Date post: | 04-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | austin-wilcox |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Chapter 16
The Federal Courts
The Court 2006
The Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States as of 2006. Top row (left to right): Stephen G. Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Samuel A. Alito. Bottom row (left to right): Anthony M. Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Antonin G. Scalia, and David H. Souter.
The Constitution and the Creation of the Federal Judiciary
Framers devoted little time to the creation of the judiciary. Believed it posed little of the threat of tyranny
they feared from the other two branches. Anti-federalists did see the judiciary as a threat.
Framers left it to Congress to design the federal judiciary.
Article III Did not settle the question of judicial
review Not explicitly stated in the Constitution Allows the judiciary to review the
constitutionality of acts of the other branches of government and the states Judicial review settled with Marbury v.
Madison (1803) for national government’s acts and Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) regarding state law
The Judicial Power of the United States Supreme Court
The following are the types of cases the Supreme Court was given the jurisdiction to hear as initially specified in the Constitution:
•All cases arising under the Constitution and laws or treaties of the United States
•All cases of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction
•Cases in which the United States is a party
•Controversies between a state and citizens of another state
•Controversies between two or more states
•Controversies between citizens of different states
•Controversies between citizens of the same states claiming lands under grants in different states
•Controversies between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states or citizens thereof
•All cases affecting ambassadors or other public ministers
Article III Section I gave Congress the authority to
establish other courts as it saw fit. Section II specifies the judicial power of the
Supreme Court and discusses the Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction. Also specifies that all federal crimes, except
those involving impeachment, shall be tried by jury in the state in which the crime was committed.
Section III defines treason, and mandates that at least two witnesses appear in such cases.
Article III Framers gave federal judges tenure for life “with good
behavior.” Did not want judges to be subject to the whims of
politics, the public, or politicians Hamilton argued in Federalist 78 that the
“independence of judges” was needed “to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals.”
Some checks on judiciary included: Congress has the authority to alter the Court’s
jurisdiction. Congress can propose constitutional amendments
that, if ratified, can effectively reverse judicial decisions.
Congress can impeach and remove federal judges. President (with advise and consent of Senate)
appoints federal judges.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 and the Creation of the Federal Judicial System
Established the basic three-tiered structure of the federal court system District courts: at least one in each state, each staffed by
a federal judge. Circuit Court: avenue for appeal.
Each circuit court initially composed of one district court judge and two itinerant Supreme Court Justices who met as a circuit court twice a year
Supreme Court size set in the Act – chief justice and five associates Number of justices set to 9 in 1869.
The Early Court First session of the Supreme Court
initially had to be adjourned when a quorum of the justices failed to show up.
Later, the court decided only one major case.
Relatively lowly status One associate judge left to become chief
justice of a state supreme court.
The Early Court First decade, Court not co-equal but it did
assert itself. Declined to give President Washington advice on
the legality of some of his actions Attempted to establish the Court as an
independent, nonpolitical branch Tried to advance principles of nationalism and to
maintain the national government’s supremacy over the states
Began to pave the way for announcement of the doctrine of judicial review
The Marshall Court: Marbury v. Madison (1803) and Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison Supreme Court first asserted the power of
judicial review in finding that the congressional statute extending the Court’s original jurisdiction was unconstitutional.
Marshall claimed this sweeping authority for the Court by asserting that the right of judicial review was a power that could be implied from the Constitution’s supremacy clause.
The immediate effect was to deny power to the Court. The long term effect was to establish the power of judicial review.
The American Legal System Trial courts
Courts of original jurisdiction where a case begins Appellate courts
Courts that generally review only findings of law made by lower courts
Jurisdiction Authority vested in a particular court to hear and
decide the issues in any particular case Original jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of courts that
hears a case first, usually in a trial. Courts determine the facts of a case under their original jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction: The power vested in an appellate court to review and/or revise the decision of a lower court.
The American Legal System Criminal law
Codes of behavior related to the protection of property and individual safety
Civil law Codes of behavior related to business and
contractual relationships between groups and individuals
The Nature of the Judicial SystemParticipants in the Judicial System
LitigantsPlaintiff - the party bringing the chargeDefendant - the party being chargedJury - the people (normally 12) who often
decide the outcome of a caseStanding to sue - plaintiffs have a serious
interest in the case.Justiciable disputes – A case must be
capable of being settled as a matter of law.Plea Bargains – most common result
Figure 16.1
The Structure of the Federal Judicial System
The Federal Court System
Constitutional courts Federal courts specifically created by the
U.S. Constitution or Congress pursuant to its authority in Article III
Legislative courts Courts established by Congress for
specialized purposes, such as the Court of Military Appeals
The Federal Court System
District Courts 94 federal district courts staffed by 646
active judges, assisted by more than 300 retired judges
No district courts cross state lines. Every state has at least one federal
district court. The most populous states have four (CA,
TX, and NY). Georgia has three.
Original Jurisdiction of Federal District Courts
Involve the federal government as a party Present a federal question based on a claim
under the U.S. Constitution, a treaty with another nation, or a federal statute
Involve civil suits in which citizens are from different states, and the amount of money at issue is more than $75,000
District Courts Each federal judicial district has a U.S.
attorney. This individual is nominated by the president and
confirmed by the senate. The attorney is that district’s chief law
enforcement officer. They have a considerable amount of discretion
as to whether they pursue criminal or civil investigations or file charges against individuals or corporations.
The Courts of Appeals The losing party in a case heard and decided in a
federal district court can appeal the decision to the appropriate court of appeals.
11 numbered circuit courts Twelfth, D.C. Court of Appeals
Handles most appeals involving federal regulatory commissions and agencies
Thirteenth, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Deals with patents and contract and financial claims
against the federal government Have no original jurisdiction Try to correct errors of law and procedure that have
occurred in the lower courts or administrative agencies
Hear no new testimony.
The Federal Court System
The Structure of the Federal Judicial System
The Federal Judicial Circuits (Figure 16.2)
The Structure of the Federal Judicial System
The Supreme Court9 justices – 1 Chief Justice, 8 Associate
JusticesSupreme Court decides which cases it will
hearSome original jurisdiction, but mostly
appellate jurisdiction.Most cases come from the federal courtsMost cases are civil cases
The Supreme Court Decisions of the court of appeals are
binding on only the district courts within the geographic confines of the circuit.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are binding throughout the nation and establish national precedents. Reliance on past decisions or precedents to
formulate decisions in new cases is called “stare decisis.”
Allows for continuity and predictability
How Federal Court Judges Are Selected
Often a very political process Judges nominated by president and
confirmed by Senate Can reflect the ideological stamp of the
president Senatorial Courtesy
A process by which presidents, when selecting district court judges, defer to the senator in whose state the vacancy occurs.
Characteristics of District Court Appointees from Carter to Bush
Who Are Federal Judges?
Typically they have held other political offices. State court judge or prosecutor Most have been involved in politics White males tend to dominate
Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court
Nomination Criteria Competence Ideology or Policy Preference
Strict constructionist: an approach to constitutional interpretation that emphasizes the Framer’s original intentions.
Pursuit of Political Support from Various Groups
Litmus Test
The Supreme Court, 2004+
John Roberts b.1955 appt. 2005 Harvard Law Catholic
Samuel Alito b.1950 appt. 2006 Yale Law Catholic
The Supreme Court Confirmation Process
Investigation Lobbying by Interest Groups Senate Committee Hearings Senate Vote
The Politics of Judicial Selection
The Lower CourtsSenatorial Courtesy:
Unwritten tradition where a judge is not confirmed if a senator of the president’s party from the state where the nominee will serve opposes the nomination.
Has the effect of the president approving the Senate’s choice
President has more influence on appellate level
The Politics of Judicial Selection
The Supreme CourtPresident relies on attorney general and
DOJ to screen candidates.1 out of 5 nominees will not make it.Presidents with minority party support in
the Senate will have more trouble.Chief Justice can be chosen from a sitting
justice, or a new member.
The Politics of Judicial Selection
The Backgrounds of Judges and JusticesCharacteristics:
Generally white malesLawyers with judicial and often political
experienceOther Factors:
Generally of the same party as the appointing president
Litmus Test – What is it today? Judges and justices may disappoint the
appointing president
The Backgrounds of Judges and Justices
Interest Groups
The Supreme Court Today: Deciding to Hear a Case
9,000 cases were filed at the Supreme Court in its 2003-2004 term. Not always the norm 1940s fewer than 1000 cases filed annually During the 2003-2004 term, 90 cases were
argued and 73 signed petitions were issued. Modern period, many of the cases have involved
Bill of Rights issues
How Does a Case Survive the Process? Characteristics of the cases the Court
accepts: The federal government is the party asking for
review. Solicitor General
The case involves conflict among circuit courts. The case presents a civil rights or civil liberties
question. The case involves ideological and/or policy
preferences of the justices. The case has significant social or political
interest, as evidenced by the presence of interest group amicus curiae briefs.
Supreme Court Caseload, 1950-2004 Terms
Supreme Court Today Court has two types of jurisdiction
Original Appellate
Rule of Four Court controls its caseload through the certiorari process.
All petitions for certiorari must meet two criteria: The case must come either from a U.S. court of appeals, a
special three-judge district court, or a state court of last resort.
Case must involve a federal question. This means that the case must present questions of interpretation of federal constitutional law or involve a federal statute, action or treaty.
Cert pool Discuss list Cert granted when at least four justices vote to hear a case
Supreme Court Cases
What Do Supreme Court Clerks Do?
Supreme Court clerks are among the best and brightest recent law school graduates. Almost all first clerks for a judge on one of the courts of appeals. After their Supreme Court clerkship, former clerks are in high demand. Firms often pay signing bonuses of up to $80,000 to attract clerks, who often earn over $130,000 their first year in private practice.
Tasks of a Supreme Court clerk including the following:•Perform initial screening of the 9,000 or so petitions that come to the Court each term•Draft memos to summarize the facts and issues in each case, recommending whether the case should be accepted by the Court for full review•Write a “bench memo” summarizing an accepted case and suggesting questions for oral argument•Write the first draft of an opinion•Be an informal conduit for communicating and negotiating between other justices’ chambers as to the final wording of an opinion
Table 10.7
Amicus Curiae Briefs in an Affirmative Action case: Grutter v. Bolinger and Gratz v. Bolinger (2003)
Hearing and Deciding a Case
Oral argumentsThe conference and the voteThe opinion
Figure 16.4
The Courts as PolicymakersAccepting Cases
Use the “rule of four” to choose cases. What is the rule of four?
Issues a writ of certiorari to call up the case. Very few cases are actually accepted each year.
Figure 16.5
The Courts as PolicymakersMaking Decisions
Oral arguments may be made in a case. Justices discuss the case. One justice will write the majority opinion
(statement of legal reasoning behind a judicial decision) on the case.
The Courts as Policymakers
Making Decisions, continued Dissenting opinions are written by justices
who oppose the majority. Concurring opinions are written in support of
the majority but stress a different legal basis. Stare decisis: to let the previous decision
stand unchanged. Precedents: How similar past cases were
decided. Original Intent: The idea that the Constitution
should be viewed according to the original intent of the framers.
The Courts as Policymakers
Implementing Court DecisionsMust rely on others to carry out decisions Interpreting population: understand the
decision Implementing population: the people who
need to carry out the decision – may be disagreement
Consumer population: the people who are affected (or could be) by the decision
The Courts and the Policy Agenda A Historical Review
John Marshall (1801-1835) and the Growth of Judicial ReviewMarbury v. MadisonJudicial review: courts determine
constitutionality of acts of Congress The “Nine Old Men” – switch in time and the New
Deal The Warren Court – Liberal Activist – 1953-1969 The Burger Court – 1969-1986 The Rehnquist Court – 1986-2005 The Roberts Court??? – 2005-
Selected Chief Justices
Judicial Policy Making and Implementation
Policy making: More than one hundred federal laws
have been declared unconstitutional. Ability to overrule itself
Judicial Implementation: Refers to how and whether judicial
decisions are translated into actual public policies affecting more than the immediate parties to a lawsuit.
Understanding the CourtsThe Courts and Democracy
Courts are not very democraticNot electedDifficult to remove
The courts do reflect popular majoritiesGroups are likely to use the courts when
other methods fail – promoting pluralismThere are still conflicting rulings leading
to deadlock and inconsistencyPublic opinion and the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court and the American Public
Understanding the CourtsWhat Courts Should Do: The Scope of
Judicial Power Judicial restraint: judges should play a minimal
policymaking role - leave the policies to the legislative branch.
Judicial activism: judges should make bold policy decisions and even charting new constitutional ground.
Political questions: means of the federal courts to avoid deciding some cases.
Statutory construction: the judicial interpretation of an act of Congress.
Judicial Philosophy and Decision Making
Judicial restraint: A philosophy of judicial decision making that
argues courts should allow the decisions of other branches of government to stand, even when they offend a judge’s own sense of principles.
Judicial activism: A philosophy of judicial decision making that
argues judges should use their power broadly to further justice, especially in the areas of equality and personal liberty.
Understanding the Courts
Table 10.5
The End