Supreme Court Procedures, Jurisprudence, and Legal Terminology

Supreme Court Case Selection and the Rule of Four

  • Annual Workload and Case Volume:

    • The Supreme Court hears approximately 8080 to 100100 cases per year during its term (spanning roughly from April to October).
    • The vast majority of cases submitted to the court are rejected without being heard.

  • The Rule of Four:

    • Definition: At least 44 of the 99 Supreme Court justices must agree to accept a case before it is granted a hearing, oral arguments, or formal deliberation.
    • Purpose: Justices use this threshold to evaluate whether a case possesses sufficient legal standing, constitutional merit, or broader national significance.
    • Outcomes when a case fails the Rule of Four:
    • Lower Court Remand: The case is sent back down to a lower court with instructions for that court to handle it.
    • Summary Dismissal: The case is dismissed out of hand.
    • Strategic Litigation: Litigants sometimes file cases known to lack the legal standing required to pass the Rule of Four simply to publicize an issue, generate public debate, or intimidate opposing defendants.

  • Case Study: Election Lawsuits (20202020):

    • Following the late 20202020 presidential election, the Trump administration and associated groups filed approximately 6565 lawsuits with the Supreme Court regarding alleged voting irregularities.
    • Only 11 of the 6565 lawsuits passed the Rule of Four.
    • The remaining 6464 lawsuits were rejected due to a lack of legal standing.

Parties to a Case and Constitutional Protections

  • The Plaintiff:

    • The individual, group, or entity that brings a legal case forward; the accuser.
    • Bears the legal burden of proof.

  • The Defendant:

    • The individual, group, or entity accused of a violation or wrong.

  • Constitutional Framework:

    • Rooted in the Bill of Rights—specifically the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment.
    • The legal system operates under a fundamental presumption of innocence, placing the entire burden of proof onto the plaintiff.

Amicus Curiae Briefs and Legal Expertise

  • Etymology and Meaning:

    • Amicus translates to "friend" and curiae translates to "court" in Latin.
    • Amicus curiae translates to "friend of the court."

  • Purpose and Function:

    • Refers to expert individuals or legal documents submitted to the Supreme Court to provide specialized knowledge, context, or technical expertise on a pending case.
    • Can consist of live expert witness testimony or lengthy written legal briefs.
    • Necessity: None of the 99 justices possess universal expertise across all fields of law, nor do they have the time required to gather exhaustive factual evidence independently.

  • Specific Examples by Legal Context:

    • Technology and Digital Law (e.g., Internet Privacy, Net Neutrality, Social Media):
    • Briefs are submitted by technology lawyers, intellectual property lawyers, patent lawyers, copyright lawyers, communications law specialists, First Amendment scholars, technology company executives, or academics holding PhDs in relevant subjects.
    • Civil Rights and Social Issues:
    • Brown v. Board of Education: Written briefs were submitted by advocacy groups including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
    • Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Involved a Colorado baker asserting a Free Exercise Clause right to refuse to create a cake for a same-sex couple. Briefs were filed by the ACLU, various religious organizations, secular/atheist groups, and the Christian Society of America.

Precedent and the Principle of Stare Decisis

  • Definition and Translation:

    • Stare decisis translates from Latin as "let the decision stand."
    • Represents the legal doctrine of following established precedents set by prior judicial rulings.

  • Application and Judicial Discretion:

    • Supreme Court justices are not legally mandated to abide by stare decisis, but following precedent aligns with a conservative approach to jurisprudence and promotes stability in legal trends.

  • Key Precedent Cases and Subsequent Rulings:

    • Roe v. Wade (19701970s):
    • Established the original precedent asserting federal constitutional protections for the right to terminate a pregnancy during the first trimester.
    • Dobbs v. Jackson (20222022):
    • Rejected stare decisis regarding Roe v. Wade by overturning its precedent and returning authority over abortion regulations entirely to individual state legislatures.
    • Plessy v. Ferguson:
    • Established the precedent of "separate but equal" after Homer Plessy (who was one-eighth Black) was arrested for refusing to leave a white-only train car.
    • Brown v. Board of Education:
    • Departed from stare decisis by overturning Plessy v. Ferguson, holding that state-sanctioned racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    • McCullough v. Maryland:
    • Established precedent regarding the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, ruling that federal law supersedes state law in conflicts regarding the National Bank in Maryland.
    • Marbury v. Madison:
    • Established the precedent of judicial review, granting federal courts the authority to void acts of Congress or executive actions that violate the Constitution.

Writs of Certiorari and Federal Court Structure

  • Definition and Meaning:

    • A writ of certiorari is a legal document of standing, legal merit, or credibility.

  • Procedural Function:

    • Submitted when a lower federal court—such as one of the 9494 district courts or one of the 1111 circuit courts of appeals—brings or transfers a case to the Supreme Court.
    • Outlines the precise legal reasons why the case possesses constitutional standing and why the Supreme Court should grant a hearing.
    • Including a writ of certiorari substantially increases the likelihood of a case passing the Rule of Four.

Philosophies of Judicial Interpretation

  • Judicial Activism:

    • Definition: A progressive, fluid, dynamic, and broad-minded philosophy of law where judges reinterpret statutory or constitutional provisions over time to reflect evolving societal norms.
    • Key Characteristics:
    • Broadens the scope and application of existing laws without rewriting the underlying legal text.
    • Accommodates rights not explicitly detailed in the original constitutional text.
    • Examples:
    • First Amendment: Expanding definitions of protected speech to include symbolic speech and modern political expression.
    • Second Amendment: Broadening historical interpretations beyond a "well-regulated militia" to encompass conditional individual rights to bear arms.
    • Fourteenth Amendment: Overturning segregation in Brown v. Board of Education by asserting that "separate" is inherently unequal under modern conditions.
    • Historical Context: The Warren Court and the Burger Court enacted broad civil rights reforms through activist legal interpretations.

  • Judicial Restraint:

    • Definition: A strict, traditional, and conservative philosophy of law where judges adhere strictly to original intent, historical context, and literal textual meaning.
    • Key Characteristics:
    • Avoids expanding legal protections beyond what was directly written by original lawmakers.
    • Requires explicit statutory or constitutional authorization before recognizing broad rights.
    • Examples:
    • Overturning Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson on the textual grounds that abortion is not explicitly named or described in the Constitution.

Supreme Court Opinions and Decision Structures

  • Decision Thresholds:

    • A simple majority of 55 out of the 99 justices is required to render a ruling.
    • Common decision outcomes include splits of 7−27-2, 6−36-3, and 5−45-4.

  • Types of Opinions:

    • Majority Opinion:
    • The official, primary legal rationale written on behalf of the winning side.
    • Can be authored by any justice within the majority coalition.
    • Serves as the official legal precedent and most widely publicized justification for the ruling (e.g., grounding the Roe v. Wade ruling in the Fourteenth Amendment).
    • Concurring Opinion:
    • Authored by a justice who agrees with the ultimate outcome/winning side of the case, but relies on a different legal rationale or constitutional provision.
    • Example: In a case decided by a Fourteenth Amendment majority opinion, a concurring justice might write an opinion grounded in the First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause), Fourth Amendment (right to privacy), or Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights).
    • Dissenting Opinion:
    • Authored by one or more justices on the losing side who voted against the majority.
    • Details the legal reasons why the dissenting justices believe the majority ruled incorrectly.
    • Multiple dissenting opinions may be written for a single case if dissenting justices harbor differing legal objections.

  • Key Constitutional Amendments Referenced in Court Rulings:

    • First Amendment: Protections for speech, religion, symbolic expression, and political expression.
    • Fourth Amendment: Protections against unreasonable searches and seizures; basis for privacy rights.
    • Fifth and Sixth Amendments: Procedural due process, trial rights, and the presumption of innocence.
    • Fourth through Eighth Amendments: General protections within criminal law.
    • Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Amendments: Unenumerated individual rights, reserved state powers, and federalism conflicts.
    • Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause.