Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch Overview

The Judicial Branch is a crucial component of the United States government, existing alongside the Legislative and Executive branches. Its responsibility is to interpret the law, ensure justice, and adjudicate disputes at both national and state levels. Below is a detailed description of the structure, purpose, and function of the judicial system.

Judicial Branch Structure

National Government

  • Legislative Branch: Consists of two houses:

    • Senate: Comprises 100 members, each representing a state.

    • House of Representatives: Made up of 435 members apportioned based on state population.

  • Executive Branch: Headed by the President and includes the bureaucracy that implements laws.

  • Judicial Branch: Comprised of federal judges who are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Federal judges serve lifetime appointments, ensuring independence from political pressures.

  • judicial review: power of courts to review and if necessary declare actions of legislative and executive branches invalid or unconstitutional (this was granted in 1803 Marbury v Madison since not specifically stated by the constitution)

State Government (California Example)

  • Part of the 50 State Governments: Each state has its own judicial system.

  • California Senate: Consists of 40 members.

  • California Assembly: Comprises 80 members.

  • Key Executive Positions: Includes the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, Controller, and Treasurer.

  • Judicial Structure:

    • California Supreme Court & Appellate Courts: Judges are appointed and subject to retention elections.

    • Superior Court: Consists of elected judges handling most initial cases.

Local Governance

  • Los Angeles County: One of the 58 counties in California.

    • Board of Supervisors: 5 members with quasi-judicial powers.

  • City of Los Angeles: One of the 482 cities in California.

    • City Council: Comprises 15 members, including the Mayor, with agencies having quasi-judicial powers (e.g., planning).

U.S. Legal System Purpose & Structure

The primary objective of the U.S. legal system is to adjudicate disputes fairly, ensuring justice through a structured approach.

Case Types

  • Criminal vs. Civil: The system distinguishes between criminal cases (involving laws against society) and civil cases (involving disputes between individuals or entities).

  • State vs. Federal: Jurisdiction can be state-level (dealing with state laws) or federal (dealing with federal laws and disputes).

  • Trial vs. Appellate: The court system includes trial courts where cases are first heard and appellate courts that review decisions made by trial courts.

Precedents

  • Legal decisions are guided by the principle of stare decisis, which means that courts follow precedents set by earlier decisions.

Types of Legal Cases

Criminal Cases

  • Jurisdiction: Regulates individual conduct, defines crimes, and specifies punishments for criminal actions.

  • Plaintiff: The government (prosecutor) acts as the plaintiff in criminal cases.

  • Defendant: Individuals accused of crimes who cannot be compelled to testify against themselves.

  • Standard: Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

  • Penalties: May include fines, community service, imprisonment, or death.

Civil Cases

  • Jurisdiction: Involves disputes that do not involve criminal penalties, focusing on legal wrongs or breaches of duty.

  • Plaintiff: The party (government or private individual) claiming a legal wrongdoing.

  • Defendant: The party responding to the claims, who can be compelled to testify.

  • Standard: Resolving cases requires a preponderance of evidence.

  • Penalties: Typically results in monetary damages or changes in policy.

Resolution of Cases

Most disputes are resolved prior to trial, often through:

  • Plea Bargains: Common in criminal cases where defendants may plead guilty to lesser charges.

  • Settlements: Frequently occur in civil cases, where parties agree on terms without court intervention.

U.S. Court System

Federal vs. State Jurisdiction

Federal Courts

  • Limited Jurisdiction: Handle cases involving:

    • Laws passed by Congress or constitutional issues.

    • Disputes involving parties from different states (Diversity of Citizenship Cases).

  • Federal Question Cases: Include federal criminal or civil law issues such as bank robbery, drug trafficking, civil rights violations, etc.

  • Diversity of Citizenship Cases: Require a claim for at least $75,000 in damages and involve citizens from different states.

State Courts

  • General Jurisdiction: Address a wide range of state law disputes; approximately 90% of court cases are in state courts.

  • Cases Include: Criminal matters (e.g., robbery, assault) and civil matters (e.g., personal injury, family law, contracts).

U.S. Courts Structure

Trial Courts

  • Role: Serve as the first venue for hearings, either criminal or civil. They evaluate evidence and witness testimonies.

  • Function: Judges and juries interpret how the facts relate to the law.

Appellate Courts (Appeals)

  • Function: Review trial court decisions to ensure the law was correctly applied.

    • No new facts or testimony can be introduced; appeals rely on existing records and briefs.

  • Decision Making: A panel of judges can uphold, reverse, or remand decisions to trial courts as necessary.

  • Appeal Process: Both defendants in criminal cases and parties in civil cases have the right to appeal.

Supreme Courts

  • Role: Acts as the highest appellate court in the system, often referred to as the “court of last resort.”

  • Function: Provides the final interpretation of both state and federal laws and does not allow the introduction of new facts in cases.

  • they have original jurisdiction meaning that some cases go up to the supreme court automatically

    • us against one of the states

    • 2 or more states

    • foreign ambassadors or other ministers

    • case of one state against another state or a foreign country.

  • Judicial Restraint: This philosophy advocates for judges to limit their own power and to defer to the legislative and executive branches of government. Judges who adhere to this principle often avoid overturning laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional, believing that the role of the judiciary is to uphold laws created by elected officials.

  • Judicial Activism: In contrast, judicial activism encourages judges to take an active role in ensuring justice by interpreting the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values and social justice. Judges who practice judicial activism may strike down laws or rules that they believe are unju