nature n role of SC
constitution
article iii, section 1:
establishes the existence of a Supreme Court
establishes that justices are appointed for life
article iii, seciton 2:
the court can determine the outcome of all cases brought to it under the Constitution
all justices are nominated by the President n have to be ratified by the Senate
other parts of the Constitution allow Congress to establish the structure of lowers courts and establish the total number of justices » has been kept at 9 since Civil War
judicial independence in the Constitution
separation of powers:
it isn’t possible to be a member of the executive or legislature n be a judge simultaneously
salary:
the Constitution guarantees that a Justice’s pat can’t be reduced during their time in office
they don’t fear negative consequences if they make decisions against President/Congress
security of tenure:
judges are appointed for life
they can only be removed via impeachmet
the President can only appoint when there’s a vacancy
appointment process:
appointments have to be scrutinised n voted on by the Senate
process and examples
stage: | explanation: | example: NY pistol and rifle association v Bruen (2022 |
a case is presented to the court | 7k-8k cases are presented each year » of which 70ish cases are held/year. the court can choose which of those cases to hear. the court cannot initiate its own cases | this case originated in the lower courts in 2018 when the NRA challenged a New York law. the law required someone to have to demon a specific need to carry a gun in public, otherwise carrying a gun in public is banned |
all 9 justices hear the oral arguments of the case | like a criminal court, there’s a plaintiff and a defendant. justices will hear legal arguments and be able to ask questions | during the 2h session both sides presented their case. justices referred to different interpretations of the Second Amendment and recent gun cases determined by the court |
all 9 justices will consider the case privately on both individual and group basis. they eventually deliver a majority opinion | the majority opinion is a written document which explains in detail the way in which the Constitution has/has not been broken | in July 2022 the Court delivered a 6-3 majority verdict which overtunred the gun restrictions. authored by Justice Thomas, he declared the second amendment provides an individual right to carry a gun, as established in DC v Heller (2008). the right should inc public spaces, where there might be a particular need to defend oneself. the minority opinion written by Justice Breyer said that the right to carry a gun was not absolute, citing the important of allowing states to be able to determine their own gun laws |
the majority ruling can overturn the actions of any institution, including the President and Congress | this final decision is often referred to as judicial review | this overturned the NY law which has been in place since 1911 and also suggests that several other states, such as Maryland and Hawaii, will need to overturn their own gun restriction laws |
swing justice: anthony kennedy
case study: marbury v madison (1803)
Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court after Adams appointed him to the SC but did not officially confirm this, leading to Jefferson’s reversal of his appointment
judgement: SC in favour of Marbury but also discovered that the Judiciary Act (1789) prevented the Court from having the jurisdiction to force Madison to honour the appointment
led Chief Justice John Marshall to declare that the offending part of Judiciary Act was constitutionally invalid » ‘striking down’ a law
Marbury v Madison = SC’s first every declaration of judicial review
significance: power of judicial review unmentioned in Constitution, Supreme Court ‘found’ the power for itself in this case
Marshall’s famous judgement: “it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is”
momentous » granted SC judicial review over all federal issues
case study: fletcher v peck (1810)
1795: George state legislature sold 35 million acres of state land for 1.5 cents/acre to property speculators » Yazoo land-grant scandal
became apparent that some of Georgia legislators had been bribed
1796: new state legislature repealing fraudulent 1795 grant
John Peck sold on land part of the 1795 grant to Robert Fletcher for $3,000
once he realised he had been sold land voided by state law, he sued Peck
US Circuit Court for Massachusetts ruled in favour of Peck, so Fletcher appealed to SC
judgement:
The Court acknowledged the fraud in the original land grants as "deplorable."
Rejected Fletcher's argument that Georgia had sovereign power to repeal the law.
Ruled the repeal of the 1795 grant by Georgia's legislature unconstitutional.
Fletcher's case against Peck was dismissed.
Georgia's law repealing the grants was struck down.
Chief Justice Marshall: Laws that function as contracts cannot be repealed if they establish absolute rights.
Fletcher v. Peck was the first Supreme Court ruling against a state law.
significance:
MvM saw SC ‘find’ its power of judicial review over federal issues » FletchervPeck extended this power to state law
MvM + FvP = enhanced jurisdiction of SC judgements