The Judicial Branch

Lochner Era

A period from 1905 to 1937, during which the Supreme Court struck down laws (like worker protection or minimum-wage laws) that were thought to infringe on economic liberty or the right to contract.

At first, the Court rarely struck down acts of Congress, but it began to do so

At a quicker pace after the 1970s.

Rule of four

At least four justices of the Supreme Court must vote to consider a case before it can be heard

National Labor Relations Board v Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation

- upheld the national labor relations act of 1935 as consistent with Congress's commerce clause powers, reversing the Court's more narrow interpretation of that clause - less state power Company fired ten workers who were trying to form a union and was sued by the National Labor Relations board for violating the Wagner Act

Korematsu v. United States

1944 Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court upheld the order providing for the relocation of Japanese Americans. It was not until 1988 that Congress formally apologized and agreed to pay $20,000 to each survivor.

Brown v. Board of Education

1954 - The Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, declared that racially segregated facilities are inherently unequal and ordered all public schools desegregated.

Bush v Gore

5-4 Supreme Court declared that Florida vote recount violated equal protection clause (some votes would be examined more closely than others); ended Gore's challenge to 2000 election results. Power of judicial review (effectively decided 2000 election).

Amicus curiae

A brief submitted by a person or group who is not a direct party to the case. An interested party who submits their own briefs endorsing the side they favor. Well written ones usually end up being included in a justices written opinion on the case.

Strict scrutiny

A form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Requires the government to have a compelling government interest for any law that singles out race or ethnicity.

Miranda Rights

A list of rights that police in the United States must read to suspects in custody before questioning them, pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona.

Dissent

A statement on behalf of the justices who voted in the minority. They indicated why they voted against the majority.

Concurrent opinion

A statement that agrees with the majority opinion - explaining why he or she voted in favor of the majority outcome.

Common law

A system of law developed by judges in deciding cases over the centuries. Also known as case law

Judicial activism

A vigorous or active approach to reviewing the other branches of government. Conservatives bitterly attacked liberal judicial activism during the civil rights era however liberals began to criticize activist judges for being eager to overrule the will of the people's representatives. THE IDEA OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM BRINGS IN OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO READ THE CONSTITUTION. Should we reconstruct the original meaning? A

Mediation

A way of resolving disputes without going to court, in which a third party (the mediator) helps two or more sides negotiate a settlement. Many other industrial nations rely more on mediation in noncriminal cases; citizens also are more likely to defer to civil servants. In contrast, AMERICANS SUE.

The original its and pragmatist schools of thought have very different views on what constitutes

ACTIVISM

There are two general approaches to defining the courts role in government

Activists believe in a vigorous judiciary that scrutinizes the other branches and judicial restraint holds that courts should intervene rarely and reluctantly.

Courts are the primary sites for settling both private and public disputes

Advocacy groups, private citizens, and corporations go to court as a first strike option. LITIGATION IS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE TULE MAKING PROCESS.

Justices are not public ally averse

But Ruth Bader Ginsburg is an icon, however all justices maintain a strict norm of not discussing cases before the Court

Expanding resources and imposing term limits could modernize the courts and enhance their ability to serve the American government

By doing what hey do at their best: faithfully reflecting - and consistently enforcing - the constitutional rules that guide our public life WHAT EXACTLY THE CONSTITUTION MEANS IS A HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL MATTER IN THE OARADE OF 5-4 DECISIONS. The Courts HAVE INTEREPRETED THE CONSTITUTION IN WAYS THAT REDUCE RIGHTS IN CASES LIKE DRED SCOTT PLESSY AND KOREMATSU As a result, the courts always face a delicate balance between enforcing the Constitution (as a majority on the Court see it) and deferring to democracy (and the majority of the country).

Marbury vs Madison

Case in which the supreme court first asserted th power of Judicial review in finding that the congressional statue expanding the Court's original jurisdiction was unconstitutional

Muller v. Oregon

Case that upheld protective legislation on the grounds of women's supposed physical weakness. Supported the idea that a woman was different than a man and her role as a child bearer and mother was more important than her role as a worker.

Civil law

Cases that involve disputes between two parties

Clear and Present Danger

Court doctrine that permits restrictions of free speech if officials believe that the speech will lead to prohibited action like violence or terrorism.

Stare Decisis

Deciding cases on the basis of previous rulings or precedents. JUDGES MIST LIKELY DO THIS SINCE THEY ARE LIKE UMPIRES; APPLY TO THE RULES SINCE THEY DONT MAKE THEM.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

Declared unconstitutional a New York act limiting the working hours from ten hours a day or sixty hours a weekA,Mof bakers through the Bakeshop Act due to a denial of the 14th Amendment rights.

Specialized courts

Each covers a specific subject such as military justice, tax disputes, terrorism, and bankruptcy. These courts workload rises and falls with larger societal changes: THESE JUDGES DO NOT SERVE FOR LIFE YET ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE. Provides a further example on the complexity characterizing the divided, fragmented US Judicial branch.

Precedent

Each time a court settles a case, it sets a precedent that will guide similar cases

Mapp v Ohio

Established the exclusionary rule was applicable to the states (evidence seized illegally cannot be used in court)

Brandeis Brief

Filed by attorney Louis D. Brandeis in the Supreme Court case of Muller vs. Oregon, this brief presented only two pages of legal precedents, but contained 115 pages of sociological evidence on the negative effects of long workdays on women's health and thus on women as mothers. The brief expanded the definition of legal evidence. (AMICUS CURIAE EXAMPLE)

What would be good about 18 year terms

First, term limits could make appointments less politically anxious. Having ekected officials select Supreme Court justices ensures that the SUOREME Courts decisions do not get too far our of step with US public opinion. When the nations politics are polarized, partisan antagonism can shut down the entire system. Staggered 18 years prevent this, lowering the stakes for each nomination while retaining an appropriate level of democratic accountability. Second, by tying appointments more predictably to each elections results, this system would increase the Supreme Courts democratic accountability. NUMEROUS STUDIES FOUND THAT JUSTICES OVER TIME DRIFT FROM THE IDEOLOGICAL PREFERENCES OF THE GOVERNING COALITION THAT APPOINTED THEM. More frequent turnover would reduce this drift. One of the major problems with life tenure is that justices serve for so long that they can become out of touch with the nation they help lead. Finally, term limits can increase the quality of Supreme Court nominees. ONE OF THE DRIVING FACTORS BEHIND CURRENT ORESIDENTUAL APPOUNTMENTS IS A NOMINEES AGE. INDIVIDUALS OLDER THAN 60 ARE UNLIKELY TO BE APPOITBED This means presidents are intentionally excluding a sizable number or qualified individuals are intentionally excluding a sizable number of highly qualified individuals from serving on the Supreme Court. Term limits solve these problems and the threat of a justices cognitive decline might be reduced, since there would no long be the temptation to hold out for a strategically timed retirement.

What would be bad about 18 year terms?

First, term limits may hurt judicial independence. One of the chief arguments against term limits is that life tenure frees the justices from political or popular pressure. JUSTICES ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WE DO NOT WANT THEM TO RESPOND TOO MUCH TO THE PASSING PASSIONS OF ORDINARY POLITICS. WE ALSO DO NOT WANT THEM TI WORRY TOO MUCH ABIUT POST SUPREME COURT CAREERS. Shorter terms could prompt justices to think too much ABIUT how their votes plat in the arena of public opinion - or worse how they may limit or help future earnings. Second, the Supreme Courts legitimacy might be threatened by shorter terms. Life tenure enables justices to interpret and apply the Constitution exactly the way they see fit without considering pressure or repercussions. This perception of independence may be important to what scholars call the Supreme Courts diffuse support - the perception that people support the Supreme Court regardless of disagreement with particular decisions because they believe the Supreme Court overall is engaged in something other than ordinary politics. DIFFUSE SUPPORT. Third, staggered 18 year terms could not eliminate all risk of political gamesmanship. A determined Senate majority could still refuse to act on a nomination or vote down a nominee they found unacceptable. But term limits would change the political calculations and incentives by creating a predictable, fair distribution of seats over time and making each individual vacant less consequential. THE MOST IMPORTANT CON: TERM LIMITS MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IMPLEMENT. THIS WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. That is unlikely to happen any time soon. Any solution short of a constitutional amendment would require getting justices and senators to agree to change the norms and customs governing retirement and confirmation. In other words, THEY WOUKD HAVE TI VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO PLAY BY A NEW SET OF RULES. THAT IS TOO MUCH TI ASK GUVEN THE STATE OF POLITICS TODAY

Selecting Cases (INFORMAL FACTORS)

First, the Supreme Court is more inclined to hear a case when two lower courts decide the legal question differently (usually two federal courts but sometimes federal and state) since different rulings in similar cases require a resolution. Second, justices are inclined to grant certiorari to cases in which a lower court decision conflicts with an existing Supreme Court ruling. Third, the Supreme Court is more likely to look favorably on cases that have significance beyond the two parties involved. (SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES DI NOT MAKE IT TO THE SUOREME COURT HOWEVER WHEN IT INVOLVED THE PRESIDENT CLINTON IT DID) Fourth, the SC is likely to hear a case when the US government is a party. ALMOST HALF OF THE COURTS CASELOAD INVOLVES THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE ATTORNEY WHO REPRESENTS THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, EVEN IF A CASE MEETS ALL KF THESE IT STILL MAY BE PASSED OVER

Criticisms

First, the costs associated with Americas litigious society have become a source of widespread discontent. Second, the US legal system is perceived as biased (Many African Americans experience racial profiling, OR THE USE OF RACE BY POLICE OFFICERS IN DECIDING WHOM TO STOP OR ARREST. Others criticize ideological bias. The power of the legal system is a third cause of concern. This concern partly owes to our fear of winding up in court- especially as a defendant Finally, disgust with perceived corruption of lawyers

The courts still operate with four restraints

First, the federal courts have no electoral base. Their prestige and mystique are balanced by a lack of democratic authority. This has made some past courts careful about confronting elected officials. Justices some item struggle to reach unanimity since a lot of them have different perspectives Second, courts have relatively limited resources compared to other units. Most federal judges have only two or three clerks - young staffers usually fresh from law school with little judicial experience. Supreme Court justices have at most four clerks, who usually serve a year. The courts also command small budgets. The entire federal judiciary - thirteen circuit courts, ninety four district courts, and the Supreme Court receives less than seven billion dollars annually. Third, courts are by definition reactive decision makers. Courts await disputes and cases must come to them. Unlike other branches, the courts do not define the problem or shape the question that is being disputed. Finally, the courts must rely on other branches for enforcement. The Court rules. The Supreme Court could strike down school desegregation; it could not, however, enforce that decision by sending troops to Little Rock or cutting the budgets of schools that refused to comply.

Why Not Limit Neil Gorsuch and All Supreme Court Justices to 18 Year Terms?

Focus on limiting the judicial terms to increase democratic accountability and to reduce partisanship on the bench. Ringhand and Collins argue that in making judicial terms 18 years, the Court would be more dependent on the elected branches and therefore more tied to the people, partisanship could be reduced, more qualified judges would be appointed and we could still maintain the Courts independence Supreme Court justices serve for life. The only way they can be removed is by impeachment. The current system does have some advantages: it protects justices fro, the influence of ordinary politics and allows them to focus on constitutional duties without considering any decisions effects on future career opportunities. Supreme Court justices are serving longer and longer terms; presidents have incentives to choose younger and younger nominees; and the justices themselves appear to delay retirement in the hope of having an ideologically compatible president select their replacements.

Federal courts

Hear three types of cases First, they handle crimes that violate federal laws, issues that involve federal treaties, and cases touching on the Constitution. Deal with terrorism, immigration, organized crime,Ap civil rights, patents, insider trading, and flag burning. Second, they decide disputes that spill across state lines - interstate drug trafficking and conflicts between parties in different states. Finally, after state courts have ruled on a case, the parties can appeal to the federal courts

Judicial selection

If you want to become a state judge, you may not even need a law degree: 22 states and the federal courts require no formal training before judges start hearing cases. Most judges first make their names as lawyers, though many come from government or academic positions. 31 states elect judges but other states authorize their governor to select judges or leave selection to the state legislature. JUDGES TERMS RANGE FROM TWO TO FOURTEEN YEARS ARE ARE USUALLY RENEWABLE. The idea of electing judges is controversial. THE COURTS ARE MEANT TO BE ABOVE PARTISAN POLITICS, protecting rights and weighing evidence without political pressures. Elections undermine the courts ability to stand up for the rights of unpopular minorities. Campaign contributions and campaign promises could lead to bias and even corruption on the state benches. Elections undermine the courts ability to stand up for the rights of unpopular minorities. (They need to appeal to people)

Judiciary Act of 1789

In 1789 Congress passed this Act which created the federal-court system. The act managed to quiet popular apprehensions by establishing in each state a federal district court that operated according to local procedures. CREATED THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM

Images of law and layers run through American culture, with the image of alternating between heroism and cynicism

In American culture, as in politics, the courts are a place where our highest ideals are on display - and where we simultaneously fear that corruption runs rampant.

Most decisions are announced to the public

In the month of June, as the Supreme Court ends it annual term.

Ideology

Influences justices voting and is closely aligned to pragmatists -who see the Constitution as a living, changing document. HOWEVER, THE IDEOLOGICAL MODEL HAS ITS LIMITS AND BY NO MEANS EXPLAINS ALL VOTES SINCE SOME CASES ARE DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY. IDEOLOGY DOES NOT PLAY A ROLE IN MANY TECHNICAL CASES.

Criminal law

Involves cases in which someone is charged with doing something prohibited by the government, such as stealing private property or secretly arranging with a competition to set higher prices ("an antitrust" violation)

THE UNITED STATES COURT SYSTEM EXHIBITS

JUDICIAL FEDERALISM- Both federal and state court systems are further divided into layers; the federal system had three layers as do most states. Lower courts conduct trials, appellate courts hear appeals, and a Supreme Court in both state and federal systems renders a final verdict. THE NATIONAL SUPREME COURT IS THE ULTIMATE ARBITER FOR ALL CASES THAT INVOLVE THE CONSTITUTION OR FEDERAL LAW. Millions of cases are filed each year; around ten thousand appeals reach the Supreme Court, which only accepts and hears about eighty. That leaves a great deal of authority to the lower ranks of the judiciary.

Term limits

Judicial term limits (often proposed as eighteen years) would help address the fear of unelected judges overruling the elected branches, for justices would cycle off the Supreme Court with each election. After their term, justices could move to the appellate bench to satisfy the lifetime appointment from the constitution. THIS WOULD KEEP THE COURT INSULATED FROM POLITICAL TUMULT. After all, an eighteen year limit is a long time while providing for a regular circulation of new judges with fresh perspectives. One version of this proposal would permit the president to nominate a Supreme Court justice (and the Senate to confirm) every two years so that the court would always balance new ideas and experienced hands.

Institutional concerns

Justices may think about the interests of the courts as an institution.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Legalized segregation in publicly owned facilities on the basis of "separate but equal."

District court judges

Like all federal judges, district court judges are appointed by the president, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, and hold their office for life. In today's hyper partisan Congress, however,The opposition party generally challenges judicial nominations - slowing them down in the hope that their party will take the presidency and fill the empty seats.

Do federal judges reflect Americas population

No - not even a third are women, 3/4 are white, 12.5 percent African American. Personal experience does inform judicial decisions as stated by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Women are roughly ten percent more likely to find discrimination as are male judges if they are serving on a penal with a female judge. Research also suggests that black judges are more likely to vote in favor of affirmative action, more likely to side with lesbians and gays and more likely to accept black defendants claims of police misconduct.

Until recent decades, justice confirmations were usually uncontroversial.

Nomination politics changed dramatically in 1987 when Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the Court. Bork had much experience and was a former solicitor general, however he was a no apologies conservative who would replace Justice Lewis Powell, a moderate swing vote. Liberal groups mobilized to oppose the nomination. There was so much organized opposition about his judicial philosophy. SINCE EVERY JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT FACES A PARTISAN NOMINATION FIGHT: packed hearings, demonstrations, intense media coverage, and public opinion polls serving up regular updates on how the nominee fares in the public. REMEMBER, A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE MAKES THE DIFFERENCE ON VOTING FOR ISSUES ON ABORTION IMMIGRATION CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFIRM AND MORE.

Traditionally, lawyers were trusted as democracy's natural aristocrats and were trusted by the American people

Not anymore. Today, law, lawyers, and the legal system all face shrinking reputations. INDIVIDUAL CASES AFFECT PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE COURTS. Ex: Republicans charged the court with undermining democracy when the court refused to strike down the Affordable Care Act and protected same sex marriage.

The American judiciary faces a quiet crisis in attracting talented judges

One reason is a long term decline in judges pay.

Collegiality

Peer pressure. Judicial reputation played an important role in explaining why justices moved left or tight on an ideological scale during their service to the court - justice appear to change positions in many cases based on legal arguments and personal appeals of colleagues

Supreme Court clerks

Read Writs of Certiorari and write summaries of them for the judges. Help justices write opinions and reach decisions; reject many of the petitions. Thousands apply for this job and only thirty six get it each year SUPREME COURT CLERKS WHO ELECT TI STAY IN OUBLIC SERVUCE OFTEN BECOME PROFESSORS AT TOP LAW SCHOOLS. If you decide instead to go into private practice, you will be a hot commodity

Judicial restraint

Reluctance to interfere with elected branches, only doing so as a last resort. Involves the overturn of the elected branches of government

State and local courts

Responsible for all cases that arise under state law; they rule on everything from antitrust disputes to murder cases, from medical malpractice to marijuana possession. Every state organizes its judicial system in its own way so there is considerable variation around the nation. The first stop in most cases is a state trail court. Appeals usually are handled in state appellate courts, which typically consist of an appellate court and then a court of final appeal, generally known as the state Supreme Court. Appeals from the top state courts may be heard by the US Supreme Court. Very few of the millions of state cases ever reach a federal judge; but some include Roe v Wade (which struck down a Texas law banning abortion) and Bush v Gore (halting the recount of disputed presidential ballots in Florida.)

Penumbra

Shadow

Shenck v. US

Shenck was convicted under the espionage act of aiding the enemy during wartime.

Too much power?

Should nine unelected, lifetime appointees wielded this much power in a 21st century democracy? Both our litigious society and the range of judicial authority - from judicial review to common law - give the courts the power to shape American policy. In the US, courts are major players in resolving issues of environmental protection, gun rights, immigration rules, and other urgent questions

Hamilton predicted the judiciary would be the weakest branch

Since it has no influence over the sword or the purse. Yet, the judiciary does strike down laws, rules, and regulations that violate the Constitution - as the courts interpret it

Bottom line

State courts handle the vast majority of cases. Nearly all states divided their judiciary into three levels: trial courts, appeals courts, and a state Supreme Court. A majority of US states elect their judges Federal courts rule on cases involving constitutional questions, federal laws, and federal treaties. They are divided into ninety-four district courts, eleven appeals courts, and the Supreme Court. Federal justices are selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they hold their position for life. Party polarization in Congress has created a serious problem of unfurled judgeships Numerous additional federal courts handle everything from bankruptcy to military matters.

The judiciary has been more active

Striking down state laws that clash with the Constitution or with federal statutes. Landmark cases overruled state laws that established segregation, outlawed abortion, established school prayer, limited private property rights, or forbade same sex marriage

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)

Supreme Court case decided when the Court insisted that corporations be considered "persons". Reasoning that legislation designed to regulate corporations deprived them of "due process" guaranteed in the 14th Amendment, the Court struck down state laws regulating railroad rates, declared income tax unconstitutional, and judged labor unions a "conspiracy in restraint of trade. CALIFORNIA FORBADE CORPORATIONS FROM DEDUCTING THEIR DEBTS FROM THEIR TAXABLE PROPERTY. The Court insisted on elevating the rights of property over all other rights. SANTA CLARA SET A PRECEDENT THAT WITH TIME GAVE CORPORATIONS ALL THE LEGAL BENEFITS OF INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a defendant in a felony trial must be provided a lawyer free of charge if the defendant cannot afford one. Gideon was accused unjustly of a minor theft from a Florida pool hall and had no choice but to represent himself since he could not afford an attorney.

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Supreme Court case that decided US Congress did not have the power to prohibit slavery in federal territories and slaves, as private property, could not be taken away without due process - basically slaves would remain slaves in non-slave states and slaves could not sue because they were not citizens. The bottom line: SLAVERY COULD NOT BE RESTRICTED IN ANY WESTERN TERRITORY.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

The 1971 Supreme Court decision that established that aid to church-related schools must (1) have a secular legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

The judiciary gets the least attention of all from the Consitution

The Constitution vets judicial power in the Supreme Court without specifying the number of justices it should include and empowers Congress to design the rest of our federal court system.

The idea that the court often rules on the basis of politics poses a dilemma to our democratic system

The Court is designed to stand above politics, to interpret and explain the rules without partisan consideration. THAT IS THE REASON WHY JUSTICES ARE ELECTED FOR LIFE. When they rule on the basis of political ideology, this raises a problem for the legitimacy of this powerful institution.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees

The Court ruled that workers who do not join unions may not be forced to pay for collective bargaining - a decision that struck down a 40 year precedent and dealt a serious blow to labor unions

Judicial review

The Courts authority to determine whether legislative, executive, and state actions violate the Constitution and overrule those that do WHEN THERE IS DOUBT ABOUT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION HOLDS OR IMPLIES, THE SUPREME COURT CONTINUE TO CLAIM THAT IT MAKES THE CALL.

Despite the judiciary's appetite for litigation,

The OUBLIC also expresses concern about our legal system. Four common criticisms are cost, bias, judicial power, and the dangers of corruption

Small basketball court

The SMALL BASKETBALL COURT IS KNOWN AS THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, the facility is used exclusively by Supreme Court insiders: the justices' clerks both current and former and few staff members and occasionalLy the justices. THE BASKETBALL COURT IS SYMBOLIC OF THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF: EXCLUSIVE, LITTLE KNOWN, AND OPEN TO A TINY MEMBERSHIP FOR A LIFETIME.

US v Nixon

The Supreme Court does have the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is 'demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial. Dealt with the Watergate break in. Chief Justice Warren Berger appointed by Nixon upheld the doctrine of executive privilege but concluded that presidents could not invoke it in criminal cases to win old evidence.

Hearing Cases

The Supreme Court is in session for approximately nine months each year, traditionally opening in the first Monday in October. The Justices are typically out of public view, except when the Court meets to hear oral arguments. ARGUMENTS ARE USUALLY SCHEDULED ON MONDAY, TUESDAY, AND WEDNESDAY MORNINGS. Oral argument sessions are free and open to the OUBLIC but take forever to get in Rather than lawyers making dramatic arguments or cross examining witnesses, the Supreme Court features nine justices as the sole audience: no jury, no witnesses. Each sides lawyer is called the counsel and they are granted thirty minutes to make their argument. Before hearings both sides submit briefs speeding out the details of their argument

Bottom line

The United States relies on courts and litigation more than most other nations - a political reality reflected in both its number of lawsuits and its number of lawyers Trust in the Supreme Court has declined in recent years Law continues to play an important role in American popular culture, which portrays it in both idealistic and cynical terms (To Kill a Mockingbird, Julia Roberts playing a legal heroine, Erin Brockovich, a clerk without any legal training who led to a major lawsuit for containing the water supply of Hinkley, California, Tom Hanks in Bridge of Spies playing James Donovan, a lawyer who risked his life by arranging a spy exchange with East Germany and Soviet Russia during the Cold War. Images of law as a kind of crusade - for racial justice, environmental protection, or national security reinforce images of political idealism

Hamilton said the judiciary would play a minor role in American government, but

The breakthrough came in Marbury v Madison, in which Chief Justice of the Supreme Court asserted that the Supreme Court has the authority to overrule any act of Congress that violates the Constitution.

Before a case is eligible for the Supreme Court, it must meet three conditions (FORMAL FACTORS)

The case must involve a legitimate controversy- an actual dispute between two parties The parties bringing the case must have standing- they must prove an actual harm to receive a hearing (merely being distressed or concerned about an environmental disaster is not enough to bring a lawsuit; you must prove that the oil spill directly affected your livelihood Finally, if the courts proceedings will no longer affect the issue at hand, it is considered moot or irrelevant and the case is throw out; Supreme Court can then overturn it as seen in Roe v Wade

Litigation

The conduct of a lawsuit - a bar constant feature of American public life. Federal courts open up about 400,000 new cases a year. THE UNITED STATES APPROACHES 100 MILLION LEGAL ACTIONS A YEAR.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v Becerra

The court blocked a California law that required religious "crisis pregnancy centers" to inform women about abortions.

Marbury v. Madison (1803, Marshall)

The court established its role as the arbiter of the constitutionality of federal laws, the principle is known as judicial review

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The court legalized abortion by ruling that state laws could not restrict it during the first three months of pregnancy. Based on 4th Amendment rights of a person to be secure in their persons.

Trump vs Hawaii

The court ruled that the president's authority to secure the country's borders enabled his controversial ban on travelers from eight majority Muslim nations.

District courts

The first level of federal courts, which hear the evidence and make initial rulings. Most federal cases begin here, which together house just under 700 judges. There are 94 district courts. Every state has at least one district court, and states like California and Texas have four. DISTRICT COURTS DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BUILD A RECORD DETAILING THE EVIDENCE, AND THEN APPLY THE LAW TO REACH A RULING. Heard by a single district judge.

solicitor general

The fourth-ranking member of the Department of Justice; responsible for handling nearly all appeals on behalf of the U.S. government to the Supreme Court.

On selected Fridays,

The justices meet to choose the cases they will hear. AT LEAST FOUR JUDGES HAVE TO VOTE TO HEAR A CASE FOR IT TO MAKE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT; THE RULE OF FOUR

Majority opinion

The official statement of the Supreme Court (or a district court since they also have multiple justices)

Plaintiff

The party who brings the action in a lawsuit

Defendant

The party who is being sued

Oral arguments

The presentation of a case that the Court has agreed to review

Circuit courts

The second stage of federal courts, which review the trial record of cases decided in district court to ensure they were settled properly. These are the 13 federal appellate courts. A PARTY THAT LOSES IN DISTRICT COURT CAN APPEAK TO THIS NEXT LEVEL. The majority of circuit courts are organized geographically and referred to by their number. LIKE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES, THOSE ON CIRCUIT COURTS ARE NOMINATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE AND SUBJECT TO SENATE CONFIRMATION. SOMETIMES MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF A CASE REACH DIFFERENT DISTRICT AND CIRCUIT COURTS. THREE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES HEAR EACH CASEA AND RULE ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD ESTABLISHED ON THE LOWER LEVEL; THERE IS NO JURY AND NO CROSS EXAMINATION.

American jurisprudence

The study of law

How do nine justices decide?

They follow the rule of law, they are guided by their ideology, they are moved by peer pressure, and they are concerned about the institution of the courts.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Upholds same sex marriage via 14th amendment equal protection clause

State courts handle the vast majority of cases. Nearly all states divide their judiciary into three levels:

Trial courts, appeals courts, and a state Supreme Court. A majority of US states elect their judges. A majority of US states elect their judges.

Supreme Court conferences

Typically take place on Thursday or Friday Afternoons are closed to everyone except the justices - even their clerks are not welcome. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT COLLECTIVE DECISIONS HAPPEN HERE IN CINFERENCEA

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requirement that individuals purchase health insurance was constitutional but that requirement that states expand Medicaid was not.

writ of certiorari

When the justices agree to hear a case, The SC issues a writ of certiorari (legal speak for to be informed) demanding the official record from the lower court that heard the case. The COURT NEVER GIVES ANY FORMAL EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT DECIDES TO GRABT CERTIORARI TO THIS CASE AND NOT THAT ONE.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

the Supreme Court upheld the power of the national government and denied the right of a state to tax the federal bank using the Constitution's supremacy clause. The Court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers