Detailed Study Notes on Supreme Court Procedures and Marbury v. Madison

Class Overview:

  • Reminder about class structure for tomorrow:
    • No lecture, just a review of upcoming tasks.
    • Portfolio work and note card preparation will be done in class.
    • Students should bring laptops for accessing materials, and to ask content questions.

Supreme Court Procedures:

Granting Certiorari:

  • Certiorari is when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case.
  • The number of justices needed to grant certiorari: 4 justices.
  • The court that grants certiorari: Supreme Court.
  • Purpose of certiorari:
    • To order lower courts to prepare records and gather information on cases.

Characteristics for Granting Certiorari:

  1. Constitutional Issues:
    • Traditional Constitutional questions.
  2. Civil Rights and Liberties:
  3. Widespread Impact:
    • Cases that affect a large number of people or coincide with predominant beliefs.
  4. Conflict Among Courts:
    • Discrepancies in decisions among various courts on the same issue.
  5. Solicitor General's Involvement:
    • Federal government representation in cases.

Steps Following Granting Certiorari:

  • Detailed case management and sharing:

    • Supreme Court creates a docket, scheduling cases for hearing.
    • Writ of certiorari includes comprehensive case arguments and details from both sides, submitted as briefs.
    • Briefs are detailed documents outlining the constitutional arguments.

  • Role of Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court):

    • Organizations or individuals providing additional information to the court.
    • Often used by interest groups to influence the case without being direct parties.

Oral Arguments:

  • Oral arguments are conducted in front of the justices for 30 minutes.
    • Format is a Q&A session:
    • Justices can interrupt for clarification or to pose relevant questions.
    • Example given regarding the Supreme Court hearing in Washington D.C.

Transparency of Supreme Court Processes:

  • All case arguments are public and can be accessed by the public since 1960 through transcripts and audio recordings.

Case Examples and Timeline:

  1. U.S. v. Lopez (1995):
    • Oral arguments held in November 1994, decision announced in April 1995, demonstrating lengthy gap.
  2. Citizens United (2009):
    • Decision released January 2010 after arguments in the previous fall.
  3. Rationale for delays:
    • Justices want time to formulate decisions thoroughly before public release.

Supreme Court Opinion Types:

  • Understanding the three different opinions:
    1. Majority Opinion: - The official stance of the Court, always issued.
    2. Concurring Opinion: - An agreement with the majority but based on different legal reasoning.
    3. Dissenting Opinion: - A disagreement with the majority opinion, providing alternative viewpoints.

Voting and Decision-Making Process:

  • Justices gather to discuss cases post-oral arguments, voting between opinions:
    • Example of an 8-1 decision: shows majority approval while having a dissent.
    • Concurring opinions can be multiple, based on individual reasoning.

Judicial Review and Precedents:

  • Definition of Judicial Review:
    • The power of the court to declare laws unconstitutional.
  • Precedent:
    • Setting legal standards for similar cases in the future.
    • Stare decisis means to let the decision stand, following previous rulings unless overturned.

Case Study: Marbury v. Madison:

  • Background:
    • The role of the Supreme Court and how it derives its powers involves Congress granting powers via the Judiciary Act of 1789.
    • Political context: Adams appointing justices and the role of Madison in withholding appointments.
  • Key Decision Elements:
    • The court established the principle of judicial review.
    • Declared section of the Judiciary Act unconstitutional due to inconsistency with the Constitution.

Key Vocabulary Definitions:

  • Quorum: The minimum number of justices required to conduct business (minimum 6 justices).
  • Dissenting Opinion: An opinion expressing disagreement with the majority decision.
  • Precedent: Previous court decisions that influence the ruling on new cases.
  • Judicial Review: The authority of courts to examine the actions of legislative and executive branches to ensure they adhere to the Constitution.
  • Stare Decisis: The doctrine of following precedents in legal decisions.