Chapter 6: The Judiciary
Directions: Fill Each Box With Information Important To Gaining A Clear Understanding Of The Topic
2.11 Checks on the Judicial
Branch
Judicial Activism
Judicial Restraint
The judicial philosophy that
encourages judges to interpret the
Constitution broadly, applying its
principles to contemporary issues and
actively shaping public policy through
court decisions.
The judicial philosophy that urges
judges to limit their own power and
defer to the decisions of elected
branches of government, avoiding
expansive interpretations of the
Constitution.
Think As a Political Scientist: Describe political principles in different scenarios.
Practice: Read the cases on page 204. Identify in each case whether the Court acted with judicial
restraint or judicial activism and explain your reasoning.
1. Korematsu v. United States (1944):
Big Idea: The U.S. Constitution
establishes a system of checks
and balances among branches of
government and allocates power
between federal and state
governments. This system is
based on the rule of law and the
balance between majority rule
and minority rights.
Senate’s Advice and Consent
The constitutional requirement for the
Senate to approve or reject
presidential appointments to key
positions, including federal judgeships
and cabinet positions.
The Court acted with judicial restraint. Despite the glaring violation of civil liberties involved in the
internment of Japanese Americans, the Court upheld the government's action, deferring to the executive
branch's wartime powers. This decision reflected a reluctance to challenge the authority of the political
branches during times of crisis, demonstrating a judicial philosophy of deference and restraint.
2. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015):
The Court acted with judicial activism. In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court ruled that same-sex marriage
bans violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, legalizing same-sex marriage
nationwide. This decision represents an expansion of civil rights and a departure from traditional norms,
reflecting an active interpretation of the Constitution to address contemporary social issues.
Senatorial Courtesy
Confirmation
Interest Groups
The Justice Department
A tradition in the Senate whereby the
president defers to the judgment of
senators from the nominee's home
state regarding judicial appointments,
particularly for district court
judgeships.
The formal approval process by which
the Senate consents to presidential
appointments, including federal
judges, cabinet members, and other
high-ranking officials.
Organizations that advocate for
specific policy positions or represent
the interests of particular industries,
professions, or demographic groups
in the political process.
The federal executive department
responsible for enforcing federal laws,
representing the United States in legal
matters, and overseeing federal
prosecutors and law enforcement
agencies.
Impeachment
Standing
The process by which Congress can remove federal officials, including the
president and federal judges, from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors"
through a formal accusation and trial.
The legal principle that requires a party to demonstrate a sufficient connection
to and harm from the law or action being challenged in order to bring a case
before the court.
Essential Question: What issues lead to debates about the legitimacy of the Court, and how can other branches limit Supreme Court power?
Complete the tables below.
Executive Checks on the Judicial Branch:
Legislative Checks on the Judicial Branch:
The president nominates individuals to fill vacancies on the Supreme
Court and other federal courts, exerting influence over the
ideological composition of the judiciary. The executive branch,
particularly through agencies like the Department of Justice, is
responsible for implementing and enforcing Supreme Court rulings,
shaping the practical impact of judicial decisions. The president has
the authority to pardon individuals convicted of federal crimes,
potentially nullifying the effects of judicial decisions in certain cases.
The Senate has the power to confirm or reject presidential nominees
to the federal judiciary, including Supreme Court justices, providing a
check on the executive's ability to shape the composition of the
courts. Congress can impeach and remove federal judges, including
Supreme Court justices, for "high crimes and misdemeanors," serving
as a mechanism for addressing judicial misconduct or abuse of
power. Congress has the authority to limit the jurisdiction of federal
courts, including the Supreme Court, by passing legislation that
restricts the types of cases they can hear or the scope of their
authority in certain areas.