American Government AP
Chapter 10 Notes – Information from text and other sources
History
Originally considered weakest branch
Today, it controls the fate on nearly every major policy made
Abortion, death penalty, same sex marriage, religion, assisted suicide etc.
Founding Fathers devoted little time to Article III
They feared the other two branches were more likely to become too powerful
Anti-Federalists argued with Hamilton’s claims in “Federalist 78” that Judicial Branch would
be the least dangerous branch (see reading on Hamilton)
issues: life tenure, interpret the supreme law of the land
Marbury v Madison (1803) authorized the Supreme Court to use Judicial Review
Extending the court’s original jurisdiction was unconstitutional – (see reading on Marshall)
Declared part of Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional
Article III, Section 1: established courts and authority to establish courts
Article III, Section 2: specifies power of the Supreme Court and jurisdiction
Article III, Section 3: defines treason
Article I, Section 3: declares the Chief Justice to preside over impeachment trials
Life tenure with good behavior was agreed by Founding Fathers to avoid “politics” interfering
with decision making power
Congress can check the judicial branch by
Altering jurisdiction
Ratifying amendments that can reverse decisions
Appointing/confirming or not confirming
Judiciary Act of 1789
Established 3-tiered structure
Set size of Supreme Court at 6 with a Chief Justice and 5 Assistant Justices
Shrank to 5 in 1801
Expanded to 9 1869
First Chief Justice – John Jay (wrote Federalist Papers with Hamilton and Madison)
Only heard one case – Chisolm v Georgia
Low status
Difficult to find qualified lawyers
Chisolm v Georgia – the Supreme Court interpreted its jurisdiction under AIII, S2 to include
the right to hear suits brought by a citizen of one state against another
Marshall Court
3rd Chief Justice (1801-1835)
brought prestige and respect to Judiciary
discontinued seriatim opinions which were individual opinions instead of a single
opinion we see today
established authority over state judiciaries declaring state laws invalid: Supremacy Clause
McCulloch v MD (necessary & proper clause)
Claimed the right of judicial review in Marbury v Madison
Implied from the Supremacy Clause
Structure of the Court System
Best described as a dual system (federal & state courts)
Both systems are 3 tiered:
Trial courts – where litigation begins
Appellate courts – review findings of trial courts, must be procedural error in 1st trial
or violation of defendant’s rights
review legal procedures
Supreme Court – some states call them Court of Appeals (NY) or Court of Criminal
Appeals (OK, TX).
- also primarily an appellate court
Jurisdiction: authority to hear a case
Federal court’s jurisdiction is controlled by Congress
Original Jurisdiction: authority to hear a case first
Appellate Jurisdiction: authority to review cases already heard
Criminal Cases
Enforced by state/national government
Misdemeanors/felonies
State/national government brings cases on behalf of
the people
prosecution v defendant
possible jail time
beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil Cases
Regulates relationships between private parties Lawsuits
Look a personal harm, not societal
Recover value, look at fair treatment and
compensation
no jail time
most never go to court (settled)
plaintiff v defendant
preponderance of the evidence
person filing the petition is named first
Marbury v Madison
1888 – the Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans could not be barred from serving as jurors
1975 – the Supreme Court extended it to women
Judges who preside over constitutional courts are nominated by the president
Lifetime terms as long as they engage in good behavior
Legislative Courts: are created under implied powers
They are “special courts” such as US territorial courts, court of Veteran Appeals, Military
Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Federal Claims Court (tax refunds, eminent domain, federal
contracts)
District Courts:
Created by Judiciary Act of 1789
Original jurisdiction
94 courts, 667 judges
300 retired judges who help on a limited basis
no district courts cut across state lines
every state has at least one district court
CA, TX, NY have 4
Take bulk of federal judicial work
Generally fall into 3 categories:
1. involve the federal government as one of the parties
2. involves federal question jurisdiction (a claim under the constitution, a treaty, or a
federal law)
3. civil suits between parties from different states with an amount over $75,000
Each district court has a US Attorney, nominated by the president who is that districts chief law
enforcement officer.
Court of Appeals
Known as circuit courts (prior to 1948)
Hear appeals from district courts
11 numbered courts, plus DC Court of Appeals (hears cases involving federal regulatory
commissions and agencies) & US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (patents
& contracts)
167 judges, 80 + retired judges
Number of judges within each circuit ranges from 6-30
Each circuit has a chief judge under 65 who can serve no more than 7 years
Deciding cases are determined by 3-judge panels
in rare cases all judges from a circuit (en bane) may preside
No original jurisdiction
Hear appeals from district courts (90%) & administrative agencies (10%)
Can hear criminal and civil cases
DC hears majority or agency cases (considered 2nd most important agency in the nation)
If you lose in court of appeals you may submit a petition to the Supreme Court
Few are granted
Court of last resort for most litigation
Correct errors of law in 1st trial
Hears no new testimony
Submits briefs arguing case then argue case orally
Decisions are only binding within the circuit
Supreme Court
The decisions set precedents for settling future similar cases – called stare decisis which allows
for predictability and continuity
Judges can ignore precedents
Hear cases from court of appeals and state supreme courts
Ensures uniformity in interpretation of laws
8 Associate Justices, 1 Chief Justice
We had 111 Associate Justices and 16 Chief Justices
Selection / Nomination
Very political
Federal judges are confirmed by US Senate
Senatorial Courtesy: presidents generally defer selection of district court judges to the choice of
senators of their own party who represent the state where the vacancy occurs
Most federal judges have held other political offices
White males dominate the court
Supreme Court nominations:
Constitution is silent on qualifications
Encounter more opposition than other court positions
6 important criteria –
1. competence
2. ideology or policy preference (ie. Strict constructionalist)
3. reward (more so in the past)
4. pursuit of political support
5. religion
6. race, ethnicity, gender
Confirmation Process
Before 1900 – 25% of nominees were rejected
FBI investigates before official nomination is made
ABA help pre-GW Bush
Senate Judiciary Committee does its own investigation
Lobby groups lobby more against than for a nominee
Should probing questions be allowed???
Court Proceedings
9,000 cases were fled in 2003-4
In 2008 and 2009, more than 10,000 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari (request to review a lowercourt ruling) were filed with the US Supreme Court each Term, a significant increase over
the 8,200 petitions received in 2007.
Between 75-100 are heard, approx. 75-80% are decided
Supreme Court has “original jurisdiction” in cases involving Ambassadors and other public
ministers
42% of the cases deal with the Bill of Rights
Only take cases that present a “substantial federal question”
Nearly all appellate cases that reach the Supreme Court arrive on a petition for a writ of certiorari
(request to review the case)
Rule of Four: number of justices who indicate they want to review the case
Chosen cases often:
Are asked to be reviewed by the federal government
Conflicted in various circuit courts
Present civil rights/liberties questions
Are preferred by the justices
Has significant social or political interest (amicus curiae)
Solicitor General: 4th ranking member of the Department of Justice
Handles Supreme Court appeals for the US government
Appears on more than 50% of the SC Cases, compared to 5% of all others
Oral arguments are generally limited to the immediate parties
Solicitor general may appear to argue amicus curiae cases
30 minutes to present case
Justices meet once a week when the court is hearing oral argument; they discuss & vote
Majority opinion written by Chief Justice (if he is in agreement) or selects who is to write the
majority opinion
If Chief Justice is in the minority, the senior justice writes the opinion of the
majority; sometimes the justices with the most interest in the issue may write
opinions set out legal reasoning for verdict & become precedent
justices who agree with the outcome but not with the legal rationale may file a
concurring opinion
justices who do not agree with the verdict write a dissenting opinions
Decision Making & Implementation
Judges decide cases based on the Constitution – their interpretation is based on their individual
philosophy
Judicial Restraint Philosophy – courts should respect decisions of other branches even if it
offends their principles
defer policy making as much as possible
Conservative
Citizens United v FEC
Judicial Activism Philosophy – Court should broadly use their power to further justice and correct
injustices of the other branches
Liberal
Brown v Board of Education
Models for decision making
Behavioral – Social background influences decisions
Attitudinal – Decide cases according to preferences in public policy
Strategic – Weigh their actions against those of other justices to optimize their chances
that their preference will be adopted
Public Opinion – Knowledge of public opinion impacts decisions
Youngstown v Sawyer
US v Nixon
Roe v Wade
Policy Making – Court makes policy through interpretation
Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition
Brown v Board of Education
Plessy v Ferguson
Judicial Implementation – How and whether or not decisions are translated into actual policy
Brown v Board of Education
Reynold v Sims
Dual sovereignty - a legal doctrine holding that more than one sovereign (e.g. a state government
and the Federal government) may prosecute an individual if the individual’s
act breaks the laws of each sovereignty.
without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy