JUSTICE FOR ALL?
How Cases Reach the U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court


The highest court in the judicial branch of the U.S. gov’t
The court of last resort in civil and criminal cases
The Nine Justices





One Chief Justice
Eight associate justices
Appointed by the
president
With the advice and
consent of the Senate
Serve during good
behavior until death,
retirement, or
resignation
U.S.
Canada
Judicial Review

Judicial review empowers the Court to:
 Interpret
the Constitution and invalidate laws violating the
Constitution
 Interpret federal statutes and other federal law
 Ensure the supremacy of federal laws over state and local laws
Legal Influences

The Constraints of the Facts
 The
circumstances of a
litigation
 Cannot rule unless the
parties bring an actual case

The Constraints of the Law
 Which
laws are relevant
 Interpretation of the
Constitution
 Interpretation of statutes
 Interpretation of precedent
Political Influences

Outside Influences
 Public
opinion
 Interest groups
 Public officials

Inside Influences
 Personal
beliefs
 Political attitudes
 Relationships between
justices
Appeals from Federal Courts
Getting Your Day in Court
Supreme Court Review



Requests for review per
year: ~9000
Decisions per year:
~80
Cases can reach the
Supreme Court in three
ways.
Certiori Petitions Granted
Granted
1%
0%
0%
Granted (1%)

Not Granted (99%)
Denied
99%
Path #1: Original Jurisdiction




Cases that only the
Supreme Court is
empowered to hear
Don’t require appeal
Example: disputes
between states over
boundaries
Relatively rare (1-2 per
Term)
Path #2: Appeal from Federal Court



Cases on appeal from lower
federal courts
The Court is required to hear
some cases as a matter of law.
However, it can choose to hear
most cases as a matter of
discretion.
 By
granting or refusing a writ
of certiorari
 Granting the writ requires four
justices to vote to hear case
Path #3: Appeal from State Court



Cases on appeal from
state supreme courts that
present a substantial
federal question
Usually involving the
denial of constitutional
rights
Review is discretionary
Process





Justices grant
certiorari
Parties submit briefs
Others who are not
involved in the case
but have an interest
in the outcome submit
amicus briefs
Oral arguments
Opinions
Oral Arguments

Blah!




Give-and-take between the lawyers and
the Justices
Helps identify issues that weren’t
properly briefed
Magnifies the strengths and weaknesses
of each side's arguments
Lets Justices ask hypothetical questions
to gauge likely effects
Allows the public and media to hear
judicial proceedings
Opinions



Very long, extensively
footnoted documents that
serve as a record of the
decisions
Written with help of Justices’
law clerks
Four main types
 Majority
 Concurring
 Dissenting
 Per
curiam
Lockyer v. Andrade

Under California’s three strikes law, a court sentenced
Andrade to life in prison for shoplifting. Did this violate
8th Amendment prohibition on cruel & unusualChemerinsky (Lawyer)
punishment?
Andrade
Lockyer: Holding

No. Without any clearly established law to define a
three-strikes policy as cruel and unusual punishment,
Andrade’s sentence didn’t violate the 8th Amendment.
Sources on Lockyer v. Andrade



http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/dock
et/2002/november.html (lower court decisions and
briefs)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2002/2002_01_1127 (audio recording and
transcript of oral argument)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/011127.ZS.html (Supreme Court opinions)
Morse v. Frederick

An Alaska high school principal disciplined a student for
displaying a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a
school-sponsored event. Did this violate First Amendment
protection for freedom of speech?
Morse: Holding

No. Without violating the First Amendment, educators
could suppress student speech at school-supervised
events on the grounds that the speech was reasonably
viewed as promoting use of illegal drugs.
Morse: Appeal

Oral
Argument
Mertz (Lawyer)
Student Protest
Morse v. Frederick
raised questions
about the balance
between the right
to speech versus
the need for
order. Some
students had very
strong opinions on
where to draw
the line.
Morse: Conclusion

Morse v. Frederick
eventually settled for
$45,000. Last we
heard, Frederick was
abroad teaching
English (but not
constitutional law) in
China. Meanwhile,
“Bong Hits 4 Jesus”
became a popular Tshirt slogan.
Sources on Morse v. Frederick



http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/morse-vfrederick (Supreme Court briefs)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2006/2006_06_278 (audio recording and
transcript of oral argument)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06278.ZS.html (Supreme Court opinion)
Safford Unified School Dist. v. Redding

Arizona school officials strip-searched a 13-year-old
girl accused of giving her classmate some Ibuprofen.
Did this violate Fourth Amendment prohibition on
unreasonable searches?
Savana Redding
Redding, her mom, and her attorney
YouTube video: http://rubroadcastnewswriting.wordpress.com/2009/06/
Safford: Holding

Yes. The strip search violated the Fourth Amendment
because the officials lacked reasons to suspect that the
Ibuprofen was a danger or that it was concealed in her
underwear.
Sources on Safford v. Redding



http://www.scotusblog.com/casefiles/cases/safford-united-school-district-1-vredding/ (lower court decisions and briefs)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2008/2008_08_479 (oral argument
transcript and audio recording)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08479.ZS.html (Supreme Court opinion)
Select Sources


http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/scotus.html
http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/court.html
This presentation
is adjourned.