The Judiciary
Article III
 Courts decide arguments about
the meaning of laws, how they are
applied, and whether they break
the rules of the Constitution
The Judicial Branch
 The Constitution created the Supreme Court.
It gives power of establishing other courts to Congress.
In 1789, the first Congress used this power to establish
the district and appeals courts – called the lower courts.
 Three separate court levels
District Courts
Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court
Structure of the Federal Courts
District Courts: the entry point for most
litigation in federal courts, trial courts.
Courts of Appeal: review all final decisions
of district courts, with the authority to
review and enforce orders of regulatory
agencies.
Supreme Court: sets its own agenda.
Con’t.
Jurisdiction
The power given to courts to interpret the law
is called jurisdiction
Original jurisdiction: where the case is heard first,
usually in a trial.
Appellate jurisdiction: cases brought on appeal from
a lower court.
Limited to federal and constitutional laws.
Con’t
The federal courts hear cases where a
person or group
disobeyed the constitution,
violated a treaty,
committed a crime on federal property, or
broke a federal law.
Levels of the Federal System
 U.S. Courts of
 U.S. District Courts
Appeal
 Original jurisdiction
 Appellate jurisdiction
 Lowest level
 Judges
 Judges
 Points of law
 Juries
 Court of last resort
 U.S. Supreme Court
Highest level
Original and
appellate jurisdiction
Nine Justices
 Chief justice
 Associate justices
Federal Cases
Federal question cases: involving the
U.S. Constitution
federal law
or treaties.
Diversity cases: involving
different states
or citizens of different states.
Controversies between two state governments can
only be heard by the Supreme Court.
Levels of the Federal System
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Courts of Appeal
U.S. District Courts
Standing to Sue
 There must be a real controversy between
adversaries.
 Personal harm must be demonstrated.
Being a taxpayer does not ordinarily constitute
entitlement to challenge federal government action;
Writs of Certiorari
Requires agreement of four justices to
hear the case
Involving significant federal or
constitutional question
Involving conflicting decisions by circuit
courts
Involving Constitutional interpretation by
one of the highest state courts
State Court System
Both
Supreme Court
STATE
Appellate
Court of Appeals
Original
District Courts
FEDERAL
Judicial Review
 Definition: the right of the federal courts to rule
on the constitutionality of laws and executive
actions.
 It is the chief judicial weapon in the checks and
balances system.
 Controversy
Federalist Paper #78
 The least feared branch = the least dangerous
 It cannot enforce its decisions
 Only the courts can ensure the limits of the constitution
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison (1803): The
Supreme Court could declare a
congressional act unconstitutional
Supreme Court Decision in Marbury V.
Madison
 Marbury is entitled to the
commission, but:
 The Court cannot issue
the writ because the
Judiciary Act of 1789, is
unconstitutional.
 The Supreme Court of the
United States has the
power to review acts of
other branches and
determine their
constitutionality.
 This power is called
judicial review.
 Article III, Section 2 lays
out the original
jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court
 "In all Cases affecting
Ambassadors, other
public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be a
Party, the supreme Court
shall have original
Jurisdiction."
 The Congress passes a law that says all
citizens who were not born in this country must
return to their country of birth within one month.
 The president signs the law and says he will
have the armed forces help to enforce
compliance.
1. Do the people have any recourse?
2. In other words, can anything be
done about this?
3. If so, what?
Understanding the Judiciary
Kinds of Court Opinions
Per curiam: brief and unsigned
Opinion of the court: majority opinion
Concurring opinion: agrees with the ruling
of the majority opinion, but modifies the
supportive reasoning
Dissenting opinion: minority opinion
Constitutional Interpretation
 Strict construction/restraint: judges are bound by
the wording of the Constitution; judges are
interpreters, not policy-makers.
 Judicial activism: judges should look to the
underlying principles of the Constitution, and this
can result in new policy.
 Today: most activists tend to be liberal, most
strict constructionists tend to be conservative.
Arguments for Judicial Activism
Courts should correct injustices when
other branches or state governments
refuse to do so.
Courts are the last resort for those without
the power or influence to gain new laws.
Arguments Against Judicial Activism
Judges lack expertise in designing and
managing complex institutions.
Initiatives require balancing policy
priorities and allocating public revenues.
Courts are not accountable because
judges are not elected.
Checks on Judicial Power
Judges have no enforcement mechanisms
Confirmation and impeachment
proceedings
Changing the number of judges
Revising legislation
Amending the Constitution
Altering jurisdiction
Public Opinion and the Courts
Defying public opinion frontally may be
dangerous to the legitimacy of the
Supreme Court.
Appointment process and life terms
insulate justices from public opinion.
Impeachment and lack of enforcement
powers mean justices are not completely
isolated from public opinion.