1. JUDICIAL BRANCH

3. Current Supreme Court Justices

4. John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice born in Buffalo, New York, January 27, 1955
President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat September 29, 2005.
Neal Gorsuch
Associate Justice
Born in Denver Colorado, August 29, 1967
President Trump nominated him for Justice and was confirmed April 10, 2017

5. Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice
President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988.
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, June 23, 1948.
President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 23, 1991.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice
President Clinton. She was born March 15, 1933, nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat August 10, 1993
Stephen G. Breyer, born August 15, Associate Justice
President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994.

6. Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
was born in Trenton, New Jersey, April 1, 1950
President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat January 31, 2006.
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice
was born in Bronx, New York, on June 25, 1954
President Barack Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she assumed this role August 8, 2009
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice
was born in New York, New York, on April 28, 1960
President Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 10,  She took her seat on August 7, 2010.
Neal Gorsuch
Associate Justice

7. Articles of Confederation
During years of under Articles ( ) there were no national courts & no national judiciary.
Question?? What recourse did a person have if s/he felt he had an unfair trial?
Each state settled disputes by the court in that state. Decisions made in one state were often ignored in other states.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist No. 22: “the want of a judiciary power” as a “circumstance which crowns the defects of the Confederation.”
Arguing for a national court system: “laws are a dead letter without the courts to expound & define their true meaning & operation.

8. Framers created a national judiciary in single sentence of the Constitution:
“The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”
--- Article III, Section 1

10. Dual Court System There are TWO separate court systems in the U.S.
The NATIONAL JUDICIARY spans the country with more than 120 courts.
The States each have their own system of courts, which run into the thousands and hear most of the cases in the country.

12. Two Kinds of Federal (National) Courts
Constitutional Courts (Also: Regular Courts or Article III Courts).
Congress formed under Art. III to exercise “the Judicial power of the United States.”
Include the courts of appeals, district courts, & U.S. Court of International Trade.

13. Special Courts (also: Legislative Courts)
Do not exercise the broad “judicial power of the United States.”
Created by Congress to hear cases out of some of the expressed powers given to Congress in Art. I.
Hear a narrower range of cases than Constitutional courts.
Include: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. Tax Courts, courts of the District of Columbia, and other territorial courts.

14. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction is a term that refers to whether a court has the power to hear a given case. Jurisdiction is important because it limits the power of a court to hear certain cases.
If courts did not exercise appropriate jurisdiction, every court could conceivably hear every case brought to them, which would lead to confusing and contradictory results.

15. The concept of jurisdiction is easier to understand in state courts
The concept of jurisdiction is easier to understand in state courts. Every state has its own court system to hear cases arising from that state.
Suppose that a citizen of Mississippi sued a citizen of Alabama in a case involving a real estate transaction that took place in Georgia. The case could be brought in state court in Mississippi, or Alabama, because of where the parties live, or in Georgia, because of where the property at issue is located. However, such a case could not be brought in the state of Alaska, because none of the parties live there, and the state of Alaska has no attachment to the case at all. The Alaska court would dismiss any claims in this example because it would not have the appropriate jurisdiction.

16. A federal court, on the other hand, has more extensive jurisdiction than a state court. While the jurisdiction of state courts are limited by their boundaries, the federal court system covers the entire nation.
For example, the Supreme Court can hear cases from any state. Federal Courts of Appeals can hear cases from any of the states in their region (except for the D.C. Circuit, which only hears cases from the District of Columbia). The federal courts also have jurisdiction on some cases where one party is outside of the United States of America.

17. Federal courts are generally said to have "federal question" jurisdiction, which means that federal courts will hear cases that involve issues touching on the Constitution or other federal laws.
The source of "federal question" jurisdiction can be found in the Constitution. Article III states that the "judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."

18. For example, a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over rent would normally not be a "federal question", since relationships between landlords and tenants come under state law, rather than federal law. However, the tenant could argue that she was being discriminated against on the basis of race. A federal law, the Fair Housing Act, protects the rights of tenants against racial discrimination. If the tenant claims that the landlord is violating the Fair Housing Act in a discriminatory fashion, she could bring her case in federal court because it raises a "federal question."

19. Constitution gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain cases.
Article II, Section 2 provides that the federal courts may hear a case because of:
The subject matter
The parties involved in the case.

20. Subject Matter of a Case:
The interpretation & application of a provision in the Constitution or in any federal statute or treaty
A question of admiralty law – matters that arise on the high seas or navigable U.S. waters.
Example: collision at sea or crime aboard ship
A question of maritime law – matters arising on land but directly relating to water.
Example: a contract to deliver a ship’s supplies at dockside.

21. Parties involved in the Case:
The United States or one of its officers or agencies.
An ambassador, consul, or other official representative of a foreign government.
One of the 50 States suing another State, a resident of another State, or a foreign government, or one of its subjects.
A citizen of one State suing a citizen of another State.
A U.S. citizen suing a foreign government or one of its subjects.
A citizen of one State suing a citizen of that same State where both claim land under grants from different States.

22. Types of Jurisdiction
Exclusive Jurisdiction: in some cases only federal courts can hear a case.
Examples: person charged with a federal crime or a case involving an ambassador from a foreign nation.
Concurrent Jurisdiction: when a case can be heard in either the federal courts or states courts.
Example: citizens from different states (known as diverse citizenship) if the amount exceeds $75k.

23. Original Jurisdiction: a court in which a case is first heard has original jurisdiction.
Appellate Jurisdiction: a court that hears a case on appeal from a lower court has appellate jurisdiction.
In the federal system:
District courts have only original jurisdiction.
Court of Appeals have only appellate jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court exercises both original and appellate jurisdiction.

24. Appointment of Judges The Constitution declares that the President
“Shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court. . . “
Article II, Section II, Clause 2
Senate has major role through senatorial courtesy, which gives great weight to preferences of the senators from the State in which a federal judge is to serve.
President almost always nominates someone who has been recommended by the senators from the State involved.

25. Article II, Section 1: “The judges, both of the Supreme Courts & inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. . . “ meaning judges of Constitutional Courts are appointed for life. They may be impeached for misconduct.
13 federal judges were impeached, 7 were convicted by the Senate and removed:
John Pickering (NH, district court), judicial misconduct and drunkenness (1804).
West Humphreys (TN), disloyalty (1862)
Robert Archibald (Commerce Court, 1913) improper relations with litigants.
Halsted Ritter (FL, 1936) judicial misconduct.
Walter Nixon (MS, 1989) for perjury.

26. Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and "legislate" from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.
"the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."
"a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions

27. Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional
Judicial restraint requires the judge to uphold a law whenever possible.

28. Court Officers Magistrates: appointed for 8-year terms.
Issue warrants of arrest
Hear evidence to decide whether or not a person who has been arrested on a federal charge should be held for action by a grand jury.
Set bail in federal criminal cases.
Have power to try minor cases.
Bankruptcy Judge: handle bankruptcy cases under direction of district court to which they are assigned.
Appointed for 14-year terms.
U.S. Marshals: perform duties much like a county sheriff.
Make arrests in federal criminal cases.
Hold accused in custody.
Secure jurors
Serve legal papers
Keep order in court rooms, execute court orders and decisions.

29. Due Process of Law
is the principle that the government must respect all of a person's legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property.
dates all the way back to the Magna Carta of A.D In Chapter 39 of the Magna Carta, King John of England promised as follows: "No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or seized or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.“

30. Due Process of Law
Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness". As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings.
Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction.

31. Due Process of Law
In 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental."
Most courts have viewed the due process clause, and sometimes other clauses of the Constitution, as embracing those fundamental rights that are "implicit in ordered liberty."
Just what those rights are is not always clear. Some of these rights have long histories or "are deeply rooted" in our society.

32. Due Process of Law
The 13th , 14th, & 15th Amendments (Reconstruction Amendments) were added to protect newly freed African-Americans.
Due Process Clause: no state may deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

33. Plessy v. Ferguson
On June 7, 1892, a 30-year-old colored shoemaker named Homer Plessy was jailed for sitting in the "White" car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was one-eighths black and seven-eighths white, but under Louisiana law, he was considered black and therefore required to sit in the "Colored" car.
Plessy went to court and argued, in Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
The judge at the trial was John Howard Ferguson, a lawyer from Massachusetts who had previously declared the Separate Car Act "unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states."
In Plessy's case, however, he decided that the state could choose to regulate railroad companies that operated only within Louisiana. He found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car.
Plessy appealed to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which upheld Ferguson's decision.

34. Plessy v. Ferguson
In 1896, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Plessy's case and found him guilty once again. Speaking for a seven-person majority, Justice Henry Brown wrote:
"That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery...is too clear for argument...A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races -- a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color -- has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races...The object of the [Fourteenth A]mendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either."

35. Plessy v. Ferguson
The lone dissenter, Justice John Harlan, showed incredible foresight when he wrote
"Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law...In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case...The present decision, it may well be apprehended, will not only stimulate aggressions, more or less brutal and irritating, upon the admitted rights of colored citizens, but will encourage the belief that it is possible, by means of state enactments, to defeat the beneficient purposes which the people of the United States had in view when they adopted the recent amendments of the Constitution."

36. Plessy v. Ferguson
The Plessy decision set the precedent that "separate" facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional as long as they were "equal." The "separate but equal" doctrine was quickly extended to cover many areas of public life, such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools. Not until 1954, in the equally important Brown v. Board of Education decision, would the "separate but equal" doctrine be struck down.
Liberals brought suit against this new state constitution, called the Mississippi Plan. The suit made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. In 1897, a case entitled Williams v. Mississippi was heard and decided by the Supreme Court which, in its august wisdom, upheld the 1890 Mississippi Plan to deny African-Americans access to the vote.

37. SC justices during Plessy v. Ferguson

38. Homer Plessy

39. The lone dissenter,
Justice John Harlan

40. Voting Restrictions: In 1890, a new constitutional convention in the State of Mississippi wrote a new constitution in which there was a direct clause stating that Negroes were denied the right to vote because as long as they had voted, corruption, fraud, had characterized government in the state of Mississippi. There was a "purity" clause in the new constitution that said, "To restore purity to the governance of the state of Mississippi blacks must no longer be allowed to vote."

41. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas 1954
In Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school, but the principal of the school refused. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and asked for help. The NAACP was eager to assist the Browns, as it had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools.
With Brown's complaint, it had "the right plaintiff at the right time." Other black parents joined Brown, and, in 1951, the NAACP requested an injunction that would forbid the segregation of Topeka's public schools.

42. Brown v. Board of Education
The Board of Education's defense: because segregation in Topeka and elsewhere pervaded many other aspects of life, segregated schools simply prepared black children for the segregation they would face during adulthood. Also argued that segregated schools were not necessarily harmful to black children; great African Americans such as Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver had overcome more than just segregated schools to achieve what they achieved.
Brown and the NAACP appealed to the Supreme Court on October 1, The Supreme Court first heard the case on December 9, 1952, but failed to reach a decision. In the reargument, heard from December 7-8, 1953, the Court requested that both sides discuss "the circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868."
The Court had to make its decision based not on whether or not the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment had desegregated schools in mind when they wrote the amendment in 1868, but based on whether or not desegregated schools deprived black children of equal protection of the law when the case was decided, in 1954.

43. Brown v. Board of Education
On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:
"We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

46. Thurgood Marshall

48. U.S. Supreme Court SC has both original & appellate jurisdiction.
Article III, S.2 sets the Court’s original jurisdiction.
It covers two types of cases: (1) cases involving foreign representatives & (2) certain cases in which a state is a party.

49. U.S. Supreme Court
SC composed of 9 justices: the Chief Justice & 8 Associate Justices. Main duty is to hear & rule on cases:
Decide which cases among thousands will be heard.
Decide the case itself.
Determine the explanation for the decision, called the Opinion of the Court.
Congress may change the # on the SC. Since 1869 it has remained at 9.
FDR, 1939, tried to “pack the court.”

51. Road to the Supreme Court
Some cases START at the SC because it has original jurisdiction, most cases reach SC on appeals from lower courts.
Main way is through writ of certiorari, an order from the SC to a lower court to send up the records on a case for review.
Must make a case that lower court made a legal error in handling case or raise a serious constitutional issue.
On Appeal: most are dismissed by the SC, esp. if it does not involve a federal law.
When dismissed by SC, the lower court’s ruling stands.

52. Each case is discussed in secret conference by at least 6 Justices.
After SC accepts a case, attorneys submit a brief (written statement to the court setting forth the legal arguments, relevant facts, and precedents supporting their cases).
Interested parties may also submit written briefs called amicus curiae (friend of the court), which are subtle ways of influencing the court.
After briefs are filed, each attorney gives a 30 minute Oral Argument before the Court.
Each case is discussed in secret conference by at least 6 Justices.
They vote on the case. If there is a tie, lower court ruling stands.

53. In major cases the SC issue a written opinion
Opinion states the facts of the case, announces the Court’s ruling, and explains its reasoning in reaching its decision.
Important because they set precedents for lower courts to follow in future cases.
Four kinds of opinions:
Unanimous Opinion: all justices vote the same way.
Majority Opinion: expresses views of majority of justices.
Justice who agrees with majority but for different reasons may write a Concurring Opinion.
Dissenting Opinion: justices on losing side write their explanations for their dissenting views.
Important because they may become the majority view on a similar court case years later.

54. Judicial Review
Judicial Review: the SC’s power to examine the laws & actions of local, state, and national governments & to strike them down if they violate the Constitution.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): SC ruled that police had violated suspect’s constitutional rights.
This ruling changed law enforcement policies and procedures across the nation.

55. Stare Decisis (Lt. let the decision stand – an unsigned statement of SC decision): once the SC rules on a case, its decision serves as a precedent, making law stable and predictable.
Precedent: model, on which to base other decisions in similar cases.
The precedent on an issue is the collective body of judicially announced principles that a court should consider when interpreting the law. When a precedent establishes an important legal principle, or represents new or changed law on a particular issue, that precedent is often known as a landmark decision.
Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as binding precedent (alternately mandatory precedent, mandatory or binding authority, etc.).
Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears.

56. Landmark Case: Train v. City of NY
President Nixon impounded federal funds for clean up of water pollution because he did not vote for the bill. He had vetoed the bill and Congress had overridden his veto.
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, states such as NY applied for these funds to improve their sewer systems and couldn’t obtain the funds.
The Court ruled that the president could not order the impoundment of substantial amounts of environmental protection funds for a program in these circumstances. The president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.

57. Landmark Case: Miranda v. Arizona
The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases involving custodial interrogations.  In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. 

58. Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness.  He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession.  At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury.  Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to years imprisonment on each count.  On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

59. Issues:
Whether “statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police interrogation” are admissible against him in a criminal trial and whether “procedures which assure that the individual is accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution not to be compelled to incriminate himself” are necessary.

60. The Court held that “there can be no doubt that the Fifth Amendment privilege is available outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.”  As such, “the prosecution may not use statements, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination.  By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”

61. Terms Voting bloc: a coalition of justices.
Justice Robert Jackson: chief prosecutor at Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals.
Nixon: appointed 4 justices to the SC.
Indictment: formal accusation handed down by grand jury.
Trial court: has original jurisdiction.
14TH Amendment: SC says guarantees a court-appointed lawyer.
District courts: US divided into 12 regions each having a district court.

62. Circuit court:  there is a circuit court in each city and county in Virginia. The circuit court is the trial court with the broadest powers in Virginia. The circuit court handles all civil cases with claims of more than $25,000. It shares authority with the general district court to hear matters involving claims between $4,500 and $25,000. The circuit court has the authority to hear serious criminal cases called felonies.
handles family matters, including divorce. In addition, the circuit court hears cases appealed from the general district court and from the juvenile and domestic relations district court.