Judicial Branch AP gov Unit 5

Judicial power is passive

1. Courts can’t “take” cases, they must come to them

2. Must be an actual case (“controversy”) for a court to make a ruling 

3. Only those with STANDING may challenge a law or government action

• One who has sustained an “injury”

• One cannot challenge a law simply because one does not happen to like it

Judicial law-making

Judges interpret the law and in doing so make the law

• Statutes are broadly worded

• The constitution therefore requires interpretation

This interpretation, in effect, is making law

Jurisdiction

A court’s authority to hear a case

Types of Jurisdiction

1. Exclusive

2. Concurrent

3. Original

4. Appellate

Exclusive Jurisdiction

Cases that can be heard only in certain courts

Concurrent Jurisdiction

Cases that can be heard in either a federal or a state court

Original Jurisdiction

Courts in which a case is first heard

Appellate Jurisdiction

Courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from a lower court

Federal Court Jurisdiction

Federal courts may try a case if it involves

• Disputes between 2 or more states

• The constitution, a federal law, or a treaty

• The U.S. government as a party

• Citizens of different states

• Ambassadors or diplomats 

America’s Dual Court System

The US has 2 separate court systems because it is a federal system

• Each state has its own court system (97% of all criminal cases are heard in state courts)

State Courts

State Trial Courts → State Appeals Courts → 50 State Supreme Courts → The Supreme Court of the United States of America

Federal Courts

Federal District Courts → Federal Appeals Courts → The Supreme Court of the United States

Structure of the Federal Court System

• The Supreme Court is only court mentioned in the Constitution

Legislative branch checks on the judicial branch

• Congress given power to create all “inferior” (lower) federal courts

• Congress has power to change appellate jurisdiction of federal courts

Judiciary Act of 1789

• Established the basic 3-tiered structure of federal courts that still exist

• Congress set the size of the Supreme Court at 6 justices — later expanded to 9 in 1869

3 levels of Federal Courts

District courts → Court of Appeals → U.S. Supreme Court

District Courts

• Cases are tried by a judge and petit (trial) jury — jury decides outcome of case

  • Uses grand juries to issue indictments

• Jurisdiction: original

• Most cases end in a plea bargain

• Decisions may be appealed to Courts of Appeals

Courts of Appeals

• Cases are tried by a panel of 3 judges

  • Do not hold trials or hear testimony — judges review district court decisions

• Jurisdiction: appellate (hears appeals from District Courts and regulatory agencies)

Supreme Court

• Highest court in the land

• Cases tried by entire court (currently 9 judges)

• Jurisdiction: original and appellate

  • Almost all cases are heard on appeal

• Court of last resort

  • Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution

  • SC decisions establish precedents that are binding on the entire nation

Key Powers of the Supreme Court

• Power of Judicial Review

• Power to declare state laws, federal laws, and presidential actions unconstitutional

• Power to interpret broadly worded laws of Congress

• Power to determine the meaning and application of the Constitution

• Power to overrule earlier Supreme Court decisions 

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court

Original Jurisdiction

• The Court’s original jurisdiction only generates 2 or 3 cases a year

• The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction in cases involving the following:

  • 2 or more states

  • The US and a state government

  • The US and foreign ambassadors/diplomats

Appellate Jurisdiction

• Most cases come under the Court’s appellate jurisdiction

• Nearly all appellate cases now reach the Supreme COurt by a writ of certiorri

Writs of Certiorari

• An order by the Court directing a lower court to send up the record in a given case for its review

• The certiorari process enables the SC to control its own caseload

• Cases must involve a serious constitutional issue or the interpretation of a federal statute, action, or treaty

• Denying a decision may mean any number of things:

  • Case lacks a substantial federal issue

  • Party lacks standing

  • Court agrees with a lower court

Granting Writ of Certiorari

The Rule of Four

• SC clerks screen the approximately 10,000 petitions that come to the SC each term

• The justices conduct weekly conference meetings where they discuss petitions prepared by their clerks

• For a case to be heard on appeal, at least four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case

• The rule of Four allows the SC to control its Docket (case load)

Briefs

Once a case is “chosen” the next step is the filing of briefs

• Each party is required to file a brief, a detailed written statement, arguing one side of the case

• Beifs cite relevant facts, legal principles, and precedents that support their arguments

• Interested persons/groups that are not actual parties to the case may file amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs

  • Cases involving controversial issues such as affirmative action and abortion attract a large number of amicus curiae briefs

  • Interest groups use amicus curiae briefs to lobby the Court

Hearing, discussion, and voting

Case is scheduled for “hearing”

At the Hearing…

Judges hear oral arguments and ask questions

• Oral arguments are open to the public

• Attorneys are allowed exactly 30 minutes to present their case

After the hearing → discussion and voting

• The justices discuss each case in a closed meeting held on Friday

• The Chief Justice (John Roberts) presides over the meeting

Opinions

After voting → justices write opinions

• After reaching a decision, the justices must write a formal opinion. Opinions present the issues, establish precedents, and set guidelines for lower courts.

Types of opinions

• Majority opinion

• Concurring opinion

• Dissenting (minority) opinion

Majority Opinion

Officially known as “the opinion of the Court,” the majority opinion is the law of the land

Concurring opinions

Supports the majority opinion but stresses different constitutional or legal reasons for reaching the judgement

Dissenting (minority) opinion

Expresses a point of view that disagrees with the majority opinion. Dissenting opinions have no legal standing

Announcements

Supreme Court Decisions are publically announced months after hearing

• When a decision is made, it is “remanded” to a lower court to carry out the SC’s decision

  • The lower court will have a certain amount of leeway in doing this

• The Supreme Court is the highest in the land, but it is possible to evade Court decisions

  • Amending the Constitution; Court cannot strike down something as unconstitutional if it is written in the Constitution

  • The executive branch may simply not carry out the decision

  • State and local governments may simply not carry it out, either

Precedent

Stare Decisis

• Latin phrase meaning “let the decision stand”

• The vast majority of the SC decisions are based on precedents stablished in earlier cases

• Precedents help make SC decisions more uniform, predictable, and efficient

Exceptions to Precedent

• Although precedent is very important, the Court can overturn previous decisions

• Plessy v. Ferguson permitted segregation if the facilities were “separate but equal”

• The Court reversed this ruling in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, declaring that “segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws”

Judicial Restraint

• Philosophy that the courts should allow the states and the other 2 branches (Leg and Exec) to solve social, economic, and political problems

• Courts should merely interpret the law rather than make law

• Original intent suggests that courts should follow the intentions of the Founding Fathers

Judicial Activism

• Philosophy of judges to interpret the Constitution according to their own views and take an active role in solving society’s problems

• Idea that judges ought to freely strike down laws that are inconsistent with their understanding of the Constitution

• Courts should be the guardian of people

• Examples of judicial activism:

  • Brown v. Board (1954)

  • Texas v. Johnson (1989)

  • US v. Lopez (1995)