Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch

The History of the Federal Judiciary

  • Most founders probably expected judicial review but did not anticipate the courts to have such a large role in policy-making.

  • Hamilton - Federalist #78- the independence of judges is essential to a democracy.

  • judges are appointed, not elected

  • they have life term

  • they are not supposed to be affected by public opinion

  • no matter if people are mad at their decisions, they keep their job

  • He believed the courts to be the least dangerous of the three branches.

  • most court cases are state crimes

  • most common crime is tax evasion

  • most people accused are guilty so they take a:

  • plea bargain- saying they are guilty but they get a lesser charge (excuses)

  • it is the least dangerous branch:

  • they do not have the power of the purse or sword

Judicial Review

  • Marbury v Madison (1803) granted the courts the power of judicial review

  • Judicial Review- the right of federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.

  • interpreting the constitution

  • states cannot do anything contrary to federal gov

  • checks other branches

  • It’s the #1 judicial weapon in the checks and balances system.

Precedents

  • Definition- When judges rule on cases by using the decisions of previous judges.

  • Also known as Stare Decisis- “Let the decision stand.”

  • judges use previous decisions to influence their current answers (if something worked back then, then it may work now)

How to interpret the Constitution?

  • There is much debate on how the Constitution should be interpreted:

1) Judicial Restraint- judges are boundby the wording of Constitution. (narrowly interpret)

  • using the stare decisis

2) Judicial Activism- judges should look to the underlying principles of the Constitution. (broadly interpret).

  • use this when overturning previous laws

  • activist eventually becomes precedent for future cases

  • both liberals and conservatives act on this one more because it depends on the case subject (ex: if a case leans more liberal, then conservatives act as activist)

  • there are 9 judges

The Role of the Courts

  • Ideological changes in the composition of the Supreme Court due to presidential appointments have led to the Court’s establishing new or rejecting existing precedents.

  • Topics that have been decided by the Court include:

  • desegregation of schools

  • gay rights

  • abortion laws

Dual Court System

state courts: state crimes

  1. state trial courts- judge rules during case, has no effect on common people

  2. state appealte courts (where you appeal)- go here if lost, it is NOT a retrial, simply giving excuses (typically claiming that something happened that caused them to lose)

  3. state supreme court- go here if lost appeal

  4. requests for review in supreme court- if lost state supreme, you must raise a constitutional issue or federal question to go US supreme

  5. united states supreme court

  • mneumonic: technically a state runs underneath

federal courts: federal crimes

  1. united states district courts- court of original jurisdiction, least dangerous to common people

  2. united states courts of appeals/circuit courts- judges get nominated by prez, confirmed by senate, have life term. 90% of cases end here

  3. requests for review in supreme court- if lost circuit court, you must raise a constitutional issue or federal question to go US supreme

  4. united states supreme court- 9 people serve, they were previously in the circuit court

  • mneumonic: dont carry ruined umbrellas

  • most cases end with giving the defendent a plea bargain

  • FL has 3 district courts

  • total fed judges= 2,000

  • trump appointed 200 judges, all were confirmed

Jurisdiction of Courts

  • Dual court system- state courts and federal courts have their own jurisdiction.

  • Federal question cases: involving US Constitution, federal law and treaties.

  • ex: kidnapping, treason, espionage, tax evasion, counterfeiting (printing money)

  • Also cases involving different states or citizens of different states

  • State cases are much more common (murder, assault, battery, larceny)

  • if you do the same state crime in multiple states, it is considered a federal crime

Federal or State Court?

  • Some cases can be tried at either level.

  • Example: if both federal and state laws have been broken. (dual sovereignty)

  • State cases can sometimes be appealed to the Supreme Court....a federal question must be raised.

Selecting Federal Judges

  • All federal court judges are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, on recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee.

  • Senatorial Courtesy- when president asks senator to help nominate judge in district court, only happens in district

  • least invasive judges to common people: district judges

  • when a district judge steps down:

  • senate has to find names to replace them

The Litmus Test

  • Presidents seek judges who share a similar ideology to their own.

  • Greatest impact on court decisions is ideology.

  • Presidents tend to nominate more moderate judges when the Senate is controlled by the opposite party

  • prez putting someone with same ideology on court, helps him win cases he wants to be passed

Constitutional Courts

  • District Courts- (94)

  • At least 1 in each state

  • Trial courts of the federal system

  • Single judge and jury present.

  • Circuit Court of Appeals (12)

  • appellate court

  • located regionally

  • panel of 3 judges

  • most cases are state cases

Circuit Court of Appeals

  • Decisions appealed to the US Supreme Court.

  • Over 8000 decisions get appealed in a calendar year

  • Most get denied. When this happens, the decision is REMANDED back to the lower court, which means the circuit court decision stands.

  • Circuit Court decisions are usually the court of last resort for most cases.

  • between 60/70 and 100 cases go to supreme court

  • most cases get remanded

  • once a case is denied in the circuit court AND denied in supreme, youre done

  • ideology matters when a judge is being appointed

  • supreme justices were first a circuit court judge

  • there are 9 memebers in supreme court (1 chief)- if tied on a case:

  • it gets remanded back to the circuit court

Route to the Supreme Court

  • Most federal cases begin in district court, then are appealed to circuit court.

  • Supreme Court picks which cases it wants to hear. Rule of Four- 4 justices agree to hear case, then issue a writ of certiorari- the case gets on docket, a date in the supreme court. this tieggers all paperwork to be sent to supreme and lawyers get busy

  • Usually pick cases that deal with:
    1) significant federal or constitutional question
    2) conflicting decisions by circuit courts
    3) constitutional interpretation by a high state court, about state or federal law.

  • the supreme court determines the entire docket- what cases rhey hear, their clerks can suggest which cases they take

  • solicitor general:

  • appointed by prez and confirmed by the senate

  • is the 9 1/2 or 10th justice in supreme court

  • represents the citizens of the US/prez in supreme court

  • he can ask the supreme court to hear a case on behalf of the prez

  • his term only lasts the length of the president's terms

  • to become this you have to be a senior lawyer

Going Supreme!!

  • About 8000 requests for certiorari are submitted, the Supreme Court usually limits its DOCKET to no more than 100 cases in a year.

  • The Supreme Court sometimes hears cases on original jurisdiction:
    1) when a foreign ambassador is named in a case
    2) when a state is named in a case
    3) when maritime/admirality law is involved.

  • judges look for cases that support their ideology

  • ex: conservative judges looked for years to find a case to overturn Roe V Wade

Supreme Court in Action

  • Each side has an 1/2 hour for oral arguments, including interruptions for questions by justices.

  • Briefs are submitted by each side, solicitor general, and friends of the court-

  • amicus curiae briefs-

  • friend of the court

  • outside parties can also file their opinions

  • they are typically interest groups

  • a form of lobbying the courts- attempts to influence judges or judicial proceedings outside of the official courtroom process

  • Solicitor general- 10th justice and does not get to vote

  • judges minds are typically made up about a case before they hear defense

  • actual hearing works with a red/green light system and each person gets 30 mins to talk

Conference Procedures

  • Judges meet in chambers.

  • Chief Justice speaks first, votes last. he writes the majority opinion or assigns someone else to write it

  • Selection of opinion writer

  • Types of opinions:
    1) majority opinion- official decision
    2) concurring opinion- agree, but for different reason
    3) Dissenting opinion- minority opinion.

  • this matters for future cases because judges can use it to defend.

  • ex: the decision to overturn roe v wade was once a dissenting opinion

  • if there is a tie in votes, it is remanded back to the circuit court

  • newest justice votes first and speaks last

  • if chief justice is on the losing side, majority opinion is written by judge with most seniority on winning side

Checks on Judicial power

  • all these are done by congress

  • a court case or law is only as strong as the person enforing it (prez or state)

  • weak enforcement = weak effect

  • the public has extreme influence in court decisions

  • ex: gay marriage

1) confirmation and impeachment
2) change the number of judges
3) changing jurisdiction of courts
4) revising legislation
5) amending the Constitution
6) Prez or states delaying implementation of Supreme Court decision (executive executes laws and court orders

Life tenure

  • Life tenure for justices allows the court to function independent of the current political climate.

  • As a result of this independence, the Court can deliver controversial or unpopular court decisions, which in turn can lead to debate about the court’s power.