The Judiciary - Comprehensive Notes
The Judiciary
2.8 The Judicial Branch
CON-5.A: The principle of judicial review and its impact on checking the powers of other institutions and state governments.
Foundational Documents:
Federalist No. 78
Fed 78, written by Hamilton, talks about the judicial branch and its powers. This document argues for the judiciary and the concept of judicial review. Judicial review is not directly stated in the constitution, so Hamilton directly talks about it in Fed 78. Fed 78 argues that it is essential that the judiciary remain independent from the other branches so they can carry out their job properly without outside/political pressure. Also, Fed 78 argues for the idea of judicial review. This means that the judicial branch can review legislation made by the other branches and can declare whether it is constitutional or not. This is important as it ensures the other branches do not take advantage of their powers to create and enforce laws, and are kept in check. Therefore, the judicial branch can act as a safeguard for the people and their rights, protecting them from unconstitutional laws and tyranny.
The Constitution of the United States.
Specifically Article 3 of the constitution talks about the powers of the judicial branch and its role in government. This article outlines its powers, establishes jurisdiction, the procedures for trials, and the right to a jury trial.
Supreme Court Case: Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury was appointed to a role in the government by outgoing president john Adams. However James Madison refused to deliver it to him under the rule of Thomas Jefferson. So, Marbury sued asking for a writ of mandamus. However, the court ruled that the writ could not be issued because the Judiciary act of 1789 was found to be unconstitutional. So, Judicial review was established. While not using it on the Marbury v. Madison case, this allowed the Judicial branch to determine the constitutionality of laws, making it the final arbiter of the constitution.
Essential Question:
How does judicial review check the power of other branches and state governments?
The judiciary is shaped by Article III of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and federal & state laws.
State courts handle most disputes, both criminal and civil.
Federal courts handle crimes against the U.S., high-value lawsuits involving citizens of different states, and constitutional questions.
Federal courts are designed to protect judicial independence.
The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court, shaping the law through judicial review and rulings.
Constitutional Authority of the Federal Courts
The three-level federal court system:
U.S. District Courts (lowest tier)
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals (middle tier)
U.S. Supreme Court (top tier)
These are "constitutional courts" as they are mentioned in the Constitution.
Judges are appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold life terms.
No national court system existed under the Articles of Confederation.
Article III empowers Congress to expand and define the national judiciary.
Article III
Mentions the Supreme Court and empowers Congress to create "inferior" courts.
Establishes terms for judges, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, definition of treason, and the right to a jury trial.
Judgeâs Terms
Federal judges hold office during âgood behavior,â generally called a âlife term.â
Most judges retire or take senior status at 65; some have been impeached and removed.
This empowers judges to make unpopular decisions independently from other branches.
Life terms allow for consistency in interpreting the law.
Congress cannot reduce judges' salaries during their terms, protecting the judiciary's independence.
Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and cases where a state is a party.
Mostly, the Supreme Court acts as an appeals court with appellate jurisdiction.
Treason
Defined in Article III as âlevying warâ or giving âaid or comfortâ to the enemy.
The only crime defined in the Constitution.
Requires at least two witnesses to testify in open court to the treasonous act for conviction.
Ensures the government cannot easily use treason charges to silence dissent.
Right to Jury Trial
Mentioned in Article III, providing a citizen check on government accusations.
Foundational Documents: Federalist No. 78
Anti-Federalists worried about an independent judiciary without checks and balances.
Brutus No. 15 expressed concern about the lack of checking power on the Supreme Court.
Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 78 that the independent judicial branch has judicial review to examine acts of legislatures.
He emphasized that judges remain on the bench as long as they act properly.
Hamilton believed an independent judiciary posed no threat.
Judicial review was established in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
The judiciary is the least dangerous branch as it has no control over the âsword or the purse.â
It is continually in jeopardy of being overpowered by other branches.
Permanency in office contributes to its firmness and independence.
Legislative acts contrary to the Constitution cannot be valid.
Judges must regard the Constitution as fundamental law and ascertain its meaning.
The independence of judges is a safeguard against societal âill humors.â
The judiciary ensures uniform adherence to the rights of the Constitution and individuals.
A Three-Level System
Judiciary Act of 1789
The first Congress defined the three-tier federal court system.
It established one district court in each state.
Defined the Supreme Court as having six justices.
President Washington appointed the first judges.
Created three regional circuit courts for appeals from district courts.
Supreme Court justices oversaw the U.S. appeals courts, "riding circuit."
Three-Tier Federal Court System
U.S. Supreme Court:
Created by Article III of the Constitution.
Nine justices.
Hears 80-100 cases from October through June.
Has original jurisdiction in unique cases.
Takes appeals from circuits and top state courts.
U.S. Circuit Court:
Created by Congress.
11 regional courts.
2 courts in Washington (D.C. and Federal).
Nearly 200 justices.
Takes appeals from district courts.
Justices sit in panels of three.
U.S. District Court:
Trial courts created by Congress.
94 districts.
Nearly 700 justices.
Hear federal criminal and civil matters.
U.S. District Courts
There are 94 district courts in the United States, with at least one in each state.
Districts may contain multiple U.S. courthouses served by federal district judges (nearly 700).
They preside over trials concerning federal crimes, lawsuits, and disputes over constitutional issues.
Receive close to 300,000 case filings annually, mostly civil in nature.
Trial Court
U.S. district courts are trial courts with original jurisdiction over federal cases.
Plaintiff - The party initiating the action.
Defendant - The party answering the claim.
In a criminal trial, the government is the plaintiff (prosecution).
In civil trials, a citizen-plaintiff brings a lawsuit against another, alleging injury.
Injury can be physical or financial, measured in dollars.
Federal Crimes
U.S. district courts try federal crimes, such as counterfeiting, mail fraud, & evading federal income taxes.
Most violent crimes are tried in state courts.
Congress has outlawed violent crime and interstate actions, such as drug trafficking, bank robbery, terrorism, & acts of violence on federal property.
Example: United States v. Timothy McVeigh (1998).
U.S. Attorneys
Each of the 94 districts has a U.S. attorney, appointed by the President and approved by the Senate.
They represent the federal government in federal courts.
Work in the Department of Justice under the Attorney General.
Assisted by the FBI and other federal law enforcement agencies.
Try nearly 80,000 federal crimes per year, including immigration and drug offenses.
Civil Cases
Citizens can bring civil disputes to U.S. court to settle conflicts.
A plaintiff files a complaint explaining damages and why the defendant should be held liable.
The plaintiff must prove the defendantâs liability or negligence with a âpreponderance of evidenceâ for the court to award damages.
Disputes involving constitutional questions also land in this court.
A federal judge, not a jury, determines the outcome of constitutional cases.
Large groups of plaintiffs can file a class action suit.
Courts may issue an injunction, or court order, to redress a wrong.
Suing the Government
The U.S. operates under sovereign immunity, protecting the government from suits unless it permits the claim.
Congress has made exceptions, establishing the U.S. Court of Claims.
Citizens can sue government officials acting in a personal capacity.
However, the government can't be sued for losses in a government-sanctioned military battle.
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals
In 1891, Congress made the U.S. appeals courts permanent, full-time bodies.
Appeals courts do not determine facts but shape the law.
The losing party can appeal based on a violation of established law, procedure, or precedent (certiorari - in which a higher court reviews a lower courts decision).
Appeals courts have a panel of judges and no witness stand or jury box.
The petitioner appeals the case, and the respondent defends the lower courtâs ruling.
Public hearings last about an hour, with each side making oral arguments.
Appeals courts do not declare guilt or innocence or generally reverse judgments in civil suits.
They rule on procedural matters, not following precedent, or violating the Constitution.
Periodically establish new principles with case law.
The U.S. Courts of Appeals consist of 11 geographic circuits.
Rulings stand within their geographic circuits.
The Circuit Court for the Federal Circuit hears appeals dealing with patents, contracts, and financial claims against the United States.
The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handles appeals from executive branch regulatory agencies and might be the second most important court, serving as a feeder for Supreme Court justices.
The United States Supreme Court
The chief justice and eight associate justices.
Hears cases on appeal from circuit courts and state supreme courts.
Determines which appeals to accept, sits en banc, hears oral arguments, poses questions, and discusses the case.
Considers decisions for weeks or months, votes, and issues reasoning.
Overturns about 70 percent of the cases it takes.
The Supreme Court's ruling becomes the law of the land.
Decides on technicalities of constitutional law that have a national and sometimes historic impact.
Established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Must-Know Supreme Court Case: Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Constitutional Question: Can an appointed judge sue for his appointment, and does the Supreme Court have the authority to hear and implement this request?
Decision: Yes and no (unanimous, 4:0).
Facts: Dispute over procedures of appointments during a presidential transition between outgoing President John Adams and incoming President Thomas Jefferson.
Outgoing President Adams appointed several Federalists as judges (midnight judges).
Secretary of State John Marshall prepared commissions but didn't deliver all of them.
Incoming President Jefferson instructed Secretary of State James Madison to hold the commissions.
William Marbury, an appointee who didn't receive notice, wanted the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus to force Madison to deliver the appointment.
Marbury brought the case to the Supreme Court due to language in the Judiciary Act of 1789 regarding the Supreme Courtâs jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court took the case:
Ruled that an appointed judge with a signed commission could sue if denied the job (yes vote).
Ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act ran contrary to Article III of the Constitution when Congress defined the Courtâs original jurisdiction.
Ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, canceling Marburyâs claim but instituting judicial review.
The Court checked Congress.
The Courtâs Unanimous Opinion by Mr. Justice John Marshall:
The judicial department must say what the law is.
Since Marbury
Marbury is a landmark case for initiating judicial review and defining common law.
Marshall declared that Congress could not make law on any subject it wanted and a new federal judiciary had power to declare laws void.
Judicial review came as a rarity after Marbury, but during the Industrial Era (1874-1920) and into the 20th century, the Court used its power of judicial review to strike down laws with greater frequency.
2.9 Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch
Essential Question: How has the Supreme Courtâs use of judicial review in conjunction with life tenure led to debates about the legitimacy of the court?
Supreme Court and lower court rulings can have considerable consequences.
Critics of courts express reasons to question its legitimacy.
Life tenure, broad federal jurisdiction, a judgeâs ideology, and unfavorable decisions lead some to distrust the power of the courts.
Common Law and Precedent
Courts follow a judicial tradition begun centuries ago in England.
Common law refers to the body of court decisions that make up part of the law.
Court rulings often establish a precedentâa ruling that firmly establishes a legal principle.
These precedents are generally followed later as subordinate courts must and other courts will consider following.
The concept of stare decisis, or âlet the decision stand,â governs common law.
Lower courts must follow higher court rulings.
Following precedent establishes continuity and consistency in law.
Therefore, when a U.S. district court receives a case that parallels an already decided case from the circuit level, the district court is obliged to rule the same way, a practice called binding precedent.
Even an independent-minded judge who disagrees with the higher courtâs precedent knows an appeal of a uniquely different decision, based in similar circumstances, will likely be overruled by the court above.
Thatâs why all courts in the land are bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Judges also rely on persuasive precedent.
That is, they can consider past decisions made in other district courts or far away circuit courts as a guiding basis for a decision.
Precedents can of course be overturned.
No two cases are absolutely identical, which is precisely why judges make decisions on a case-by-case basis.
Also, attitudes and interpretations differ and evolve over time in different courts.
Supreme Court Precedents Establish Policy
The Supreme Courtâs authority of binding precedent combined with its power of judicial review (see Topic 2.8) has given it a strong hand in establishing national policy.
Early on, it addressed national supremacy and statesâ rights.
Later, it defined the relationship between government and industry.
Most recently, the Courtâs historic impact has shaped individual rights and liberties.
Defining Federalism
The Supreme Court in its fledgling years was a nondescript institution held in low esteem.
President Washington appointed Federalist John Jay as the first chief justice.
Several early justices didnât stay on the Court long. Jay resigned in 1795 after only six years.
Once President John Adams appointed Federalist John Marshall as chief justice, the Court began to assert itself under a strong, influential leader.
Marshall, a Federalist and Father of the Supreme Court, remained on the Court from 1801 to his death in 1835.
He helped created a united court that spoke with one voice.
Marshall insisted that this brotherhood of justices agree and unite in their rulings to shape national law.
In virtually every important case during his time, that one voice was Judge Marshallâs.
âHe left the Court,â Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote years later, âa genuinely coequal branch of a tripartite national government . . . the final arbiter of the meaning of the United States Constitution.â
He fortified the Union and federal powers with rulings that strengthened national supremacy and Congressâs commerce power.
During Marshallâs tenure, the McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) rulings empowered Congress to create a bank and strengthened its power to regulate interstate commerce.
With the Marbury v. Madison (1803) decision, the Court struck down part of the Judiciary Act, thereby exercising judicial review.
Continuity and Change Over Time
The Supreme Court is known more for continuity than for change.
Membership is small, and justices serve long tenures.
The Courtâs customs are established through consensus and remain constant over generations.
The combination of the lifetime tenure of justices and the Courtâs exercise of judicial review has given rise to debates over the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Some people believe, as Anti-Federalist Brutus expressed more than 200 years ago, that with no power to hold them accountable, the justices on the Supreme Court are too separated from the real sources of powerâthe people and the legislatureâto be legitimate arbiters of democratic law.
Brutus believed the Supreme Court justices would âbe placed in a situation altogether unprecedented in a free countryâtotally independent. No errors they may commit can be corrected by any power above them, if any such power there be, nor can they be removed from office for making ever so many erroneous adjudications.â
Overturning Precedent
Precedent plays an important role in judicial decision-making.
Rulings by higher courts bind lower courts to the same ruling.
However, in 1932, Justice Brandeis wrote in a dissenting opinion in Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., âStare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable law be settled than it be settled right.â
The Supreme Court Today
When President George W. Bush replaced Chief Justice Rehnquist after his death with John Roberts (2005), the Courtâs membership had not changed for about 12 years.
President Barack Obama appointed two women, Circuit Justice Sonia Sotomayor (2009), and U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan (2010).
President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch (2017) and Brett Kavanaugh (2018) as the Courtâs newest members.
Ideology
The Rehnquist Court and the current Roberts Court have been difficult to predict.
The conservative and liberal wings had been balanced by the swing votes of Justices OâConnor and Kennedy.
Swing votes are those often tie-breaking votes cast by justices whose opinions cannot always be easily predicted.
Chief Justice John Roberts has guided the Court with judicial minimalism.
âJudges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires,â he said during his confirmation hearing. âUmpires donât make rules; they apply them . . . nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.â
Robertâs operation takes fewer cases, while the conversations and conferences go longer.
He has achieved more unanimity in decisions than some previous chief justices and has written more narrow opinions to address the questions before the Court.
2.10 The Court in Action
Essential Question
How have changes in the Supreme Court over time led to debates about the legitimacy of the court?
Conflicts between branches can lead to questions about the legitimacy of the courts.
The Supreme Court's rulings have both caused and reflected changes in society because of the individual justices who have come and gone.
The Court's customs are established through consensus and remain over generations.
Early Courts to the New Deal
Chief Justice Roger Taney replaced John Marshall.
In 1857, as the North and the South grew further apart, the Court decided the Dred Scott case.
The slave Dred Scott had traveled with his master into free territory and claimed, with the help of abolitionist lawyers, that having lived in free northern territory, he should have his freedom.
Taney and the Courtâs majority shocked abolitionists with their decision and left one of the Courtâs worst legacies.
The Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling held that Scott wasnât even a citizen and thus had no legal right to be a party in federal court, much less the countryâs top tribunal.
Corporations and the State
In the late 1800s, the Court examined concerns over business, trade, and workplace regulations as the nation had experienced vast economic expansion during the Industrial Revolution.
Congress and state legislatures attempted to address the unfair and unsafe working conditions while facing strong resistance from business leaders who argued for more of a laissez-faire, or minimal government regulation, approach.
The Court began to overturn various state health, safety, and civil rights laws, and in so doing, it shaped social policy.
By the turn of the century, the Court had developed a conservative reputation as it questioned business regulation and progressive ideas.
In Lochner v. New York (1905), the Court overturned a New York state law that prevented bakers from working more than 10 hours per day.
The New Deal and Rooseveltâs Plan
During the Depression, the Court transformed.
Charles Evans Hughes replaced Taft as chief justice in 1929.
After his 1936 landslide re-election, Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) responded to the rebuffs of the conservative Court by devising a plan to âpack the Court.â
He proposed legislation to add one justice for every justice then over the age of 70, which would have allowed him to appoint up to six new members.
After the West Coast Hotel decision, the Court upheld every New Deal measure that had come before it.
A Court Dedicated to Individual Liberties
In the post-World War II years, the Court protected and extended individual liberties.
The trend crested in 1973 when the Court upheld a womanâs right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade.
The Warren Court
The Court extended many liberties under Chief Justice Earl Warren after President Dwight Eisenhower appointed him in 1953.
Warren CourtâCivil Rights and Civil Liberties
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Overturned the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, stating the âseparate but equalâ standard violated the Fourteenth Amendmentâs equal protection clause.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Ruled that evidence illegally obtained would be inadmissible in court.
Engle v. Vitale (1962)
Upheld the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The Burger Court
In Roe v. Wade, Burger joined six others on the Court to outlaw or modify state anti-abortion laws as a violation of due process.
The Rehnquist Court
Based on Rehnquistâs strict constructionist views, President Nixon had nominated Rehnquist for the High Court.
Legislating after Unfavorable Decisions
The passage and ratification of the obscure Eleventh Amendment, which further defines court jurisdiction, was in response to the 1794 ruling in Chisolm v. Georgia.
Anti-Federalists and statesâ rights advocates had warned that the new federal courts might overpower the state courts, and they saw the decision in Chisolm v. Georgia as such an encroachment.
Implementation
Courts decide principles and order citizens or government entities to take action or refrain from action.
The executive branch must then enforce this law.
On a basic, local level, a state judge may issue a restraining order, but the police must do any necessary restraining.
How Cases Reach the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is guided by Article III, congressional acts, and its own rules.
The Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction.
Only in rare situations does the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction and thus serve as a trial court.
Only in rare situations does the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction and thus serve as a trial court, typically when one state sues another over a border dispute or to settle some type of interstate compact.Chief Justice John Marshallâs legacy of unanimity has vanished.
2.11 Checks on the Judicial Branch
Essential Question: What issues lead to debates about the legitimacy of the Court, and how can other branches limit Supreme Court power?
The Constitution has granted the executive and legislative branches the ability to check the power of the Court. This idea directly relates to Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieuâs beliefs on the need for separation of powers and the value of a system of checks and balances.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
Ever since the Supreme Court first exercised judicial review in Marbury, it has reserved the right to rule on government action in violation of constitutional principles.
Judicial review has seemingly placed the Supreme Court above the other branches, making it the final arbiter on many controversies.
When judges strike down laws or reverses public policy, they are exercising judicial activism.
Activism can be liberal or conservative, depending on the nature of the law or executive action that is struck down.
Critics of judicial activism tend to point out that, in a democracy, elected representative legislatures should create policy
Strict constructionist Antonin Scalia once claimed, âA âlivingâ Constitution judge [is] a happy fellow who comes home at night to his wife and says, âThe Constitution means exactly what I think it ought to mean!ââ
Justices should not declare a law unconstitutional, strict constructionists say today, when it merely violates their own idea of what the Constitution means in a contemporary context, but only when the law clearly and directly contradicts the document.
Interactions with Other Branches
Congress and the president interact with the judiciary in many ways. From the creation of various courts to the appointment of judges to the implementation of a judicial decision, the judiciary often crosses paths with the other two branches.
Despite the concern of some Anti-Federalists, the other branches of government do have ways to limit the power of the Supreme Court.
Presidential Appointments and Senate Confirmation
With hundreds of judgeships in the lower courts, presidents will have a chance to appoint judges to the federal bench over their four or eight years in office.
When a vacancy occurs, or when Congress creates a new seat on an overloaded court, the president carefully selects a qualified judge because that person can shape law and will likely do so until late in his or her life.
Senateâs Advice and Consent
The Senate Judiciary Committee reviews the presidentâs judicial appointments.
Less controversial district judges are confirmed without a hearing based largely on the recommendation of the senators from the nomineeâs state.
The more controversial, polarizing Supreme Court nominees will receive greater attention during sometimes contentious and dramatic hearings.
Senatorial Courtesy
The Senate firmly reserves its right of advice and consent.
Confirmation
When a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, a president has a unique opportunity to shape American jurisprudence.
Executive and Legislative Influence on the Courtsâ Power
In addition to strategically choosing judicial nominees and selectively approving them, the president and Congress interact with lower courts and the Supreme Court in other ways
The other branches have the powers to bring matters and crimes to court, impeach and remove judges, use the power of the purse to affect the judiciary and judicial decisions, partially redefine courtsâ jurisdiction, and implement court rulings in their own way.
The Justice Department
The Department of Justice, headed by the attorney general investigates federal crimes with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and U.S. attorneys prosecute the accused criminals.
Impeachment
Federal judges who act criminally or perhaps unethically can be impeached and removed.
Impeachment has served as Congressâs check on the judgesâ life terms, and the House has impeached 15 federal judges.
Congressional Oversight and Influence
Congress sets and pays judgesâ salaries.
Congress budgets for the construction and maintenance of federal courthouses.
It has passed an entire body of law that helps govern the judiciary.
Defining Jurisdiction
Article III includes the power to consider all cases arising under the Constitution, federal law or treaty, and admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.