The Supreme Court
Developing Supreme Court Power
• Early in the court’s history, it was established
neither that the Supreme Court, nor any other
federal court may initiate action.
– (A judge/justice can not seek out an issue and
request that the parties bring their case before
the court)
• The court must wait for litigants, or those
involved in a lawsuit, to appeal to the court
The Supreme Court
• The Supreme Court of the
United States is the
highest judicial body in the
United States.
• The Court meets in
Washington, D.C. in the
United States Supreme
Court building. The
Supreme Court is primarily
an appellate court, but it
has original jurisdiction
over a small range of cases
The Supreme Court
• It consists of the Chief Justice of the United
States and eight Associate Justices, who are
nominated by the President and confirmed by
the Senate.
• Once appointed, Justices effectively have life
tenure, serving "during good Behavior“, which
terminates only upon death, resignation,
retirement, or conviction on impeachment.
The Marshall Court
• The longest serving Chief Justice in Supreme
Court history, John Marshall established that
the courts are entitled to exercise judicial
review, the power to strike down laws that
violate the Constitution.
• He repeatedly confirmed the supremacy of
federal law over state law and supported an
expansive reading of the enumerated powers.
John Marshall
• John Marshall shaped
American constitutional
law and made the
Supreme Court a center
of power.
– He established the idea
of judicial review in the
decision for Marbury v.
Madison in 1804
Landmark Cases
• Marbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in U.S. law.
It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review
in the U.S. under Article III of the Constitution.
• Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme
Court declared something "unconstitutional," and
established the concept of judicial review in the U.S.
(the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the
actions of another branch of government).
• The landmark decision helped define the "checks and
balances" of the American form of government.
How do they decide which cases to hear?
• The Supreme Court decides
to hear a case on three
major factors:
– Is it an appeal by the federal
court and is in conflict with
the decisions of other circuits
– the general importance of
the case
– whether the lower court's
decisions may be wrong in
light of the Supreme Court's
opinions
• A petition for a writ of
certiorari is the
documentation sent to the
Supreme Court of the United
States to request that they
review a case.
• A writ of certiorari ("to be
informed") is issued from any
appellate court (the Supreme
Court is the highest appellate
court) to a lower court
requesting more information
about a case - seeking judicial
review.
How do they decide a case?
• Once the Supreme Court
accepts a case, the lawyers
give the Court lengthy,
detailed documents called
"briefs" – arguing their points
and providing legal support
for them.
• Next, the attorneys typically
argue the merits of their
cases orally before the
Supreme Court (which the
public is welcome to attend).
The Court considers these
briefs and arguments in
researching and deciding the
cases.
The Conference
• After the lawyers complete their oral
arguments, the justices debate the case.
• Justices spend about 30 minutes per case
debating, then they vote.
– The majority decision stands.
The Opinion
• The opinion states the
• There are 4 different
facts of the case.
opinions:
– Unanimous
• The opinions are as
– majority
important as the
– concurring
decision itself. They set
a precedent for the
– dissenting
lower courts to follow in
future cases and gives
the public an
explanation for their
decision.
Opinions
• Unanimous: all justices vote the same way (only
about 1/3 of the decisions are unanimous)
• Majority: expresses the views of a majority of the
justices
• Concurring: one or more of the justices agree
with the majority’s conclusions on the case, but
for different reasons
• Dissenting: opinion of the justices on the losing
side.
Judicial Activism
• The philosophy of judicial activism is the
charge that judges are going beyond their
appropriate powers and engaging in making
law and not merely interpreting it.
– Justices base their decisions as answers to social
and political problems.
• Judicial activism is a critical term used by
some to describe judicial rulings that they feel
are based more upon the judge's personal bias
than by existing law.
Judicial Restraint
• Judicial restraint encourages judges to limit
the exercise of their own power. It asserts that
judges should hesitate to strike down laws
unless they are obviously unconstitutional.
– This means that they base their decisions solely
on their interpretation of the Constitution.
Landmark Cases
• Fletcher v. Peck (1810),
was one of the first
cases in which the
Supreme Court ruled a
state law
unconstitutional.
• It is the earliest case of
the Court asserting its
right to invalidate state
laws conflicting with the
Constitution.
Landmark Cases
• Dred Scott v. Sandford
was a decision by the
United States Supreme
Court that ruled that
people of African descent
imported into the United
States and held as slaves,
or their descendants —
whether or not they were
slaves — were not
protected by the
Constitution and could
never be citizens of the
United States.
Scott v. Sanford
• It also held that the United States Congress
had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal
territories.
• The Court also ruled that because slaves were
not citizens, they could not sue in court.
• Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves — as
private property — could not be taken away
from their owners without due process.
Due Process
• Following the Civil War, the Supreme Court issued
several rulings on the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendments.
These amendments were intended to ensure the
rights of newly freed African Americans, BUT the
Court did not apply the due process clause of the
14th Amendment when individuals challenged
business or state interests.
• The due process clause says that no state may
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without the due process of law.
• Plessy v. Ferguson,
(1896), upheld the
constitutionality of racial
segregation even in public
accommodations
(particularly railroads),
under the doctrine of
"separate but equal".
• "Separate but equal"
remained standard
doctrine in U.S. law until
it was overturned with
Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka in
1954.
Brown v. Board of Education
• Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka, (1954), overturned earlier
rulings going back to Plessy v.
Ferguson in 1896, by declaring that
state laws that established separate
public schools for black and white
students denied black children
equal educational opportunities.
• As a result, de jure racial
segregation was ruled a violation of
the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution.
• This victory paved the way for
integration and the civil rights
movement.