Lecture – The Courts
Point 1: The federal court system has three court levels, including:
U.S. District Courts: 94
U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals: 13
Supreme Court: 1
Cases can be heard in the federal courts if they involve federal laws, treaties with other
nations, or the Constitution (collectively, federal question jurisdiction); if the federal
government is a party (also federal question jurisdiction); or if a civil suit between citizens of
different states involves more than $75,000 (called diversity jurisdiction). Jurisdiction is
generally the sphere of a court’s power and authority. Article III gives the Supreme Court
two types of jurisdiction:
1. Original jurisdiction is all cases involving foreign ambassadors and issues in which a
state is one of the parties involved. It is defined as the authority to consider a case
initially, as distinguished from appellate jurisdiction, the authority to hear appeals from
a lower court’s decision.
2. Appellate jurisdiction in all federal cases and in cases originating in state courts that
raise a federal question. For example, an appellant may assert that due process of law
(the right of every citizen against arbitrary action by national or state government, for
example, the right to counsel) was denied. In addition, in criminal cases, defendants
convicted by a state court may request a writ of habeas corpus (also known as the
“Great Writ,” a court order to the authorities to release a prisoner deemed to be held in
violation of his or her legal rights) from a federal court.
Under Article I, Congress has created other types of specialized courts that have
national jurisdiction in certain types of cases, such as the U.S. Court of International
Trade, created to deal with trade and customs issues. Article I legislative courts are not
as independent as Article III courts because their judges are appointed for fixed fifteen
year terms.
Point 2. Federal Jurisdiction. Although the federal courts hear a small fraction of all civil and criminal
cases, their decisions are of critical importance for American society. Because the Supreme Court has
the power to decide what cases will be heard, and generally deals only with matters of national
importance.
A. Federal Trial Courts. Courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that are responsible for
discovering the facts in a controversy and creating the record on which judgment is based.
Although the Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in several types of cases,
such as those affecting ambassadors, most original jurisdiction goes to the federal district (trial)
courts. Lower federal courts include the ninety four district courts. These are staffed by judges
(tenured for life) according to workloads. Their routines are the same as those of the lower
state courts (one judge per case).
B. Federal Court of Appeals. In courts that have appellate jurisdiction, judges receive cases after
the factual record is established. Ordinarily, new facts be presented before appellate courts.
The United States is divided into eleven multistate circuits with a separate circuit for the District
of Columbia. There is also a specialized Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has
jurisdiction over certain types of cases (rather than a certain geographic region). Roughly 20
percent of all lower court cases are reviewed by the thirteen federal courts of appeals.
Decisions made by these multi judge courts are usually final, except for those cases selected for
Supreme Court review. A justice of the Supreme Court is assigned as the circuit justice for each
circuit court.
C. The Supreme Court. This is America’s highest court. Article III of the Constitution vests the
“judicial power of the United States” in the Supreme Court. The Court is made up of a chief
justice (Supreme Court justice who presides over the Court’s public session) and eight associate
justices. Congress has the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court is the only federal court established by the Constitution. The lower federal courts were
created by statute. Congress can restructure or, presumably, even abolish them.
D. How Judges Are Appointed. Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by
the Senate. Nominees are generally selected from among the more politically active members
of the legal profession. Often, before the president makes a formal nomination, senatorial
courtesy (the practice whereby the president, before formally nominate a person for a federal
judgeship, seeks an indication that senators from the candidate’s own state support the
nomination) is observed. There are no formal qualifications for service as a federal judge. In
general, presidents appoint judges with legal experience and of good character, who have
ideological and partisan views similar to the president’s. Once the president formally nominates
an individual, the nominee must be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee and
confirmed by a majority vote in the full Senate. In recent years, Supreme Court nominations
have involved intense partisan struggles. Typically, after the presidential nomination, interest
groups opposing the nomination mobilize the media, public, and Senate against it.
Point 3. The Power of the Supreme Court: Judicial Review. One of the most important powers of the
Supreme Court is judicial review (the power of the Court to examine and, if necessary, invalidate, or
declare unconstitutional, actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches). The phrase is
also used (inaccurately) to describe the scrutiny that appellate courts give to the actions of trial courts.
Appropriately, a higher court’s examination of a lower court’s decision might be called appellate review,
but not judicial review.
A. The Supreme Court in Action. The Supreme Court controls the number of cases it reviews with
its appellate jurisdiction. Its original jurisdiction includes the following:
 Cases between the United States and one of the fifty states
 Cases between two or more states
 Cases involving foreign ambassadors or other ministers
 Cases brought by one state against citizens of another state or against a foreign country
Point 4. Explaining Supreme Court Decisions. The Supreme Court explains its decisions in terms of law
and precedent. Justices may make a decision based on a number of factors.
1. Activism and Restraint. Adherents of the philosophy of judicial restraint refuse to go beyond
the clear words of the Constitution in interpreting its meaning. Adherents of the philosophy of
judicial activism claim the Court go beyond the words of the Constitution or a statute to
consider the broader social implications of its decisions.
2. Political Ideology. The second component of judicial philosophy is political ideology. The liberal
or conservative attitudes of the justices play an important role in their decisions.
Point 5. Judicial Power and Politics. The federal courts’ power and roles have been transformed in the
late 20th century. Understanding how this transformation came about is key to understanding the
contemporary role of courts in the United States.
A. Traditional Limitations on the Federal Courts. For much of American history, the power of the
federal courts was subject to a number of limitations:
1. Because judges must wait for cases to be brought to them and even then must wait for
litigants with adequate standing, courts were limited in their ability to participate in policy
dialogues.
2. Given the nature of the relief they provide, courts are better suited to helping individuals as
opposed to broad groups of people.
3. Courts cannot enforce their own decisions, but must instead rely on the executive branch.
4. The appointment process allows the elected branches the shape the courts while Congress’s
ability to control the courts’ jurisdiction and budget is a powerful control on the courts.
B. Two Judicial Revolutions. Since World War II, the role of the federal judiciary has been
strengthened and expanded. The Supreme Court has headed a series of changes in the role of
American government and society (such as desegregation, protection of abortion rights,
expansion of voting rights, etc.). It has also brought about a second revolution, establishing a
series of judicial procedures that expanded the power of the courts in the United States and
countered some of its traditional limitations.
1. They made it easier for groups to bring action in the courts against adverse governmental
action by relaxing standing requirements.
2. They also allowed themselves to act on behalf of classes of person in class action suits (legal
actions by which a group or class of individuals with common interest can file a suit on
behalf of everyone who shares that interest).
3. The Court employed so-called structural remedies, in effect retaining jurisdiction of cases
until the Court’s order has been implemented to its satisfaction.