Unit II: The Federal Judiciary/Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Ways in which the Supreme Court is checked by other branches and the public.

Appointed by the president (who was elected by the people) Must go through a rigorous confirmation process Relies on the public for enforcement

Which branch of government creates new federal courts?

Congress; The Legislative branch (Congress) creates federal courts below the Supreme Court. Article III Courts (US District Courts, US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts, certain special subject matter courts) become part of the Judicial branch. All federal courts are part of the federal court system, but not all of them are part of the Judicial branch.

What role do litmus tests play in a judicial nomination?

is a question asked of a potential candidate for high office, the answer to which would determine whether the nominating official would proceed with the appointment or nomination.

How is the Supreme Court insulated from the public?

judges are appointed not elected They serve life terms with "good behavior" (misconduct would make them loose their job) Salaries can not be reduced The Supreme Court sets its own agenda Limited public access to court proceedings by interest groups and no cameras or recording device allowed No appeals may be made of Supreme Court rulings

Identify issues with "affirmative action" and the Supreme Courts decision on the issue

...

Significance of the 14th Amendment's due process clause

Incorporates protection of the bill of rights to the states Protects every citizens right to life, liberty, and property to not be taken away by the government unfairly.

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale"

James Dale received his eagle and in college he "came out" he returns home to help with the troop, but they wont let him because he is gay. He challenges this because he says the BSA are violating his right to choose which group he wants to be in. The court says that it is ok for the BSA to do this because they are a private institution.

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Texas v. Johnson"

Johnson in a march burned the American Flag. Question: is this a form of freedom of speech? Decision: 5 votes for Johnson, 4 vote(s) against This is a protected form of expression.

Identify the tenure of federal judges and how they are removed from office

Judges make $210,000 a year from Oct-June Chief Justice is John Roberts (First among equals) They are able to serve life under "good behavior" or until they retire They are nominated by the president Bear in mind this is only true of Article III judges (Judicial Branch) serving on "constitutional courts": US District Court US Court of International Trade US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts Supreme Court of the United States

Define and state the significance of "stare decisis"

Latin for "to stand by things decided." Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true.

Different definitions of "equality" in America

Legal equality: Laws must apply fairly, justly, and have equal punishment Equality of opportunity: Theoretically everyone has the same chances in life as everyone else (education, life, medicine, food) Equality of outcome: The U.S. does not believe in this, which is that everyone should have the same outcome (this is seen in european countries) Can be found in the 14th Amendments equal protection clause

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Lawrence v. Texas"

Responding to a reported weapons disturbance in a private residence, Houston police entered John Lawrence's apartment and saw him and another adult man, Tyron Garner, engaging in a private, consensual sexual act. Lawrence and Garner were arrested and convicted of deviate sexual intercourse in violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. In affirming, the State Court of Appeals held that the statute was not unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Question: Do the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Do their criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Decision: 6 votes for Lawrence and Garner, 3 votes against No, yes, and yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued Justice Kennedy.

Precedents of the court case; "McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky"

After two Kentucky Counties posted large and readily visible copies of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses, and a school district in a third county posted a similar display, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued. The decision was that displaying the Ten Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The government violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in three ways: The first way was that they were displaying the Ten Commandments in isolation; the second for showing the Commandments along with other religious passages; the third for presenting the Commandments in a presentation of the "Foundations of American Law" exhibit.

Explain the "Lemon Test" which came from the court case; "Lemon v. Kurtzman"

Case- Tax money was going to pay the partial salary of private school teachers, some of which included religion teachers which was nonsecular. The case found that this would only be ok if the teacher was teaching a secular subject. Aid from the government must have a secular purpose such as money for food or cafeteria tables

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Gideon v. Wainwright"

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with a felony: having broken into and entered a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. Question: Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Decision: 9 votes for Gideon, 0 vote(s) against The Supreme Court held that the framers of the Constitution placed a high value on the right of the accused to have the means to put up a proper defense, and the state as well as federal courts must respect that right. The Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own.

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Mapp v. Ohio"

Don King is part of an illegal gambling ring, gets caught by the cops, goes to them and rats everyone else out to save him self. Mysteriously his house is blown up...hmmm Police show up at one of the mens girlfriends house that was ratted out to find out who blew up Don Kings house. She would not let the police in, needed search warrant, make a fake one, come in, find nude pictures and prosecute her for this. She is convicted 8 years to state prison. Mapp's appeal was that they did not have a legit search warrant. Evidence was the "fruit of an illegal search" implies the exclusionary rule to the states

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Escobedo v. Illinois"

Escobedo was seen arguing with his brother in law, he leaves his house and later his brother in law was found dead. They bring him in for questioning and asks to see his lawyer, police say no, we want to talk to you not him. Objection: The moment he asked for his lawyer, the police should have stopped talking and let him see his lawyer. Question: do you have the right to a lawyer when being interrogated? right to a lawyer outside the court room? Decision: (5-4) the rights do apply and the 5th Amendment protects to police interogations

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Engle v. Vitale"

Facts: New York passes a law that requires a non-denominational prayer to be said aloud at the beginning of the school day. Students may leave or sit quietly during this time if they do not wish to partake. Question: A government funded public school is providing the funds to support the endorsement of a religious prayer, unconstitutional? Decision: (6-1) Unconstitutional, Violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment

Freedom of assembly to freedom of association

Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person's own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members. and Freedom of assembly is the right to come together in assembly publicly.

Two protections provided by the First Amendment

Freedom of religion - 1. establishment clause(government can not establish a national religion) 2. Free-exercise clause (Right to freely express your faith) 3. Freedom to choose which religion you would like Separation of Church and State

Define and explain Supreme Court's rulings on "prior restraint of the press"

Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication. The government is not allowed to censor anything before it is published. unless under certain conditions such as Libel and exception of libel is parody

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Griswold v. Connecticut"

Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception Question: Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? Decision:7 votes for Griswold, 2 vote(s) against Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

Characteristics that determine who the president will select for his nominee.

Ideology (litmus test) Acceptability to senate (are others going to like them) Age (wants them to live a while in office but not so young that they do not have enough experience, avg age is 52.5) Gender (mostly males are chosen, but the first female was Sandra day O'conner) Race and ethnicity (most are white but there has been 2 black justices, first black justice was Thurgood Marshall) Judicial Experience (a lot of experience over a wide range of topics) Reputation (aba ranking and ranking their professionalism)

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Tinker v. Des Moines school district"

In 1965, Des Moines, Iowa residents John F. Tinker (15 years old), his siblings Mary Beth Tinker (13 years old), Hope Tinker (11 years old), and Paul Tinker (8 years old), along with their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) decided to wear black armbands to their schools (high school for John and Christopher, junior high for Mary Beth, elementary school for Hope and Paul) in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principals of the Des Moines schools learned of the plan and met on December 14 to create a policy that stated that school children wearing an armband would be asked to remove it immediately. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy. The participants decided to violate this policy. Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt were suspended from school for 10 years for wearing armbands on December 16th and John Tinker was suspended for doing the same on the following day. The court's seven to two decision held that the First Amendment applied to public schools, and that administrators would have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom. The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.

Limits of free speech on the "clear and present danger" rule in the court case; "Schenck v. U.S."

In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case involved a prominent socialist, Charles Schenck, who attempted to distribute thousands of flyers to American servicemen recently drafted to fight in World War I. Schenck's flyers asserted that the draft amounted to "involuntary servitude" proscribed by the Constitution's Thirteenth Amendment (outlawing slavery) and that the war itself was motivated by capitalist greed, and urged draftees to petition for repeal of the draft. Schenck was charged by the U.S. government with violating the recently enacted Espionage Act. This fell under the newly created "clear and present danger" test and he was found guilty on all charges.

Identify the Unincorporated Amendments

Many of the rights that have not been incorporated yet have a reason and here are the ones that have not yet been incorporated: 3rd "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law" (US Constitution). Due to the fact that the states do not have an army or a military force that is not federally run it is near impossible for the states to quarter soldiers in homes. 5th (partially) "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" (US Constitution). Because of the fact that a grand jury does not determine whether the person is guilty or innocent and that they determine whether they have committed a crime this has never formulated into a case. 7th "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law" (US Constitution). This amendment has not yet been incorporated because the states have already made it part of their constitution so it has never been a federal problem. 8th (partially) "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" (US Constitution). This has not been a problem because the bail is set before they are accused and if the person has been accused of a major crime no bail will be set because they are a threat to society.

Significance of court case; "Marbury v. Madison"

Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution.

Describe how a case reaches the supreme court.

Nearly every case the Supreme Court hears is an appeal and chosen by the court. It does this by issuing a Writ of Certiorari. If four Justices agree to hear a case, a "Writ of Cert" is issued case is scheduled for a hearing (The Rule of 4). About 100 appeals are granted Certiorari in a year so the Supreme Court hears very few cases, while thousands are submitted. Courts take cases that pose a significant federal or constitutional question, involving conflicting decisions by circuit courts. Cases that require constitutional interpretation by one of the highest state courts regarding state or federal law. Very costly to hear cases, Costs can be lowered or paid in full in case of Indigents (called in forma Pauperis), for which the government pays the costs)

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Miranda v. Arizona"

On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested, by the Phoenix Police Department, based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the kidnapping and rape of a 15-year-old girl ten days earlier. After two hours of interrogation by police officers, Miranda signed a confession to the rape charge on forms that included the typed statement "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me." However, at no time was Miranda told of his right to counsel. Prior to being presented with the form on which he was asked to write out the confession he had already given orally, he was not advised of his right to remain silent, nor was he informed that his statements during the interrogation would be used against him. Argument: his lawyer makes the statement that he should have been informed and asked about a lawyer Decision: (5-4) The lawyer was right, it is a burden of the Government to inform the accused of their 5th Amendment rights. This is significant because now the Miranda rights are to be read to you when being arrested.

Supreme Court's Constitutional justification for a "right to privacy"

Original intent: Those who believe in this say, you do not have the right to privacy Living Constitution: You do have privacy rights Privacy decisions are of the most controversial decisions in court. you have "penumbras of privacy"

Theories of originalism

Originalism is the idea of thinking back to how the original authors intended the law to be and basing it off of that. The problems of this are that it does not change to fit modern times.

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Roe v. Wade"

Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe's attorney -- Sarah Weddington -- could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent -- Jay Floyd -- misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent -- Robert Flowers -- came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall. Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? Decision: 7 votes for Roe, 2 vote(s) against The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

Process of selective incorporation

Selective incorporation describes the parts of the bill of rights that have not yet been incorporated to the states. In order for these certain rights to be applied to the states there must first be a lawsuit that will put these rights on the states. Just because these rights have not been incorporated into the states, does not mean that the Federal Government does not have to follow them; that is what makes it "selective incorporation"

Precedents of the court case; "Abington School District v. Schempp"

The Court explicitly upheld Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that the sanctioning of a prayer by the school amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Abington court held that in organizing a reading of the Bible, the school was conducting "a religious exercise," and "that cannot be done without violating the 'neutrality' required of the State by the balance of power between individual, church and state that has been struck by the First Amendment"

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Planned Parenthood v. Casey"

The Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort the fetus. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. Question: Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? Decision: 5 votes for Planned Parenthood, 4 vote(s) against In a bitter, 5-to-4 decision, the Court again reaffirmed Roe, but it upheld most of the Pennsylvania provisions. For the first time, the justices imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions. The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an "undue burden," which is defined as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." Under this standard, the only provision to fail the undue-burden test was the husband notification requirement. The opinion for the Court was unique: It was crafted and authored by three justices.

STRUCTURE OF FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM: Under Article III of the Constitution

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal Judiciary. Congress has established two levels of federal courts under the Supreme Court: the trial courts and the appellate courts. The exact powers are vague

Define U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C. is the highest court in the nation. It is also the only federal court named specifically in the Constitution, which states that, "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court." Beyond that, however, the Constitution tells us little about the make-up or organization of the court; it gives no qualifications for holding seats on the court, and doesn't establish how many justices will be on the court. 9 justices: The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the size of the court at six; one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. Over time, the court grew to as large as ten Justices. With the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress decreased the number to nine, a number which has remained constant to this day. Hear appeals from; U.S. Circuit courts and State Supreme Courts Only Court in the U.S. to hear both federal and state, rarely hearing original jurisdiction unless it is with high ranking treason or a state suing another state.

Define U.S. District court

The United States district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system. This is where federal cases are tried, where witnesses testify, and federal juries serve. There are 94 federal district courts in the United States. District courts have original jurisdiction, which means that they preside over cases first. These cases may be either criminal or civil cases. Criminal: Cases in which you break a federal law and get arrested are heard in a federal district court. Civil: One example would be a case in which you are suing the government or an agent of the government because they have violated the rights granted to you under the Constitution.

Limits of free speech on the "bad tendency" rule in the court case; "Gitlow v. New York"

The bad tendency rule is a test which permits restriction of freedom of speech by government if it is believed that a form of speech has a sole tendency to incite or cause illegal activity. Gitlow was handing out socialist papers that involved the overthrow of the government. The decision was that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, but the defendant was properly convicted under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law because he disseminated newspapers that advocated the violent overthrow of the government.

What is meant by "duel court system"

The dual court system is the distinction of state and federal courts that make up the judicial branch of government. Both are parallel to each other. 98% of civil and criminal cases are heard in the State court system. Dual court system refers to the separate Federal and State tracks under the umbrella of the Judicial branch of the United States government. Federal courts hear criminal and civil cases that involve constitutional and federal law, policies and special subject matter (such as Bankruptcy, or Federal Tax); while State courts reserve the power to hear civil and criminal cases related to state laws and state constitutional issues.

Freedom of Assembly Restrictions

The government can regulate the "Time, Manner, and Place" of a public assembly but not the content. If you allow one group to commit an action, you must therefore allow all others to do the same if they wish.

Different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms"

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed! Living constitution: the right of the individual to have guns. In a militia everyone has the right to a gun Original intent: the right of a state to have a militia and have guns.

Precedents of the court case; "Van Orden v. Perry"

This was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument given to the government at the Texas State Capitol in Austin violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The decision was that a Ten Commandments monument erected on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Establishment Clause, because the monument, when considered in context, conveyed a historic and social meaning rather than an intrusive religious endorsement.

Define U.S. Court of Appeals (13 Circuit courts)

There are 12 regional circuit courts, and one for the "Federal Circuit," that were established by Congress to relieve some of the caseload of the Supreme Court, and to hear cases that are appealed from the 94 district courts. 11 regional appellate courts plus 2 in D.C. Not a question of fact but a question of law, they don't give a damn if you were guilty or nah. Over 160 Judges on 3 judge panels. The courts of appeals have appellate jurisdiction (the power of a court to review a case after a lower court has already decided that same case). They are not trial courts and do not hear cases first. Instead, the appellate courts review the decisions of the district courts, and determine whether they were correct. In an appeal, the losing party from the federal district court (both criminal and civil cases) asks the court of appeals to revisit their case, and to make a judgment on some issue of law.

What is meant by the First Amendment's "wall of separation"?

There must be a theoretical wall separating church and state

Which court significantly expanded the rights of the accused?

They expanded under the Warren court.

Theories of living constitution

This belief is one that the constitution should change due to modern day issues and events. The downside of this is that it opens up way to many opportunities for change.

Precedents of the court case; "Employment Division v. Smith"

This case is a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. The decision was that the Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Precedents of the court case; "Edwards v. Aguillard"

This case was about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. It also held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Theories of Judicial activism

This describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.

Define the "exclusionary rule" and the courts exceptions to it.

This is a law that prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in a criminal trial. exceptions are; detention to prior arrest, "plain view", a consented search, garbage (city property), vehicular searches, and border searches.

Theories of Judicial restraint

This is a legal term that describes a type of judicial interpretation that emphasizes the limited nature of the court's power. Judicial restraint asks judges to base their judicial decisions solely on the concept of stare decisis, which refers to an obligation of the court to honor previous decisions.

What role does senatorial courtesy play in a judicial nomination?

This unwritten tradition has meant that Senators from the home state of a nominee and also of the party of the President can block a nomination to a federal office within their state merely by objecting to it.

Facts, Constitutional question, decision, and significance of the court case; "Powell v. Alabama"

This was a United States Supreme Court decision which determined that in a capital trial, the defendant must be given access to counsel upon his or her own request as part of due process. Nine black men later known as the Scottsboro Boys, were accused of raping two young white women. The group was traveling in a freight train with seven white males and two white females. A fight broke out and all of the white males, except for one, were thrown from the train. The women accused the black men of rape, although one woman later retracted her claim. All of the defendants, except for Roy Wright, were sentenced to death in a series of one-day trials. The defendants were only given access to their lawyers immediately prior to the trial, leaving little or no time to plan the defense. The ruling was appealed on the grounds that the group was not provided adequate legal counsel. The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 6-1 that the trial was fair (the strongly dissenting opinion was from Chief Justice Anderson). This ruling was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Decision was that due process had been violated. The ruling was based on three main arguments: "(1) They were not given a fair, impartial and deliberate trial; (2) They were denied the right of counsel, with the accustomed incidents of consultation and opportunity for trial; and (3) They were tried before juries from which qualified members of their own race were systematically excluded."

Precedents of the court case; "Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah"

This was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional. The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, a religion whose rituals sometimes demand animal sacrifice, was planning on locating there. The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional. The decision was that the states cannot restrict religiously-mandated ritual slaughter of animals, regardless of the purpose of the slaughter.

What are the three levels of the federal court system.

U.S. District court U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. Supreme court

Precedents of the court case; "Lee v. Weisman"

When Robert E. Lee, the principal of Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island, invited a Jewish rabbi to deliver a prayer at the 1989 graduation ceremony, the parents of student Deborah Weisman requested a temporary injunction seeking to bar the rabbi from speaking. When the Rhode Island district court denied the Weismans' motion, the family did attend the graduation ceremony, and the rabbi did deliver the benediction. After the graduation, the Weismans continued their litigation, and won a victory at the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The school district appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the prayer was nonsectarian and was doubly voluntary, as Deborah was free not to stand for the prayer and because participation in the ceremony itself was not required. Arguments were heard on November 6, 1991, and many court watchers thought that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had been critical of the Court's decisions on school prayer, would provide the crucial fifth vote to reverse the lower court's ruling and deal a major blow to the twin separationist pillars of Engel and Abington. The decision including a clergy-led prayer within the events of a public high school graduation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Procedure of federal court nominations and confirmations.

When there is an open judicial position, the president nominates someone to the position. Usually he discusses the nomination with key senators before announcing his choice. The nomination is sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee collects information about the nominee, including a background check by the FBI, and reviews the nominee's record and qualifications. The Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nominee. Witnesses speak both in favor and against the nomination. Senators ask questions of the nominee. The Judiciary Committee votes on the nomination, and then makes a recommendation to the full Senate, that the nominee either be confirmed, rejected, or that they do not have a recommendation. Sometimes they decline to send a nominee to the Senate at all. The full Senate debates the nomination. A vote of 3/5 of the Senate (60 senators) is required to end debate. This is called a cloture vote. If enough senators wish to delay a vote on a nominee, they can filibuster by not voting to end debate. When debate ends, the Senate votes on the nomination. Confirmation requires a simple majority of the senators present and voting.