Study Notes on Judicial Independence and the Federal Judiciary
6.1 Judicial Independence from Money and Politics
Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, argued that an independent judiciary was essential for preserving liberty and upholding the checks and balances of the Constitution. To accomplish this goal, he argued that federal judges should be appointed for life, and their salaries protected. This practice still stands today.
Money, Politics, and How the Supreme Court Preserves Judicial Independence
Federal judges are appointed at the federal level; however, at the state level, reforms have developed since the nineteenth century. Populist reformers feared that the closeness of legislators and governors to appointed judges undermined judicial independence. Therefore, these reformers advocated for the election of state judges. For reformers, judicial independence meant insulation from partisan patronage in appointments.
Judicial Elections in the U.S.
Today, the United States is the only country in the world that elects judges. Nearly 90 percent of state judges must face voters, with 38 states electing supreme court justices.
Threats to Judicial Independence
Concerns have arisen in recent years regarding the integrity of judicial independence due to the influx of money from special interest groups into state judicial election campaigns. Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor highlighted this crisis, stating: “We expect all judges to be accountable to the law rather than political supporters or special interests…. This crisis of confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is real and growing. Left unaddressed, the perception that justice is for sale will undermine the rule of law that the courts are supposed to uphold.”
The flood of money into judicial campaigns in 2016 was staggering, with spending by outside groups for TV ads breaking previous records, largely funded by dark money donations from undisclosed donors. Between 2017 and 2018, $39.7 million was spent on state supreme court justice elections, with $10.8 million coming from special interest groups.
Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. Case
In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed campaign contributions and undue influence in Caperton v. Massey Coal Co. The case involved Don Blankenship, the head of Massey Coal, and his role in the election of a West Virginia Supreme Court justice who ruled on a case involving Blankenship.
Background
Hugh Caperton, whose company was harmed by Massey Coal’s practices, was awarded $50 million in damages by a jury. After Blankenship spent $3 million to support the campaign of Justice Brent Benjamin, who won the election by a 53–47 percent margin, Benjamin ruled in favor of Blankenship in the appeal regarding the liability.
Ruling on Recusal
When Caperton sought to have Benjamin recuse himself due to the potential conflict of interest from contributions made by Blankenship, Benjamin refused. In 2007, he was the pivotal vote in overturning the $50 million award. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due process was violated as Benjamin failed to recuse himself, establishing that extraordinary campaign contributions created an appearance of bias requiring recusal to maintain judicial independence.
Importance of Judicial Independence
The Caperton decision reinforced the principle that conflict of interest or its appearance impacts the legitimacy of court proceedings, highlighting judicial independence's essential role.
6.2 The Constitution and the Federal Judiciary
The delegates at the Constitutional Convention emphasized the need for the judiciary to have independence from the legislative and executive branches.
Structure and Powers of Federal Judiciary
The judiciary (Article III) is presented third in the Constitution, after Congress (Article I) and the executive branch (Article II). Lifetime tenure for federal judges was established along with salary protections.
Federal Judges Appointment Process
The Constitution mandates that federal judges be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate—an attempt to buffer judges from political influence. However, the appointment process remains inherently political.
Article III: Federal Judiciary
The Constitution vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and establishes limits on court jurisdictions. The judiciary is the highest legal authority, as its judgments extend over those arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties made under its authority.
Jurisdiction Types
Original Jurisdiction: Courts with original jurisdiction hear cases first and are referred to as trial courts.
Appellate Jurisdiction: Courts with appellate jurisdiction review decisions from lower courts but do not re-examine facts.
Ratification Debates and Antifederalist Concerns
During the ratification process, concerns were raised by Antifederalists regarding the potential for an overpowering judiciary.
Brutus No. 11: An essay warning against giving the Supreme Court the power to interpret constitutional legislation without checks.
Federalist No. 78 Response
Hamilton assured critics that federal judges, appointed for life and insulated from political pressures, would not undermine liberties but rather uphold the Constitution.
Congress and Judiciary Establishment
The Judiciary Act of 1789 articulated the structure of the federal judiciary.
First Congress set the number of justices to six, later fixed at nine since 1869.
Appointment Procedure and Confirmation of Federal Judges
Federal judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Appellate nominations typically face more political contention.
Senatorial Courtesy: A custom involving consultation with senators from the state affected by a nomination to ease the process.
6.3 John Marshall and the Power of the Supreme Court
In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall confronted a complex situation involving power dynamics within the federal government while settling a critical case.
The Election of 1800
The contentious election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson resulted in a political crisis.
Each elector cast two votes, resulting in a tie between Jefferson and Aaron Burr. Jefferson was finally elected president after the House of Representatives made the decision after 36 ballots.
The Judiciary Act of 1801
In response to political loss, Federalists passed the Judiciary Act of 1801 to extend their influence within the judiciary, creating several last-minute judicial appointments, known as the "midnight judges."
Marbury v. Madison Case Background
William Marbury did not receive his commission post-election as part of the midnight appointees and subsequently sued James Madison for its delivery.
Chief Justice Marshall's Ruling
Marshall divided his decision into three questions assessing whether the individuals were entitled to their commissions, whether they could seek legal remedies, and whether the court could issue writs of mandamus.
Outcome: The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to issue such writs in this case, establishing judicial review as it deemed an unconstitutional law void.
6.4 Organization of the Federal Judiciary
The federal judiciary has a structured system operating alongside state judicial systems across the country.
Jurisdictional Overview
Both state and federal courts have jurisdictions covering criminal and civil law.
Criminal Law: Government prosecutes actions deemed harmful to society.
Civil Law: Involves private disputes between individuals or entities.
Structure of the Federal Courts
Federal District Courts: Serve as general trial courts with original jurisdiction.
Federal Courts of Appeals: Act as appellate courts reviewing lower court decisions.
U.S. Supreme Court: The highest court which resolves disputes between states and interprets laws.
Decision-Making and Case Handling
The Supreme Court decides whether to hear cases based on its discretion. It typically hears fewer than one percent of cases petitioned yearly. This involves thorough evaluation of briefs and oral arguments before reaching a final decision.
6.5 Judicial Review, Constitutional Interpretation, and Judicial Decision Making
The judicial power held by the Supreme Court can create tension with democratic principles while interpreting the Constitution.
The Role of Judicial Restraint and Activism
Judicial Restraint: Courts should minimize intervention unless absolutely necessary, respecting the majority rule.
Judicial Activism: Courts should actively protect individual rights and consider broader societal impacts when necessary.
Legislative and Executive Limitations
The other branches can influence the judiciary’s power by shaping the appointment process, altering court size, or passing new legislation that counters judicial decisions.
Historical Example: Worcester v. Georgia
Marshall ruled on Native American sovereignty against Georgia law, asserting federal authority; however, President Jackson's refusal to enforce the ruling illustrates the potential limits of judicial power in practice.
Public Opinion and Judicial Decisions
Judicial legitimacy often relies on public perception and the willingness of the other branches to validate court decisions. The Supreme Court plays a role in solving controversial national issues, exemplified by its decisions on same-sex marriage, among others.
The historical context of Hamilton's arguments in Federalist No. 78 reassures skeptics regarding the judiciary's power balancing against the other branches.