Interpret
the
meaning of
this
image…
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
* Types of law.
- Statutory Law: deals w/written statutes
(laws).
- Common Law: judges make decisions
based on unwritten law (precedents)
- Judges rely upon the principle of stare
decisis ("let the decision stand")
- This is the basic system of law in Britain.
- Criminal Law: concerns violations of laws
- Civil Law: concerns disputes (torts) between
two parties rather than violations against
society.
- Examples: breach of contract, slander,
medical malpractice.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
* Judicial power is passive:
- Courts cannot reach out and
"take" cases Cases must come
to them
- There must be an actual case
(“controversy”) for a court to make
a ruling
* Only those with standing may
challenge a law or govt. action:
- i.e., only one who has sustained
or is near sustaining an "injury"
may bring a case to court
- One cannot challenge a law
simply because one does not
happen to like it
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
* Judicial law-making:
- Judges are not impartial referees who only carry
out the law.
- Judges interpret the law, and in so doing in fact
make law.
- It is necessary that they make law because:
(1) Statutes are often broadly-worded, unclear, or
contradictory
(2) The Constitution is broadly-worded, needing
interpretation
* Evidence of judicial law-making:
- The Supreme Court has reversed itself >200 times
since 1810
- Since the 1960's, increasingly seem willing to rule
on political questions rather than solely on legislative
or constitutional questions (e.g., Baker v. Carr, Shaw
v. Reno, Bush v. Gore)
USA Judicial System Basics
The Nature of the Judicial System
Criminal Law Participants:
- Defendant - the party being charged with a crime
- Prosecution – the government—proves guilt of defendants
- Grand Jury – decide if enough evidence enough evidence exists
to formally accuse person of committing crime
Civil Law Participants:
- Plaintiff - the party bringing the charge/complaint
- Defendant – person being sued
Criminal & Civil Law Juries:
- Petit Jury - the people (normally 12) who often decide the
outcome of a case
Map of a Typical Courtroom
Criminal Law: Due Process
Criminal Law Timeline
Definition
Govt. charges someone with committing crime
Actors
Involved
Prosecution: always the government
Defendant: person accused of crime
Petit Jury: 12 citizens who decide case
Criminal
Law Steps
(1) Investigation & Arrest
(2) Grand Jury —formally accuse of crime (indict)
* (3) Plea Bargain: Defendant pleads guilty to a lesser crime,
but gets lighter punishment
(4) Criminal Trial
(5)
a. Petit Jury’s Decision
b. Judge’s sentence (punishment)
Civil Law Timeline
Definition Deals with disputes
Actors
Involved
Civil Law
Steps
Plaintiff—Person who seeks damages, the victim
Defendant– Person accused of causing damages
Sometimes a jury
(1) Hire a Lawyer
(2) File Complaint (legal document with charges)
(3) Pretrial Discovery
(4) Resolution without a trial—settlement or
mediation/arbitration
(5)
a. The Trial
b. Award—If plaintiff wins, plaintiff gets money!
Comparing the Types of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof: the requirement of PROVING a disputed charge
Criminal Conviction:
Requires the jury to find
defendant guilty Beyond a
Reasonable Doubt
Civil Conviction: Requires the
jury to decide winner of lawsuit
based upon the
Preponderance of Evidence
Meaning: To convict a defendant Meaning: The party that
of a crime, the jury must have little provides more convincing
or no doubt that the defendant is evidence than opponent wins
guilty
- Juror needs to be at least 90%
sure of guilt to convict
The Nature of the Judicial System
• Participants in the Judicial System
– Attorneys:
• 6th Amendment & Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) only guarantees
legal counsel to defendant in criminal cases!
• Access to quality lawyers is not equal
– How Groups can influence courts?
• Class-Action Suit: lawsuit seeking damages for “all persons similarly
situated”
– Users of particular products
– Fight for civil rights
• Use the courts to try to change policies if other branches are too slow!
– NAACP used courts in the 1950s & 1960s
• Amicus Curiae briefs are used to influence the courts
The Nature of the Judicial System
Plea Bargain: Defendant pleads guilty to
lesser crime—govt. doesn‘t prosecute the
more serious crime
- Prevents case from going to trial limits #
of criminal cases that go to court
- 90% of all criminal cases end in plea bargain
* Controversies of Plea Bargains:
- defendant gives up many due process
rights (specifically 5th Amendment rights)
- guilty plea stays on your record—can lose
many government benefits
Plea-Bargain Documentary: The Story of Erma Faye
Stewart & Regina Kelly
1. Why were Erma Faye Stewart and Regina Kelly arrested?
2. Why did their court-appointed lawyers believe Stewart and Kelly should
plead guilty?
3. Why did Stewart end up pleading guilty?
4. What happened to Stewart and Kelly after the confidential informant had
lied to the prosecution?
5. Because Stewart took the plea bargain, can she apply for federal aid?
Structure of the Federal Court System
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in
one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The
Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated
Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which
shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
What are the main ideas from Article 3, Section 1?
Article 3, Section 2
•The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under
this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which
shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors,
other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to
Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of
another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a
State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall
have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions,
and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
What are the main ideas from Article 3, Section 2?
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
* Jurisdiction: 4 types
(1) Exclusive: sole authority of a federal court to
try a case
(2) Concurrent: authority of both a federal and a
state court to try a case
(3) Original: authority of a court to first try a case
(4) Appellate: authority of a court to hear a
case’s appeal—review if lower court correctly
applied law
* Jurisdiction of federal courts Federal courts
may try a case if it involves:
A. The Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty
B. Admiralty law (matters on high seas) or
maritime law (matters on land but relating to
water)
C. Disputes between two or more states
D. The U.S. government as a party
E. Citizens of different states
F. Ambassadors or diplomats
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
* Dual system of courts: In our federal system,
we have both federal and state courts
* Structure of the federal court system Two
types of federal courts
1. Article I (legislative, or special) courts:
- Created to carry out the enumerated powers of
Congress
- Judges in these hold fixed, not life, terms of
office
- Examples of these courts:
a. Claims Court: hears lawsuits against the
federal government
b. Court of Military Appeals
c. District of Columbia Courts
Our Dual Court System
Federal Court System
State Court System
US Supreme Court (hears 80100 cases annually)
Highest State Courts
(50 courts 90,000 cases)
US Courts of Appeals
State Appellate Courts
(13 courts 40,000 cases)
(300,000 cases)
Appellate Court Level
US District Courts
(94 courts 290,000 cases)
Trial Court Level
State Trial Courts
(92 million filings )
How Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Moved Through Court System…
4. (1961) Supreme Court of the United States: The Court accepts Mapp's
argument that the evidence gained during the illegal search of her house could
not be used to convict her. Thus, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule
applies to the states. Mapp's conviction is overturned.
3. (1960) Supreme Court of Ohio: court recognizes that the search of her
house was probably illegal, it allows her conviction to stand by stating that the
evidence gained from an illegal search is not automatically inadmissible.
2. (1959) Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit: Upheld the decision
of the lower court
1. (1958) Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court : Convicted of possessing
pornographic materials—violating Ohio law, Police did not have warrant to
search house
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
2. Article III (constitutional)
courts:
- Article III of the Constitution deals
with the judiciary, and creates a
Supreme Court
- Congress regulates the
structure of the Federal court
system
- i.e.: power to create "inferior"
(lower) courts
- These three levels of courts form
the main basis of our federal court
system.
- Judges in these courts hold life
terms (Federalist #78)
* 3 Levels of Constitutional Courts:
1. District Courts
2. Appeals Courts
3. Supreme Court
The Structure of the Federal Judicial System
District Court: hold Original Jurisdiction: hear the case first and
determine the facts  the trial court
- Cases are tried by a judge and jury.
- Use grand juries to issue indictments (orders that charge an individual
with a crime. Does not mean that one is guilty; it merely means that one will
be tried)
- A petit (trial) jury decides the outcome of a case
- Original Jurisdiction only
- May try civil, criminal, or constitutional cases
- Decisions may be appealed to Courts of Appeals
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS
* Courts of Appeals (Circuit Courts):
- 12 of these courts, spread out in 12 districts, or
"circuits."
-156 judges try > 18,000 cases a year.
- Cases tried by a panel of 3 judges
- Appellate Jurisdiction: hears appeals from District
Courts and regulatory commissions
- Decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
* The
Supreme Court
- 9 justices: 1 Chief Justice, 8 Associate Justices
- Original & Appellate jurisdiction:
- Supreme Court decides which appellate
cases it will hear (only court that has this
power)
- Rarely deals with original jurisdiction
cases, mostly deals with appellate
jurisdiction cases
- Most cases come from the federal courts
- Most cases are civil cases
FEDERAL ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES
(1) Attorney General:
- Appointed by President w/Senate consent.
- Head of Justice Dept.
(2) Solicitor General:
- Appointed by President w/Senate consent
- Represents U.S. government in Supreme
Court
- Decides which cases the federal government
will appeal to the Supreme Court
- Decides the federal government's position in
these cases
-Sometimes called the “10th Justice” of the
Supreme Court because of his influence there.
Solicitor General:
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
FEDERAL ATTORNEYS
(3) U.S. Attorneys:
- At least one for each District
Court, 94 in all
- Prosecutes federal criminal
cases before the District Courts and
Courts of Appeals, though most
cases are settled by plea-bargaining
- Represents U.S. government in
civil cases before these same courts
- Appointed by the President for 4year terms (Key patronage
positions)
- Senatorial courtesy applies in
their appointments
FEDERAL JUDGES
(4) Federal Judges:
- Appointed by President with “advice and consent” of Senate
- Article III states that they shall hold their offices "during good
behavior," i.e., for life
- They can be impeached and removed by Congress (very rare -only a handful of removals in >200 years).
- Compensation: Determined by Congress  compensation
cannot be lowered during judges' terms of office.
- 2009 salaries:
- District Court: $169,300
- Courts of Appeals: $179,500
- Supreme Court: $208,100 (Chief Justice: $217,400).
Selecting Federal Judges
The Basics of Becoming a Federal Judge
1. President Nominates federal judges:
- Senatorial courtesy: When appointing District Court judges, the President
usually consults with the two Senators from the state in which the judges are
to be appointed Senators have the “courtesy” of consulting with the
president
- Court of Appeals & Supreme Court nominations rarely receive this
“courtesy”
2.Senate Judiciary Committee:
- Screens the nominees, and sends a recommendation to Senate floor for
approval or rejection.
- become more of a media circus (we will look at this later)
- politics plays a big role in this step
3. Senate: Majority vote needed for confirmation
- Has refused to act upon or rejected, less than 20% of Supreme Court
nominees in the 20th century
Choosing a Judge/Justice…
•Nominee Factors:
– Political Ideology plays an important role when president chooses justice
– Generally of the same political party as the appointing president
– “Litmus Test”
– Judicial experience
– Diversity?
– Senate approval
The Politics of Judicial Selection: Litmus Test
* Presidents and their advisors may
apply a "litmus test" to a
potential nominee
- candidate chosen if their views
are liberal or conservative on a
single, divisive issue (abortion,
gay marriage, privacy, etc.)
- IDEOLOGY = Crucial in
determining nominee!
* Senators often use their own
“litmus tests” to determine
support
Senate Confirmation Process
* Senate Judiciary Committee
asks tough questions
- their vote decides if nominee
will go to entire chamber
* Recent Examples:
- Robert Bork (1987)
- Clarence Thomas (1991)
- John Roberts (2005)
- our current Chief
Justice
- Samuel Alito (2005)
- Sonia Sotomayor (2009)
- Elena Kagan (2010)
The Politics of Judicial Selection
Justice Longevity
Backgrounds of Judges and Justices
The Supreme Court at Work
How Cases reach the United States Supreme Court
Option B.
Option A.
Original Jurisdiction Appellate Jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court
* Cases involving
foreign diplomats or
ambassadors
* Cases involving a
state:
- between the US and
a state
- between 2 or more
states
- between a state and
a foreign country
(Federal Route)
* US Court of Appeal
* Court of Appeals for
the Federal Circuit
* Legislative Courts
Option C.
Appellate Jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court
(State Route)
* Last Resort for State
Courts
The Supreme Court at Work
– Granting petitions for review:
• review is granted by a writ of certiorari, issued when a minimum of four
justices agree that the case should be heard by the Supreme Court AKA
the “Rule of Four”
– Deciding cases - both parties in the case submit legal briefs and (usually)
make oral arguments
–
•
•
•
•
•
•
Decisions and opinions can be:
Affirmed, reversed, or remanded
Unanimous opinion
Majority opinion
Concurring opinion
Per Curiam (“by the court”)
Dissenting opinion
2010-11 Term
The Supreme Court Process
1. Accepting Cases
– Use the “Rule of Four” to choose cases
– Issues a writ of certiorari to call UP the case
– Very few cases are actually accepted each year
Figure 16.4
The Supreme Court Process
2. Hearing the Cases:
- open to the public (limited seating)
- justices receive and review legal briefs before oral
arguments
- look over amicus curiae briefs
- each side only receives 30 minutes to present their case
- justices bombard lawyers with questions
The Supreme Court Process
3. Deciding the Cases:
– Justices meet privately to discuss cases
– One justice will write the majority opinion (statement of legal reasoning
behind a judicial decision) on the case
• Others have option to write a concurrent opinion
• Minority Opinion too!
The Supreme Court Process
4. Deciding the Case (continued)
- Majority Opinion: official opinion of the court—explains the view of the
justices who agree with decision
- Dissenting Opinion: written by justices who oppose the majority
- Concurring Opinion: written in support of the majority’s conclusion but
stress a different legal basis
- Per Curiam Opinion: brief, unsigned opinion
- Unanimous Decision: All justices agree—happens 40% of the time
* Purposes of opinions:
- Communicate the Court's reasoning to the public.
- Establish precedents for future cases -- importance of stare decisis
- Drop "hints" that Congress, the states, or the President should take certain
actions
A Dissent Becomes a Majority Opinion
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
- Justice Harlan's Dissent:
Brown v. Board of Education
(1954)
- “Our constitution is color-blind,
and neither knows nor tolerates
classes among citizens… "
- Chief Justice Warren wrote for the
Majority:
- “ What can more certainly arouse
race hate, what more certainly
create and perpetuate a feeling of
distrust between these races, than
state enactments which, in fact,
proceed on the ground that
colored citizens are so inferior and
degraded that they cannot be
allowed to sit in public coaches
occupied by white citizens?”
- “To separate them [children in
grade and high schools] from
others of similar age and
qualifications solely because of
their race generates a feeling of
inferiority as to their status in the
community that may affect their
hearts and minds in a way unlikely
ever to be undone...”
The Supreme Court Process
5. Implementing Court Decisions:
– Must rely on others to carry out decisions
– US v. Virginia (1996)
– Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
6. Power of Precedent:
- case decisions become standards for later similar cases
- only the Supreme Court can reverse precedents
- Ex. Brown v Board of Ed. reversed Plessy v Ferguson
How the Supreme Court Makes Policy?
Judicial Review
*Judicial Review: power of the courts to establish the
constitutionality of national, state, and local govt. acts
- Est. by John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison [1803])
* 2 Debates:
1. Interpretation of the Constitution: strict constructionist
vs. loose constructionist
2. Role of Judges: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
A Court’s Philosophy
*Regarding Policymaking:
– Judicial restraint: judges should play a minimal policymaking
role - leave policymaking to the legislative branch at L/S/N
government’s
– Judicial activism: judges should sometimes make bold policy
decisions—sometimes charting new constitutional ground &
overturning laws
* Regarding the Interpretation of the Constitution:
- Strict Interpretation: judges should base decisions on a narrow
interpretation of the Constitution
- Loose Interpretation: judges should have considerable freedom in
interpreting the Constitution
Famous Courts
• Courts are named by the Chief Justice of the specific era
• A Historical Review
– John Marshall
• Marbury v. Madison Judicial review
– The Warren Court
– The Burger Court
– The Rehnquist Court
– The Roberts Court - too early to generalize
The Modern Supreme Court
* The Rehnquist Court:
* Slight shift to the right Famous
cases:
- Texas v. Johnson (1989)
- Gore v. Bush (2000)
- Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) &
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
- Lawrence v Texas (2003)
* The Roberts Court:
* Thus far, big shift to the right—
Famous cases:
- DC v. Heller (2008)
- Citizens United v. FEC (2009)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Checks (and Balances) on
the Courts
What Checks Our Courts?
– Executive checks:
•Courts have no enforcement power; the president/bureaucracy
must enforce decisions
- In rare cases a president refuses to implement a decision
(Worcester v. Georgia (1832)“Trail of Tears”)
•Power of judicial appointments (short term check)
– Legislative checks:
• Congress can create federal courts; change jurisdiction
• Congress can impeach & remove judges
• Senate confirms appointments of judges/justices
• Rewriting laws Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)
• Constitutional amendments can overrule court decisions
- rare (need 2/3 of each chamber) & 3/4 of states to agree!
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)
What Checks Our Courts? (cont.)
* Public Opinion:
A. How is the Supreme Court Court affected?
- appointment/confirmation process—must please president
& senators
- rely on other institutions to enforce decisions
- new laws/amendments can overrule decisions
- justices can be impeached (rare!!)
- Congress can change appellate jurisdiction & # of justices
on the court
- Over many years, future courts can alter previous
precedents Ex: Roe v. Wade (1973) was altered by
Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
B. How is the Supreme Court insulated from politics?
- justices serve life terms
- don’t face reelections
- create its own docket of cases to hear