The Founding Fathers and the Court
The Framers believed that the judicial branch would
be the weakest branch and pose little threat of
tyranny.
 Anti-Federalists objected to “life tenure” for
judges and the ability to interpret the law.
They felt this would give the judicial branch too
much power.
 A compromise left the decision of creating
lower federal courts to Congress.
 The framers also believed in the Rule of Law, that
government and its officers are
subject to, never above, the law.
Article III of the Constitution
Section 1 –
- Vests “The judicial Power of the United States…in one
supreme court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress
may from time to time ordain and establish.”
- Gave Congress the authority to establish other courts as it saw fit.
 Section 2 –
- Specifies the judicial power of the Supreme Court and
discusses the Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction.
- Specifies that all federal crimes, except impeachment, shall
be tried in the state where the crime was committed.
- Defines treason and mandates the appearance of at least
two witnesses in such cases.
 Section 3 –
- “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice
will preside.
- Gave the justices tenure for life with “good behavior.”
- Salaries of judges may not be reduced during their time of
service.
Supreme Court
Cases
Judiciary Act of 1789
Established the basic three-tiered structure of the
federal court system.
o Supreme
Court
o Circuit Courts
o Federal District Courts
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
Early courts
tried to advance the principles of nationalism
and maintain federal supremacy
over the states
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) – Gave the Supreme Court
the right to decide cases brought by citizens
against a state in which they did not reside.
Fletcher v. Peck (1810), Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee
(1816), Cohens v. Virginia (1821) – Gave the
Supreme Court the power to declare state laws invalid.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) – Upheld the power of
federal government to tax and denied the right of a
state to tax the bank.
Marbury v. Madison ( 1803) – First asserted the right
of judicial review in declaring an act of Congress
unconstitutional.
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
The Constitution is silent about qualifications for constitutional courts,
however, presidents have their own criteria which usually includes:
• Competence – Most prospective nominees are expected to have had
some judicial or governmental experience.
• Ideology
or Policy Preference -
Most presidents seek to appoint
individuals who share their political and policy preferences. Most
presidents have political goals in mind when they appoint a justice.
• Rewards
– Historically, many of those appointed to the Supreme Court
have been personal friends of the president or rewards for party participation.
Continued…
• Pursuit of Political Support – Some presidents have appointed
justices to gain support of certain sections of the population. (ex: Reagan
appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to gain the support of women)
• Religion – Most modern presidents try to achieve diversity on the court.
• Race, Ethnicity, Gender – Most modern presidents try to have the
court reflect the population of the United States.
1. The President nominates
the candidate for
Supreme Court Justice
2. The nominee is
investigated, questioned
and approved/denied
by Congress
3. The
nominee
is sworn in
as a Supreme Court
Justice
Almost 9,000 cases were filed at the Supreme Court
in its 2003-2004 term.
Ninety were heard, seventy-three were decided.
Justices can exercise a significant role in
policy making and politics by opting
not to hear a case.
Original Jurisdiction – in “all
Appellate Jurisdiction – Appeal
Cases Affecting Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and Consuls, and
those in which a State shall be a
party.”
to the Supreme Court should be
taken only if the case presents more
important issues of law or a
“substantial federal question.”
Supreme
Court
Caseload,
1950-2004
Terms
 Since 1988, nearly all appellate cases going to the Supreme Court
arrive on a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request for the court
to order up the records from a lower court to review the issue).
 All petitions for certiorari must meet two criteria:
* The case must come from either a United States court of appeals,
a special three-judge district court, or a state court of last resort.
* The case must involve a federal question that presents questions
of interpretation of federal law or involve a federal statute, action,
or treaty. The reasons for the Court to accept the case are set
out in petitions (briefs).
 Court clerks review the petitions and recommend cases to be heard.
 Petitions are sent to a “cert” pool, where justices review their
fraction of petitions and share their votes with each other.
 Those cases that the justices deem worthy are placed on a
“discuss list” and circulated to the other justices.
 Lists are reviewed by the justices at weekly conference meetings.
Discussions are held according to seniority.
 If at least four judges vote to hear a case, the “Rule of Four” is
followed and certiorari is granted.
Cases that the Courts Tend to Hear
 The federal government is the party
the review.
 The case involves conflict among
the circuit courts.
 The case presents a civil rights or
civil liberties question.
 The case has significant social or
political interest, as evidenced
by amicus curiae briefs.
Hearing and Deciding a Case
The Supreme Court’s annual terms begins on the first
Monday in October and runs through early July.
Oral arguments –
Justices hear oral arguments
until early April.
* Limited to the immediate parties in the case and are
allotted one half hour to present their cases. This includes
questions from the bench.
* Serves three important functions:
- It is the only time the public and the press see how the court
works,
- It assures the lawyers that the justices have heard
their case,
- It provides the court with additional information.
Hearing and Deciding a Case
The Supreme Court’s annual terms begins on the first
Monday in October and runs through early July.
The Conference and the Vote –
Justices meet in closed conference once a week.
* Each justice discusses the case in order of seniority.
* Justices tend to try to change the minds of the others.
* Justices usually come into the conference knowing how they
will vote.
* Initial votes are not final and justices may change
their minds. Final votes are taken later.
Hearing and Deciding a Case
The Supreme Court’s annual terms begins on the first
Monday in October and runs through early July.
The Opinion – Once a decision is made in conference,
justices must write the formal opinion of the court.
* Majority Opinion – This reflects the views of at least five of the
justices. It justifies the courts reasoning for future cases to set
precedent under the system of stare decisis.
* Minority Opinion – This reflects the views of justices who do not
agree with the outcome of the case.
* Concurrent Opinion – Justices who agree
with the outcome of the case, but for
different reasons.
Judicial Philosophy
• Strict Constructionist – An
approach to constitutional
interpretation that emphasizes
the framers original intention.
• Loose Constructionist – An
approach to constitutional
interpretation that emphasizes
interpretation of the
Constitution.
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.
The Constitution gives the power
of its interpretation to the Supreme
Court
Over one hundred
federal laws have
been declared
unconstitutional.
The Supreme
Court has the
ability to overrule
itself.
The general trend
of the court has
been to decide
cases that would
be more appropriately
decided in another
branch of government.