proper Role?
Philosophical debates are inevitable
Constitution does not specify the method by which judges should arrive at their decisions
Judiciary acts within a governing system based on often-conflicting concepts:
Majority rule and Individual rights
Minority protections
Judiciary was not established as the nation’s final authority on all things relating to political power but
Judiciary was established as a coequal branch to protect individual rights and limit political authority

39. Critical Thinking
Define majority opinion, concurring opinion, and dissenting opinion in the context of Supreme Court decision making. What role is the majority opinion expected to play in decisions made by lower-court judges?
Contrast the doctrines of judicial restraint and judicial activism.

40. Critical Thinking (2)
Explain the influence of politics on the selection of Supreme Court justices and on the decisions the justices make. In comparison with lower-court judges, why would Supreme Court justices be expected to let their political beliefs play a greater role in their decisions? (Consider here the nature of the cases heard by the Supreme Court.)

41. Long image descriptions
Appendix A

42. Figure 14-2 The Federal Judicial System Appendix
Cases may move from the lower state courts to the state supreme courts and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cases may move from the U.S. district courts to the U.S. courts of appeals and from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Cases may originate in special federal courts (for example, Claims Court) and move from there to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Jump back to slide containing original image