1. The Structure of the Federal Judiciary
Jamie Monogan University of Georgia March 26, 2019

2. Objectives By the end of this meeting, participants should be able to:
Describe the structure of the federal judiciary and the appointment process.

3. Constitutional Basis Article III establishes Supreme Court
Checked by Congress and the president
President appoints
Senate gives “advice and consent”
Confirmation
Senatorial courtesy
Congress funds the courts
Article III is quite short. Leaves most of federal judicial system to be set up by Congress.

4. Federal Court Structure
Judiciary Act of 1789 created lower courts
District courts are the lowest level
Circuit courts of appeal above them
Amendments expanded this structure
94 federal district courts
Organized into 13 circuits
Each circuit has a court of appeal
Dual court system: state and federal
Remind students that the Constitution only created the Supreme Court, but that it granted Congress the power to establish lower courts. Congress did just that in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Appeals made after a district court verdict go to the circuit containing that district (see next slide for figure).
Cases that reach the Supreme Court can originate in either state or federal courts. Either the Supreme Court or a federal circuit court of appeals can overrule findings of a state supreme court.
There are two special courts with national jurisdiction. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims deals with civil cases in which the national government is a party. The U.S. Court of International Trade deals with cases involving matters of trade and customs.

5. Note that the number of judges in a district court or court of appeals varies.
Source:

6. Establishing Judicial Power
Little in the Constitution regarding judicial checks on other branches
Closest clause: Article III, Section 2 extends judicial power to all cases “arising under this Constitution.”
Powers established over time
Judicial review suggested by Hamilton in Federalist 78
Supremacy of federal courts
Have students look at Article III of the Constitution to reinforce how little is explicitly written about the courts.
The federal courts’ greatest powers (judicial review and supremacy) were established over time.
Judicial review is the power to determine if a law or an act of government conforms to the Constitution.

7. Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Judiciary Act of 1789 also allowed federal officials to ask court for a writ of mandamus
Midnight appointments
Court in a vulnerable position
A ruling for Marbury would likely be ignored
A ruling against Marbury would confirm subordinate status
Clever opinion written by Marshall established the procedure of judicial review
Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) had called the judiciary (which was now filled with Federalists thanks to John Adams) a “hospital of decayed politicians” and had asked Congress to repeal the Judiciary Act.
In Marshall’s decision he called out the Democratic-Republicans for not giving Marbury his commission and violating the legal rights of appointees while also ruling that the Supreme Court did not have the authority to settle the matter. According to the Constitution, the Judiciary Act’s provision that the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to settle the matter was unconstitutional.
Marshall’s decision was politically brilliant. He claimed a major power for the court—judicial review—while issuing a decision that pleased both President Jefferson and the majority in Congress.

8. Assignments
The Chapter 15 critical thinking exercise is due Thursday at 11:59pm.
Login to TopHat to complete.
Also for Thursday: Read Maltese, Pika, & Shively, pp
For Friday: Read Bullock and Gaddie, Chapter 7

9. Additional Material

10. Politics of Judicial Appointments
Appointments have become more contentious and confirmations have slowed down
The more ideological the nominee, the more contentious
Judicial appointments are a way for presidents to leave a legacy
Use Robert Bork’s nomination as an example. Nominated by Reagan for the Supreme Court. There was heated debate in the Senate (use Senator Ted Kennedy’s speech on the Senate floor as an example) and strong resistance from interest groups. The final vote in the Senate was 58 against and 42 for.

11. Supremacy of Federal Courts and Federal Law
Marshall also asserted federal court supremacy over state law and courts:
McCulloch v. Maryland (1813)
A state cannot tax the national bank
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Congress can regulate interstate commerce
Supreme Court as “Court of Last Resort”:
Resolves conflicts between the states and national government, different branches, and parties or candidates
Article VI says the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution are “the supreme Law of the Land” (the supremacy clause).
McCulloch v. Maryland (1813) The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution allows Congress the authority to establish a bank in Maryland and protects the bank from being taxed by the state.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) The Supreme Court struck down a New York monopoly over steamboat ferry services and ruled that other steamboat ferry companies in New Jersey licensed by Congress could not be prevented from competing with companies licensed by New York.

12. State Courts and the Electoral Connection
Separate hierarchy from federal courts
Many states elect judges and prosecutors
Georgia elects judges in nonpartisan elections
States have their own hierarchy of courts with the court of last resort (usually a state supreme court) above the others. At the bottom of the pyramid are trial courts and in the middle are state appellate courts.
Setting state courts in the U.S. apart from the federal courts and from most other courts around the world, many of the states (currently 37) elect some of their judges and prosecutors.
For discussion: Ask students to think of potential positives and negatives of electing judges. On the positive side, elections help democratize the judicial system. If they are corrupt or out of line with preferences they can be voted out of office. On the negative side, many of these elections are not contested. This could mean that people are satisfied with the incumbent or it could simply be that people are not very well informed. Additionally, elections mean campaigning for office and raising money. This might affect their ability to be impartial.