Poli Sci 217

Legal Culture

shared network of values, attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and practices relating to law and legal institutions within a society. It explains when, why, and how people turn to the law or government—or choose to avoid them

Lawrence Friedman Legal Culture

“the term we apply to those values and attitudes in society which determine what structures are used and why; which rules work and which do not, and why”

Houston v. Stanberry (1832)

Stanberry made a claim against Houston during a speech on the house floor. Houston asked him to respond and he didn’t, Houston found him and beat him with his cane

Legal Norms

are reinforced through social weight along with legal processes in place

Civility Norms

behaviors that help guide what is sociable acceptable behavior

Precedent

court decision or ruling that serves as an authority or guide for deciding subsequent cases with identical or similar facts or legal questions

Binding Precedent

A prior court decision that a lower court must follow. In the U.S. system, lower courts are bound by the rulings of higher appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court within their jurisdiction.

Persuasive Precedent

A prior ruling or opinion from a court of equal or different jurisdiction (such as another state's court or a lower court) that a judge is not strictly required to follow, but may consider and adopt for its reasoning

Function of judicial opinions

ensures understand of why judges made the decision they did, also enforces the legitimacy of the courts. Written opinions also establish the precedent for the future

Why Judges Step in to Law Making

perceive a gap or uncertainty in legislation, allows judges to change law to bring in line with societal norms

Li v. Yellow Cab Co.

"all-or-nothing" doctrine of contributory negligence and replaced it with a system of pure comparative negligence. The dissenting opinion believes courts are overstepping role

Riggs v. Palmer

Should a person be able to recover will if the person getting the will killed the will holder. Majority (Earl): should not award for bad behavior Dissenting (Gray) the court is overstepping, they interpret laws not make them

Pros of Evaluating Precedent

allows for incremental change, more attention individual fairness, courts more accessible to ordinary citizen than legislators to change a law, allows contentious issues to be resolved

Cons of Evaluating Precedent

Inefficient, decreases predictability, lacks accountability of judge, not granted in Constitution

Judicial Review

power of courts to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative branches of government and declare them null and void if they violate the constitution or the law

Evolution of Judicial Review

Implied power from Article 3 of Constitution was more taken from the drafters of constitution, like Hamilton fed paper 78

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

can courts invalidate laws that contradict constitution? Yes, because the constitution is the law of the land to any act that contradicts it is invalid

Strict Constructionists

understanding of constitution should be limited to intent of original drafters

Interpretivsts

understanding of constitution should respond and be adapted to the evolving needs of society

Judicial Activism

judicial philosophy where judges make rulings based on broader societal implications or personal/political views rather than a strict or original interpretation of the law. Usually up to eyes of beholder

Lily Ledbetter Act

changes the statute of limitations for filing wage discrimination lawsuits. It put in place that the 180 reset period happens after each discriminatory act

Citizen initiatives/referendums

26 states (not WI) Allows individuals or groups to propose new legislation or additions to the constitution which can become law if majority voters approve

Pros of Citizen initiative

encourages greater involvement by citizens, opens direct line to citizen concerns

Cons of citizen initiative

few controls on funding, a well funded minority view will prevail, no filter for citizen control (can’t see bigger picture) overwhelming for uninformed citizens.

Administrative agencies functions

implement and enforce the law, promulgate rules and regulations, adjudicate disputes within their area of expertise

Creating Administrative Agencies

clear delegation of congressional authority, power is from commerce clause

Commerce Clause

Art 1 Sec 8 “The Congress shall have power to regulate commerce … among the several states …”

Chevron v. NDRC (SC 1984)

Issue: Who has the right to interpret ambiguous language in Congressional legislation? Courts? Or administrative agencies?

Holding: “If the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Holding: Means that court is required to review / interpret statutory language independently – it owes no deference to the agency’s interpretation

Backs off Chevron-era rule that statutory ambiguities are implicitly delegated to agencies

Executive Orders

from Constitution Art 2 Section 1 and 3. Can be “veto” by congress or overturned by next presidential administration

Article 3 Section 1

invested the judicial power into one Supreme Court and inferior courts as established by congress

diversity jurisdiction

If case involves citizens of different states (or countries), then heard in federal courts. Drastically expands number & type of cases heard by fed cts.

what blocks people from courts

procedural barriers, substantive barriers, informal barriers

Appellate Courts

higher judicial body that reviews decisions made by lower trial courts or administrative agencies. do not hear new testimony, check whether the lower court made a mistake in applying or interpreting the law, or if trial procedures were unfair. Can either affirm or reverse or send back for new trial

federal courts

district court → circuit court → Supreme Court

district court (94)

trail court, single judge hears case sometimes with jury, makes both factual and legal conclusions

Circuit Court Review

review for legal error, 3 panel judges Decide all appeals BUT many are decided on the basis of pleadings without any oral arguments Cases affirmed, reversed, or remanded

US Supreme Court

Certiorari process, Reviews for legal error, Takes cases to resolve

uncertainty or remedy mistakes, Decides small percentage of appeals brought (approx. 100 cases per year), Majority rules

WI State Court System

circuit courts → court of appeals → WI Supreme Court

judicial temperament

traits that dictates how they conduct themselves on the bench and interact with litigants, lawyers, and the publi

Republican Party v. White

issues: whether rule prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed political or legal issues is constitutional

Decision: “announce” rule is unconstitutional

Non-partisan elections (15)

candidate is not enforced by a political party

Missouri Plan/Merit Selection (14)

method for selecting judges based on professional qualifications rather than political affiliation or machine politics, retention election after 12 months

Gubernatorial Appointment (10)

he power of a U.S. state governor to select individuals for public office without a direct public election, usually have legislative confirmation

partisan election (6)

candidate is enforced by a political party

legislative appointment (2) (SC and Virginia)

judge appointed by legislators and can be voted off by legislators.

Selecting Process for Fed Judges

1. Identifying Candidates

2. Presidential nomination

3. Review by Senate Judiciary Committee

4. Vote by full Senate

5. Take oath of office-life tenure

Immigration Courts

motion to reconsider or motion to reopen, under DOJ

Board of Immigration Appeals

motion to reopen or motion to reconsider