checks on the judicial branch
Introduction to Checks on the Judicial Branch
This session will focus on checks on the judicial branch, particularly how Congress and the President can respond to Supreme Court opinions.
It ties back to previous lessons on checks and balances.
Checks on the Judicial Branch
Congress as a Check on the Judicial Branch
Main Powers of Congress:
Congress has the power to write laws.
One direct response to an unfavorable Supreme Court decision is passing laws that affect court jurisdiction, limiting the Supreme Court's ability to rule on specific issues.
This is a direct intervention in limiting Supreme Court authority.
Legislation Modifying SCOTUS Decisions:
Congress can pass legislation that modifies the effects of a Supreme Court ruling.
Example: Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act. In the case of U.S. v. Lopez, the Supreme Court ruled that the act was unconstitutional. In response, Congress rewrote the act to align with constitutional constraints.
Power of the Purse:
Congress has the authority to cut or increase funding to affect policy implementation and compliance with SCOTUS decisions.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments:
Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution in response to Supreme Court rulings.
Example: Following the case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust (1895), which declared income taxes unconstitutional, Congress proposed the 16th Amendment to establish the constitutionality of income taxes.
Conducting Oversight Hearings:
Congress conducts oversight hearings to examine the implications of judicial decisions and can influence state actions to align with national policies through fiscal federalism.
Influence Beyond Direct Power:
Congress exercises influence, such as the practice of senatorial courtesy which involves consulting senators before nominating judicial candidates from their states.
The right of advice and consent for SCOTUS nominees gives Congress significant influence over the judicial branch's makeup.
President as a Check on the Judicial Branch
Main Powers of the Executive:
The President’s primary power is enforcement, which serves as a direct check on judicial authority.
Refusal to Enforce Supreme Court Decisions:
A direct check consists of the President refusing to enforce a Supreme Court ruling.
Example: President Andrew Jackson's reaction to the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, where he stated, "Chief Justice Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it," indicating non-compliance with the judicial decision.
Issuing Executive Orders:
A President can issue narrowly tailored executive orders that would directly address concerns raised by the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Judicial Appointments:
The President plays a role in selecting nominees for the Supreme Court, influencing the future direction of court rulings.
Concept Application of Judicial Review
Judicial Review as a Power of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court utilizes judicial review to assess the constitutionality of legislative actions and executive orders.
Example of application: If faced with allegations relevant under judicial review, it involves examining how lack of enforcement by the executive (like the Department of Justice) affects the power and function of the judiciary.
Contextual Application and Responses
Importance of aligning responses to specific prompts to show understanding.
Use parallel wording to precisely connect concepts to scenarios.
Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism
Definitions of Judicial Philosophies
Judicial Restraint:
This philosophy holds that justices should interpret the Constitution strictly according to original intent.
Advocates believe it is the role of the states and elected branches to resolve social, economic, and political issues with the courts acting only on clear constitutional questions.
Judicial Activism:
A philosophy supporting a loose interpretation of the Constitution as a living document that evolves over time.
Courts can play a role in addressing significant social, economic, and political challenges through their rulings.
Distinctions between Restraint and Activism
Judicial restraint and activism are not fixed positions; rather, they involve individual choices made case by case.
Not tied to ideological identities such as liberal or conservative, although typically, liberal courts may be perceived as more activist.
Historical Example: The liberal Warren Court was accused of engaging in activism in defense of civil rights but was later followed by a conservative court similarly labeled for overturning liberal precedents.
SCOTUS Application Skills
Comparison of Supreme Court Cases
Applying concepts through comparison of reasoning in inquiry and non-inquiry Supreme Court cases helps solidify understanding for Free Response Questions (FRQ).
Recommended Process Steps:
Conduct a brief case analysis of known cases to ground understanding before tackling new material.
Review prompts carefully to identify required cases for comparison.
Structure comparisons around key legal principles, facts, and implications of the cases involved.
Example of Case Comparison
Known Case: McCullough v. Maryland
Supreme Court ruling concerning the supremacy clause when Maryland taxed a federal bank, which the court found unconstitutional.
New Case: Arizona's Immigration Law
Involves challenges to state laws interfering with federal authority regarding immigration.
The Supreme Court ruled these laws violate the supremacy clause, similar to McCullough.
Final Takeaways
Understanding that the Supreme Court's decisions can provoke controversy depending on the adherence to judicial restraint or activism principles.
Importance of learning to establish connections and conduct comparisons between different Supreme Court rulings to answer FRQs effectively, focusing on the factual and legal reasoning.