Chapter 13

Writ of Certiorari

an order of the Supreme Court calling up the records of the lower court so a case may be reviewed; sometimes abbreviated cert.

Precedent

the principles or guidelines established by courts in earlier cases that frame the ongoing operation of the courts, steering the direction of the entire system

dual court system

the division of the courts into two separate systems, one federal and one state, with each of the fifty states having its own court

Solicitor General

the lawyer who represents the federal government and argues some cases before the Supreme Court

The docket

the list of cases pending on a court's calendar

Common Law System

the pattern of law developed by judges through case decisions largely based on precedent

Two achievements U.S. courts pride themselves on:

As part of the framers' system of checks and balances, they protect the sanctity of the U.S. Constitution from breaches by the other branches of government, and (2) they protect individual rights against societal and governmental oppression.

Checks on the Supreme Court

But the most significant check on the Supreme Court is executive and legislative leverage over the implementation and enforcement of its rulings. This process is called judicial implementation. While it is true that courts play a major role in policymaking, they have no mechanism to make their rulings a reality. The impact of Court decisions is dependent on their credibility, viability, and the assistance given by the other branches of government

Help with emergencies

Clerks also assist the justices in deciding on emergency applications to the Court, many of which are applications by prisoners to stay their death sentences and are sometimes submitted within hours of a scheduled execution.

Prepare the justices for oral argument

Clerks analyze the filed briefs (short arguments explaining each party's side of the case) and the law at issue in each case waiting to be heard.

Research and draft judicial opinions

Clerks do detailed research to assist justices in writing an opinion, whether it is the majority opinion or a dissenting or concurring opinion.

Review the cases

Clerks participate in a "cert. pool" (short for writ of certiorari, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review) and make recommendations about which cases the Court should choose to hear.

Marbury v. Madison

In any case, his ruling shows an interesting contrast in the early Court. On one hand, it humbly declined a power—issuing a writ of mandamus—given to it by Congress, but on the other, it laid the foundation for legitimizing a much more important one—judicial review. Marbury never got his commission, but the Court's ruling in the case has become more significant for the precedent it established: As the first time the Court declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, it established the power of judicial review, a key power that enables the judicial branch to remain a powerful check on the other branches of government.

Hamilton's comments about the key role of courts and why they are the least dangerous branch

In explaining the importance of an independent judiciary separated from the other branches of government, he said "interpretation" was a key role of the courts as they seek to protect people from unjust laws. But he also believed "the Judiciary Department" would "always be the least dangerous" because "with no influence over either the sword or the purse," it had "neither force nor will, but merely judgment." The courts would only make decisions, not take action. With no control over how those decisions would be implemented and no power to enforce their choices, they could exercise only judgment, and their power would begin and end there.

Supreme Court justices don't work completely in an ideological bubble

In fact, none of the justices works completely in an ideological bubble. While their numerous opinions have revealed certain ideological tendencies, they still consider each case as it comes to them, and they don't always rule in a consistently predictable or expected way. Furthermore, they don't work exclusively on their own. Each justice has three or four law clerks, recent law school graduates who temporarily work for him or her, do research, help prepare the justice with background information, and assist with the writing of opinions. The law clerks' work and recommendations influence whether the justices will choose to hear a case, as well as how they will rule. As the profile below reveals, the role of the clerks is as significant as it is varied

Chisholm v. Georgia - why is it important, why was it soon made irrelevant?

In their first case of significance, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), the justices ruled that the federal courts could hear cases brought by a citizen of one state against a citizen of another state, and that Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution did not protect the states from facing such an interstate lawsuit. However, their decision was almost immediately overturned by the Eleventh Amendment, passed by Congress in 1794 and ratified by the states in 1795. In protecting the states, the Eleventh Amendment put a prohibition on the courts by stating, "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." It was an early hint that Congress had the power to change the jurisdiction of the courts as it saw fit and stood ready to use it.

How the decision making role of the courts differs from the President and Congress

In their role as policymakers, Congress and the president tend to consider broad questions of public policy and their costs and benefits. But the courts consider specific cases with narrower questions, thus enabling them to focus more closely than other government institutions on the exact context of the individuals, groups, or issues affected by the decision.

When/why a building for the Supreme Court was built

It was not until the Court's 146th year of operation that Congress, at the urging of Chief Justice—and former president—William Howard Taft, provided the designation and funding for the Supreme Court's own building, "on a scale in keeping with the importance and dignity of the Court and the Judiciary as a coequal, independent branch of the federal government." It was a symbolic move that recognized the Court's growing role as a significant part of the national government.

Benefits and drawbacks of a dual court system

On the plus side, each person has more than just one court system ready to protect his or her rights. The dual court system provides alternate venues in which to appeal for assistance, as Ernesto Miranda's case illustrates. The fact that a minority voice like Miranda's can be heard in court, and that his or her grievance can be resolved in his or her favor if warranted, says much about the role of the judiciary in a democratic republic. State courts are important instruments of democracy because they provide different alternatives and varying arenas for political access. On the down side, there are different courts in which a person could face charges for a crime or for a violation of another person's rights. Except for the fact that the U.S. Constitution binds judges and justices in all the courts, it is state law that governs the authority of state courts, so judicial rulings about what is legal or illegal may differ from state to state. Where you are physically located can affect not only what is allowable and what is not, but also how cases are judged. Each state court system operates with its own individual set of biases.

Jurisdiction of state and federal courts

State courts really are the core of the U.S. judicial system, and they are responsible for a huge area of law. Most crimes and criminal activity, such as robbery, rape, and murder, are violations of state laws, and cases are thus heard by state courts. State courts also handle civil matters; personal injury, malpractice, divorce, family, juvenile, probate, and contract disputes and real estate cases, to name just a few, are usually state- level cases. The federal courts, on the other hand, will hear any case that involves a foreign government, patent or copyright infringement, Native American rights, maritime law, bankruptcy, or a controversy between two or more states. Cases arising from activities across state lines (interstate commerce) are also subject to federal court jurisdiction, as are cases in which the United States is a party.

Judicial restraint

a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to let stand the decisions or actions of the other branches of government

Appellate jurisdiction

the power of a court to hear a case on appeal from a lower court and possibly change the lower court's decision

Stare decisis

The U.S. court system operates on the principle of stare decisis (Latin for stand by things decided), which means that today's decisions are based largely on rulings from the past, and tomorrow's rulings rely on what is decided today.

Adversarial system of justice:

The adversarial judicial system comes from the common law tradition: In a court case, it is one party versus the other, and it is up to an impartial person or group, such as the judge or jury, to determine which party prevails. The federal court system is most often called upon when a case touches on constitutional rights.

Hamilton quote about the importance of the courts exercising their duty

The judicial branch has often made decisions the other branches were either unwilling or unable to make, and Hamilton was right in Federalist No. 78 when he said that without the courts exercising their duty to defend the Constitution, "all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing."

Judicial activism

a judicial philosophy in which a justice is more likely to overturn decisions or rule actions by the other branches unconstitutional, especially in an attempt to broaden individual rights and liberties

Criminal Law

a law that prohibits actions that could harm or endanger others, and establishes punishment for those actions

One certainty about the overall look of the federal court system

There is one certainty about the overall look of the federal court system: What was once a predominately white, male, Protestant institution is today much more diverse. As a look at Table 13.3 reveals, the membership of the Supreme Court has changed with the passing years. (Catholic, Jewish, African American, Woman).

Civil Law

a non-criminal law defining private rights and remedies

ACA and court decisions affecting it, role the court played with each ACA case (think baseball!)

They challenged the constitutionality of the law in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, hoping the Supreme Court would overturn it. The practice of judicial review enabled the law's critics to exercise this opportunity, even though their hopes were ultimately dashed when, by a narrow 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court upheld the health care law as a constitutional extension of Congress's power to tax. It faced a setback in 2014, for instance, when the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that, for religious reasons, some for-profit corporations could be exempt from the requirement that employers provide insurance coverage of contraceptives for their female employees. But the ACA also attained a victory in King v. Burwell, when the Court upheld the ability of the federal government to provide tax credits for people who bought their health insurance through an exchange created by the law. With each ACA case it has decided, the Supreme Court has served as the umpire, upholding the law and some of its provisions on one hand, but ruling some aspects of it unconstitutional on the other. Both supporters and opponents of the law have claimed victory and faced defeat. In each case, the Supreme Court has further defined and fine-tuned the law passed by Congress and the president, determining which parts stay and which parts go, thus having its say in the way the act has manifested itself, the way it operates, and the way it serves its public purpose

Rule of Four

a Supreme Court custom in which a case will be heard when four justices decide to do so