Supreme Court
AIM: How is the Supreme Court organized to
solve the nation’s problems?
Challenge Questions!
Vocabulary
Judicial Review – to say what the law is (interpret it); the review by a court of law of some
act, or failure to act, by a government official or entity, or by some other legally appointed
person /body; also, the review of a decision of a trial court by an appellate court.
Precedent case – case law, a case that sets a standard for future case evaluations.
Common Law – the system based on judicial precedent rather than statutory laws.
Statutory law – an act of the legislature, adopted to prescribe conduct.
Original Jurisdiction – authority to consider and decide cases in the first instance. The
Supreme Court finds this power in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
Appellate Jurisdiction – the authority to review a decision or judgment of an inferior
tribunal and to affirm, revers, or modify the decision.
Stare Decisis – to stand by that which was decided; rule by which common law courts “are
slow to interfere with principles announced in the former decisions and often uphold them
even though they would decide otherwise were the question a new one.”
Trial Courts vs. Appellate Courts (Courts of Appeal)
Trial Courts deal with “fact finding,” with witnesses, and
evidence. There is a finding of responsibility or not.
Appellate courts are not fact finding courts; there are no
witnesses or stories to be told. Proceedings are based on
procedural errors (the way a case is carried out) of the lower
courts.
The Supreme Court is an Appellate Court, which means that it
hears cases that are decided based on procedure and
constitutionality. The Supreme Court is not a trial court. The
Court hears arguments about Constitutional issues; their
decisions are based on “precedent cases” and interpretation
of the Constitution.
State Courts vs. Federal Courts
Federal courts deal with issues between states
(interstate disputes), issues between state and federal
government, cases with issues that are “Constitutional
Questions,” and international disputes.
The Supreme Court does not have the time to hear
every case that asks for their case to be reviewed, so
they have to be selective about what cases they hear.
How Much Do You Know About the Supreme Court?
(1) Name the ___ Justices currently on the Supreme Court.
(2) True or False: In a typical term the Court decides more cases 5 to 4
than 9 to 0.
(3) Approximately how many cases are appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
each year?
(4) When the Court decides not to accept a case (i.e. denies certiorari) what
precedent is set?
(5) Which court system provides most of the cases for the U.S. Supreme Court
– state or federal?
(6) True or False: Most experts who study the Court believe that the primary
reason the Court decides to hear a case is to correct a legal error made by
a Court below.
Supreme Court Quiz Answers
(1) Current Supreme Court Members: 9 Members
Scalia (Reagan), Kennedy (Reagan), Thomas (Bush), Ginsberg (Clinton), Breyer (Clinton), Roberts (G.W. Bush),
Alito (G.W. Bush), Sotomayor (Obama), Kagan (Obama)
(2) FALSE: In a typical term the Court decides more cases 5 to 4 than 9 to 0. Most cases are decided 9 to 0.
(3) Approximately 8,000 cases appeal to the Supreme Court each year; half come from inmates; about 80 are
accepted for briefing and oral arguments (therefore 1% accepted).
(4) If the Supreme Court decides not to accept a case (i.e. denies certiorari) no precedent is set because the
Supreme Court does not examine the case. The ruling of the court before stands. Not taking a case and
letting a lower court decision stand does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court
decision; it may mean that the Court is not ready for to hear such a case, or that the case is not a strong case
for the Court to decide upon.
(5) The court system which provides most of the cases for the U.S. Supreme Court is federal.
(6) FALSE: Most experts who study the Court believe that the primary reason the Court decides to hear a case is
to correct a legal error made by a Court below. The Court hears cases that help to unify the understanding of
national laws/constitutional issues, settle controversies between states or states and the national government,
and ensure that treaties and laws are understood within the framework of the Constitution.
Judicial Oath of Office
“I do solemnly swear that I will administer
justice without respect to persons, and do equal
right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will
faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties
incumbent on me as, according to the best of
my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the
constitution and laws of the United States.”
Supremacy Clause
Article VI, Section 2:
“The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the constitution or Laws of
any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Think Federal Umbrella!!!!
Interpretation of Courts
“A jurisprudence of original intent…is not difficult to
describe. Where the language of the Constitution is
specific, it must be obeyed. Where there is a
demonstrable consensus among the framers and
ratifiers as to a principle stated or implied by the
Constitution, it should be followed. Where there is
ambiguity as to the precise meaning or reach of a
constitutional provision, it should be interpreted
and applied in a manner so as to at least not
contradict the text of the Constitution itself.”
– Edwin Meese, Former US Attorney General
Contemporary Meaning of Original Intent
“The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static
(non-changing) meaning it might have had in a world
that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its
great principles to cope with current problems and
current needs. What the constitutional fundamentals
meant to the wisdom of other times cannot be their
measure to the vision of our times.”
- William Brennan, Fromer US Supreme Court Justice
Judicial Review – Marbury vs. Madison
Who: John Adams, outgoing Federalist President; Thomas Jefferson, incoming AntiFederalist President; James Madison, incoming secretary of state; William Marbury,
appointed a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia; John Marshall, Chief
Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Facts: The night before leaving office, Adams signs several judicial commissions 
Angered by Adams; actions, Jefferson orders Madison to withhold any commissions
not yet delivered  Hoping to force Jefferson to give him the judgeship, Marbury files
suit with the Supreme Court. He argues that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allows him to
take his case directly to the high court.
Decision: Marshall, writing for a unanimous court, declares that the Judiciary act
violates Article III, Section 2 and is therefore unconstitutional. Marbury loses, having
based his case on an unconstitutional law.
Impact: The case firmly established the right of the Supreme Court to review laws
made by Congress and to strike down laws it finds to be in violation of the
Constitution. Today this is the Court’s primary role, but in the country’s early years,
the Court’s functions had yet to be clearly defined. Marbury forever shaped the
balance of powers in our government.
Judiciary Act of 1789
Created a Supreme Court, three circuit courts, and thirteen district
courts, as well as defining their jurisdiction and methods of appeal.
Judiciary Act of 1789, § 25, ch. 20, 1 Stat. 73. Relevant part of Section
25: And be it further enacted, That a final judgment . . . in the highest
court of law or equity of a State in which a decision . . . where is drawn
in question the validity of a . . . statute of, or an authority exercised
under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or
where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority
exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to
the constitution . . . or laws of the United States, and the decision is in
favour of such their validity, or where is drawn in question the
construction of any clause of the constitution, . . . or statute of . . . the
United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or
exemption specially set up or claimed by either party, under such
clause of the said Constitution, . . . [or] statute . . . may be re-examined
and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Judiciary Act of 1801
Just before retiring from office, the Federalist
Congress created sixteen new federal judgeships
and other minor judicial offices. These were all
filled with Federalist appointees by Adams just
before his term expired. This act was
immediately repealed by the Republicans. This
act was immediately repealed by the
Republicans, who felt that the Federalists were
trying to entrench themselves in one branch of
the government.
State Court or Federal Court
New Jersey v. New York
Facts: Part of the boundary between the states of New York and New Jersey runs along Ellis Island (an island off the
shore of Manhattan). When new land formed near the island due to accretion (steady buildup of sediments and
deposited soil), both New York and New Jersey laid claim to it. When the states failed to reach a satisfactory agreement
as to which state the new land belonged to, the states brought the matter to court.
Which court system (state or federal) would have handled this case? Why?
McPherson v. Buick Motors Company (state)
Facts: This is an example of a case involving tort law (torts are cases that deal with injuries occurring between two
private parties). This case arose out of an injury that Donald C. McPherson sustained from a car manufactured by Buick
Motors Company. He sought monetary damages to compensate him for his injury. However, Buick Motors Company
claimed that (1) it did not intend to injury McPherson and (2) it did not sell the defective car directly to him. The
company sold the car to a retailer who in turn sold it to McPherson. Therefore, Buick Motors argued that it could not be
held liable under any existing system of tort law because (l) it did not commit an "intentional tort," and (2) it did not
commit a tort of "negligence" since there was no causation (direct interaction) between the company and McPherson.
On appeal, McPherson argued that the court should use its common-law powers to hold manufacturers responsible for
defective products they produce regardless of their intent to harm or the causation between the parties. The appellate
court agreed.
Which court system (state or federal) would have handled this case?
Orr v. Orr (state and federal)
Facts: A law concerning divorce permitted alimony orders (court orders mandating the payment of support to a former
spouse) to be entered against only males, meaning only former wives could receive alimony payments.
After a divorce suit, a court ordered a former husband to pay alimony to his ex-wife. When he refused to do so, the exwife sued to have the alimony enforced. At this point, the man claimed that the law requiring only males to make
alimony payments violated the "equal protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution, because men with financial hardships
would not be able to receive alimony awards.
Which court system (state or federal) would usually handle matters concerning divorce and alimony? Why?
New Jersey v. New York
New Jersey v. New York (federal)
Facts: Part of the boundary between the states of New York and New
Jersey runs along Ellis Island (an island off the shore of Manhattan).
When new land formed near the island due to accretion (steady
buildup of sediments and deposited soil), both New York and New
Jersey laid claim to it. When the states failed to reach a satisfactory
agreement as to which state the new land belonged to, the states
brought the matter to court.
Which court system (state or federal) would have handled this case?
Why?
Legal cases arising between two or more states are always heard in the
federal court system. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction over these cases. This means that the U.S.
Supreme Court is the only federal court that may hear them.
McPherson v. Buick Motors Company
McPherson v. Buick Motors Company (state)
Facts: This is an example of a case involving tort law (torts are cases that deal with injuries occurring
between two private parties). This case arose out of an injury that Donald C. McPherson sustained from
a car manufactured by Buick Motors Company. He sought monetary damages to compensate him for his
injury. However, Buick Motors Company claimed that (1) it did not intend to injury McPherson and (2) it
did not sell the defective car directly to him. The company sold the car to a retailer who in turn sold it to
McPherson. Therefore, Buick Motors argued that it could not be held liable under any existing system of
tort law because (l) it did not commit an "intentional tort," and (2) it did not commit a tort of
"negligence" since there was no causation (direct interaction) between the company and McPherson.
On appeal, McPherson argued that the court should use its common-law powers to hold manufacturers
responsible for defective products they produce regardless of their intent to harm or the causation
between the parties. The appellate court agreed.
Which court system (state or federal) would have handled this case?
The answer is the state court system. In general, torts are a matter that the U.S. Constitution reserves to
the states and to their courts. Furthermore, the authority of courts to use their common-law powers to
make or fill gaps in the law for equitable reasons is a sole prerogative of the state courts. The federal
courts have no such right with regard to their power to hear cases involving federal questions. They do,
however, have some common-law powers when hearing diversity of citizenship cases because, in these
cases, they are applying state law. This case is well known because it established the principle in tort law
of allowing manufacturers to be held responsible for their defective products even in the absence of
intent to cause harm or causation. This is known as the principle of "strict liability. " The federal courts
were not involved in this case.
Orr v. Orr
Orr v. Orr (state and federal)
Facts: A law concerning divorce permitted alimony orders (court orders mandating the
payment of support to a former spouse) to be entered against only males, meaning
only former wives could receive alimony payments.
After a divorce suit, a court ordered a former husband to pay alimony to his ex-wife.
When he refused to do so, the ex-wife sued to have the alimony enforced. At this
point, the man claimed that the law requiring only males to make alimony payments
violated the "equal protection" clause of the U.S. Constitution, because men with
financial hardships would not be able to receive alimony awards.
Which court system (state or federal) would usually handle matters concerning
divorce and alimony? Why?
Issues concerning marriage, divorce, and alimony are left up to the states, and the
state courts are responsible for hearing such cases. In fact, state courts of limited
jurisdiction, usually known as family courts, are primarily responsible for hearing these
cases. The Alabama state court system heard this divorce case in real life. It said that
the state's alimony law did not violate the 14th Amendment's "equal protection"
clause.