The Supreme Court of the
United States of America
The Judicial Branch
Jurisdiction of the courts
Types of Jurisdiction
Original Jurisdiction – this court is the first one to hear the case
Appellate Jurisdiction – this court only hears cases from courts
where the decision is being contested by the losing party
Exclusive Jurisdiction – held only by the United States Supreme
Court
For Cases in which a state is a party in the law suit
For cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers
 Concurrent Jurisdiction – the case can be tried in either a federal or
state court
SUPREME COURT
JURISDICTION
FEDERAL COURT
JURISDICTION
CONCURRENT
JURISDICTION
STATE COURTS
JURISDICTION
Cases in which a
State is a party
The United States is
the plaintiff or
Defendant
Murder
Citizen of the state
Cases affecting
ambassadors and
other public ministers
The complaint is
based on a federal
law (from the
Constitution or
statute)
Armed Robbery
Have a business or
satellite office in the
state
Cases being
appealed from the
lower courts
Cases that occur on
navigable waters
Kidnapping
Conduct business
within the state
Cases between
citizens of different
states
Drug Trafficking or
Smuggling
Committed the crime
in the state
How the Supreme Court decides a case
 Cases get to the Supreme Court via:
 Writ of Certiorari – a case from a lower court is being appealed to the
Supreme Court. The Justices review the case and decide to call it up to be
heard.
 Certificate – the lower court has no clue how to rule on the case and asks the
Supreme Court for help
 Origination – those cases where the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction
 Both sides in the case send briefs explaining their case
 Briefs – written explanations of the case and the unique circumstances around
the case.
 Both sides present oral arguments before the Court Mondays
through Thursdays
 On Fridays, the Justices meet behind closed doors to discuss the
cases they have heard and those petitioning to be heard by the
Court
 It may take many months of debate among the justices before an
opinion is issued
 The Justices vote. Majority rules and opinions are written.
 Majority Opinion is usually written by one of the justices from the majority. This
explains the reasoning behind the Court’s decision.
 Dissenting Opinion is usually written by a justice(s) who voted against the
majority opinion. This explains why they voted against those in the majority
 These opinions are very important because they can be used in future cases
 Concurring Opinions are usually written by justices who agree with the
decision of the majority, but they feel the decision should be based on
something else. This is also important because it can be used to argue future
cases too.
 Mondays are DECISION DAY – it is the day most court decisions are announced
to the public
Philosophies of Judicial Interpretation
 Judicial Restraint – cases before the Supreme Court should be
decided based on the original intent of the Framers of the
Constitution and/or precedent that has already been set.
 Judicial Activism – Cases should be decided based on recent
changes and/or current social values
 Judicial Restraint
 A theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise
of their own power.
 It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are
obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is
itself a matter of some debate.
 In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to
great lengths to defer to the legislature.
 Judicially-restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding
established precedent handed down by past judges.
Source: Boundless. “Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 27 Jun. 2014. Retrieved 01 May. 2015
from https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/the-judiciary-14/judicial-review-andpolicy-making-93/judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint-508-909/
 Judicial Activism
describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal
or political considerations rather than on existing law.
The definition of judicial activism and which specific decisions
are activist, is a controversial political issue.
The phrase is generally traced back to a comment by Thomas
Jefferson, referring to the despotic behavior
of Federalist federal judges, in particular, John Marshall.
Detractors of judicial activism argue that it usurps the power of
elected branches of government or appointed agencies,
damaging the rule of law and democracy.
Defenders say that in many cases it is a legitimate form of judicial
review and that interpretations of the law must change with the
times.
Source: Boundless. “Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 27 Jun. 2014. Retrieved 01 May. 2015 from
https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/the-judiciary-14/judicial-review-and-policy-making93/judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint-508-909/
Famous Supreme Court Justices
and their cases
Chief Justice John Marshall (judicial
activism)
Appointed by President John Adams
Holy Trinity of Court Cases (all three while John Marshall
was Chief Justice)
Marbury v Madison, 1803 – established the concept of Judicial
Review
McCulloch v Maryland, 1819 – upheld the implied powers of
Congress and upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution
Gibbons v Ogden, 1924 – upheld the Commerce Power of the
Congress
Chief Justice Earl Warren (judicial
activism)
Appointed by President Eisenhower
Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS 1954
Declared “separate-but-equal” to be inherently unequal in the
case of public education
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
More clearly defined the Exclusionary Rule stating that evidence
obtained without a search warrant could not be used against
the defendant
 Engel v. Vitale, 1962
 Court ruled that standard morning prayers in public schools violated the
Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment
 Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
 Court ruled that the right to counsel applied to all criminal cases.
 Westberry v. Sanders, 1964
 Court established the one-man-one-vote rule. Again, upheld the illegality of
gerrymandering
 Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 1964
 Court ruled that Congress could order the desegregation of private businesses
that may profit from interstate commerce.
 Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
 Court ruled that the marriage bedroom was a private place and the government had
no business invading that privacy
 Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
 Established the Miranda Rights which must be read to and understood by those
accused of a crime prior to being questioned.
 In Re Gault, 1967
 The Court ruled that juveniles have some of the same due process rights as
adults
 Tinker v. Des Moines Indiana Community School District, 1969
 Court ruled that schools could not interfere with a student’s freedom of
expression as long as the expression did not interfere with instruction.
Chief Justice Warren Burger (supposed to be
one of judicial restraint, but ended up being more of
an activist)
 Appointed by President Nixon
 Furman v. Georgia, 1972
 Death penalty is deemed unconstitutional for violating the 8th amendment.
 Roe v Wade, 1972
 The Court declared state laws making abortions illegal to be unconstitutional.
 Miller v California, 1973
 The Court ruled that “contemporary community standards” be used in
judging what is obscene.
Gregg v Georgia, 1976
 The Death Penalty was justified as long as certain steps were followed prior to
issuing the penalty.
 Board of Regents University of California v. Bakke, 1978
 The Court ruled that race should not be the only factor in making
affirmative action decisions, but it can be considered.
 Lynch v Donnelly, 1984
 The Court ruled that public displays of religious beliefs are permissible
only if they are part of an otherwise nonreligious or multi-religious
display.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist “reaffirmed
most of those liberal decisions [of his predecessors] while
creating its own brand of conservative judicial activism.”
(http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3642194.html)
 Appointed by President Reagan
 Bob Jones University v The United States, 1983
 Institutions receiving tax exempt status would lose that status if they practice
discrimination
 New Jersey v T.L.O., 1985
 School officials only need “reasonable suspicion” to search a student
 Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, 1988
 The Court stated, “a school need not tolerate student speech that is
inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government
could not censor similar speech outside the school.”
 United States v Eichman, 1990
 The Court declared the Flag Protection Act unconstitutional.
 Board of Education Westside Community Schools v Mergens, 1990
 The Court upheld the Equal Access Clause from 1984.
 U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, 1995
 The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Arkansas to limit the terms of U.S.
Congressmen.
 United States v The American Library Association, 2003
 The Court ruled in favor of public libraries being able to block internet accessibility
to certain sites that might display questionable materials.
Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. (“If it’s measured in
terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist
courts in history,” Justice Ginsburg)
 Appointed by President George W. Bush
 Georgia v. Randolph, 2006
 police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant
consents and the other objects
 House v. Bell, 2006
 Post-conviction DNA forensic evidence can be considered in death penalty
appeals
 Hudson v. Michigan, 2006
 evidence obtained with a search warrant is admissible even when police
violate 'knock-and-announce' rule
 Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007
 Upheld the Constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act
 Morse v. Frederick, 2007
 Upheld the censorship of free speech rights of high school students ("Bong Hits
4 Jesus")
 Baze v. Rees, 2008
 Upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection protocols under the Eighth
Amendment
 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008
 Upheld the constitutionality of requiring voters to show ID before voting
 McDonald v. Chicago, 2010
 The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms"
protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.
 Florida v. Harris, 2013
 Because the police provided evidence showing the dog did well at training, a
dog sniff provided probable cause for a search of a vehicle.
 Florida v. Jardines, 2013
 A dog sniff at the front door of a house constitutes a "search" for purposes of
the Fourth Amendment.
United States v. Windsor, 2013
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, as it
violates due process and equal protection.
2015 – Supreme Court is expected to announce it’s
decision on Same-Sex Marriages in June…