CHAPTER 17 OUTLINE
CHAPTER 16 OUTLINE
CHAPTER 15 OUTLINE
CHAPTER 14 OUTLINE
Chapter 14 The Federal Judicial System: Applying The Law
● The Federal Judicial System The Constitution provides the Supreme Court of the US but gives Congress the power to determine the number and types of lower federal courts All federal judges are nominated and appointed to office by the president, subject to confirmation by majority vote in the Senate The Constitution places no age, residency, or citizenship requirements on the office of federal judge Not does the Constitution require judges to have legal training, though by tradition they do They “hold their office during good behavior” → federal judges serve until they die or retire voluntarily Hamilton argued that the judicial branch would be the weakest of the three branches Whereas congressional power rests on spending authority, and presidential power rests on control of military, judicial power rests on what Hamilton called “judgment” –the reasonableness and fairness of its decisions The Supreme Court of the United States ◆ 9 members—the chief justice and 8 associate justices, but they all have the same voting power ◆ Article III grants the Supreme Court both original and appellate jurisdiction ● A court’s jurisdiction is tis authority to hear cases of a particular type ● Original jurisdiction is the authority to be the first court to hear a case ■ The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction includes legal disputes involving foreign diplomats and cases in which the opposing parties are state governments ● Appellate jurisdiction is the authority to review cases that have already been heard in lower courts and are appealed to a higher court by the losing party The higher courts are called appeals courts or appellate courts Appellate courts do not retry cases; rather, they determine whether a trial court in hearing a case has acted in accord with applicable law It extends to cases arising under the Constitution, federal law and regulations, and tries Article III gives Congress the power to create “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, whereas its original jurisdiction is unalterable by Congress ■ Selecting and Deciding Cases ◆ The Supreme Court’s power is most apparent when it declares another institution’s action to be unconstitutional ◆ This power, called j udicial review, was first asserted by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison, when the Court rebuked both Congress and the president ◆ Although judicial review is its most dramatic power, the Supreme Court’s primary responsibility is to establish legal precedents that will guide the decision of lower courts ◆ Lower courts are expected to follow precedent ◆ The Supreme Court is most likely to grant certiorari when the US government through the solicitor general requests it ◆ The Supreme Court seldom accepts a routine case ◆ The Court’s job is not to correct the errors of other courts but to resolve substantial legal issues ◆ There must be “compelling reasons” for accepting a case ◆ When the Court does accept a case, chances are that most of the justices disagree with the lower court’s ruling ◆ About 3/4 of Supreme Court decision reverse the lower court’s judgment ◆ During a Supreme Court hearing, each side makes oral arguments and also provides the Court a written b rief, which contains its full arguments ◆ The oral session is followed by the j udicial conference, which is attended only by the 9 justices and in which they discuss and vote on the case ◆ The Chief Justice has the opinion of speaking first Issuing Decisions and Opinions ◆ Thed ecision indicateswhichpartytheCourtsupportsandbyhowlargea margin ◆ The most important of the ruling, however, is the o pinion, which explains the legal basis for the decision ● When a majority of the justices agree on the legal basis of a decision, the result is a m ajority opinion. ● In some cases there is no majority opinion because, although the majority of the justices agree on the decision, they disagree on the legal basis of it. The result in such cases is a plurality opinion, which presents the view held by most of the justices who vote with the winning side ● Another type of opinion is a concurring opinion, a separate view written by a justice who votes with the majority but disagrees with the reasoning ● Thefinaltypeisa dissentingopinion; init,ajustice(orjustices)onthe losing side explains the reasons for disagreeing with the majority position ◆ When part of the majority, the chief justice decides which justice will write the majority opinion, otherwise the senior justice in the majority picks the author ◆ The justice who writes the majority opinion has the responsibility to express accurately the majority’s reasoning ◆ In rare instances, the writing stage has produced a change in the Court’s decision (Lee v. Weisman) Other Federal Courts ◆ US District Courts ● The lowest federal courts are the district courts ● The federal district courts are the chief trial courts of the federal system ● Virtually all criminal and civil cases arising under federal law are argued first in the district courts ● They are the only courts in the federal system where the two sides present their case to a jury for a verdict ● Cases at this level are usually presided over by a single judge ● Lower federal courts rely on and follow Supreme Court decisions in their own rulings ● District court judges might misunderstand the Supreme Court’s position and deviate from it for that reason ● The facts of a case before a district court are seldom identical to those of a case settled by the Supreme Court ● Ambiguities or unaddressed issues in Supreme Court rulings give lower courts some flexibility in deciding cases ● Most federal cases end with the district court’s decision ◆ US Courts of Appeals ● Cases appealed from district courts go to federal courts of appeals, which are the second level of the federal court system ● Courts of appeals do not use juries ● Ordinarily, no new evidence is submitted in an appealed case; rather, appellate courts base their decision on a review of the lower court’s records ● Appellate judges act as supervisors ● The US has 13 courts of appeals 11 have jurisdiction over a “circuit” made up of the district courts in anywhere from three to nine states 1 has jurisdiction over Dc 1 has jurisdiction over appeals involving patents and international trade, regardless of the circuit in which they arise each case usually is heard by a panel of three judges On rare occasions, all the judges of a court of appeals sit as a body in order to resolve difficult controversies Conflict or inconsistency in how the different circuits are applying a law can lead the Supreme Court to review such cases ● Special US Courts US Claims Court hears cases in which the US government is being sued for damages US Court of International Trade handles cases involving appeals of US Customs Office rulings US Court of Military Appeals hears of military courts martial ■ The State Courts ◆ Like the federal courts, state court systems have trial courts at the bottom level and appellate courts at the top ◆ Each state decides for itself the structure of its courts and the method of selecting judges ◆ The most common form involves completive elections of either a partisan or a nonpartisan nature ◆ Other states use a mixed system called the m erit plan (also called the “Missouri Plan” because Missouri was the first state to use it), under which the governor appoints a judge from a short list of acceptable candidates provided by a judicial selection commission ◆ Besides the upper court myth, there exists a “federal court myth,” which holds that the federal judiciary is the most significant part of the judicial system and that state courts play a subordinate role ◆ Most cases arising under criminal law and most cases arising under civil law are defined by state laws or by local ordinances, which are derived from state laws ◆ Nearly all cases that originate in state or local courts also end there ◆ In most state criminal cases, there is also no federal issue, unless state authorities are alleged to have violated a right protected by the US Constitution ◆ In such instances, an individual convicted in the state court can, after exhausting the avenues of appeal in the state system, appeal to a federal court ◆ If the federal court accepts such an appeal, it ordinarily confines itself to the federal aspects of the matter ◆ The federal court accepts the facts determined by the state court unless such finding are clearly in error ◆ Also disinclined, when a provision of federal law does not clearly resolves a case, to substitute their own interpretation of a state’s law for that applied by the state court ◆ Issues traditionally within the jurisdiction of the states can become federal issues through the rulings of federal courts ● Federal Court Appointees Appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts are controlled by the president, who selects the nominees, and the Senate, which confirms or rejects them In reality, federal judges and justices bring their political views with them to the courtroom and have opportunities to promote their political beliefs through the cases they decide Supreme Court Nominees ◆ A Supreme Court appointment is a significant opportunity for a president ◆ Most justices retain their positions for many years, enabling presidents to influence judicial policy through their appointments long after they have left office ◆ Presidents usually appoint jurists who have a compatible political philosophy ◆ Although Supreme Court justices are free to make their own decisions, their legal positions can usually be predicted from their background ◆ Of course, a president has no guarantee that a nominee will actually do so ◆ Although presidents seek nominees who share their political philosophy, they also must take into account a nominee’s acceptability to others ◆ Every nominee is scrutinized closely by the legal community LowerCourt Nominees ◆ The president typically delegate the deputy attorney general the task of identifying potential nominees for lower‐court judgeships, a process that includes seeking recommendations from US senators of the president’s party, and sometimes House members as well ◆ Senatorialcourtesy,a traditionthatdatesbacktothe1840s,holdsthata senator from the state in which a vacancy has arisen should be consulted on the choice of the nominee if the senator is of the same party as the president ◆ Although presidents are not as personally involved in selecting lower‐court nominees as in naming potential Supreme Court justices, lower‐court appointments are collectively significant ◆ A president who serves two terms can shape the federal judiciary for years to come ◆ Presidents typically select members of their own party for lower‐court judgeship ■ Personal Backgrounds of Judicial Appointees ◆ In recent years, increasing numbers of federal justices and judges have had prior judicial experience on the assumption that such individuals are best qualified for appointment to the federal branch ◆ Elective office was once a common route to the Supreme Court, but recent appointees have come from the appellate courts ◆ While males are overrepresented on the federal branch, the number of women and minority‐group members appointed to federal judgeships has increased significantly in recent decades ◆ The Supreme Court has a degree of diversity ● 3 women, 2 minority‐group ● The Nature of Judicial Decision Making Legal Influences on Judicial Decisions ◆ Article III of the Constitution bars a federal court from issuing a decision except in response to a case presented to it ◆ It limits judges to issues that arise from actual legal disputes ◆ The facts of a particular case also limit judicial action ◆ The f acts of a case are the relevant circumstances of a legal dispute of offense ◆ Judicial decision are also restricted in their breadth ◆ Technically, a court ruling is binding only on the parties involved ◆ Its broader impact depends on the willingness of others to accept it ◆ The major constraint on the courts is the law itself ◆ Although a president of Congress can make almost any decision that is politically acceptable, the judiciary must work within the confines of the law ◆ The judiciary works within the context of three main sources of law: the Constitution, legislative statutes, and legal precedents ◆ The Constitution of the US is the nation’s highest law, and judges and justices are sworn to uphold it ◆ The large majority of the cases that arise in courts involve issues of statutory and administrative law rather than constitutional law ◆ Statutory law is legislative (statute) law; A dministrative law is based on statutory law but is set by government agencies rather than by legislature ◆ The US legal system developed from the English common‐law tradition, which includes the principle that a court’s decision on a case should be consistent with previous judicial rulings ◆ This principle, known as precedent, reflects the philosophy of star diesis ◆ Precedent holds that principles of law, once established, should be applied in subsequent similar cases Political Influences on Judicial Decisions ◆ Adherence to the law in the judging of case is what gives substance to the claim that the US is governed by “the rule of law” ◆ The law is not always a precise guide to judicial decisions, with the result that judges have some leeway in their rulings ◆ Political influences affect how judges decide cases in which they have leeway ◆ Inside the Court: Judges’ Political Beliefs ● Changes in the Supreme Court’s membership can bring about a change in its position ● Justices tend to vote in line with their political attitudes ● Disputes that reach the Supreme Court are anything but clear‐out ● The fact that Republican appointees to the Supreme Court are more likely than Democratic appointees to side with law enforcement officials than with the criminally accused does not mean that they invariably do so that they are unmindful of legal restraints on law enforcement officials ● Supreme Court decisions are a mix of law and politics ◆ Outside the Court: The Public, Groups, and Elected Officials ● The courts can and do make unpopular decisions ● Judicial decisions must be seen as fair if they are to be obeyed ● The judiciary cannot routinely ignore the expectation of the general public, interest groups, and elected officials ● Judges are less responsive to public opinion than are elected officials The Supreme Court in some instances has tempered its rulings in an effort to get public support or reduce public resistance The Supreme Court usually stays close enough to public opinion to reduce the likelihood of outright defiance of its decisions ● Interest groups also have an influence on the judiciary Groups petition the White House and Congress to appoint judges and justices who share their outlook on legal disputes More directly, they submit amicus curiae briefs to make their positions known on court cases and file lawsuits to advance their policy goals ● Elected officials also have ways of influencing the courts Congress can rewrite legislation that it fells the judiciary has misinterpreted The president is responsible for enforcing court decisions and has some influence over the cases that come before the courts The judicial appointment process has become increasingly contentious ● Judicial Power and Democratic Government Federal judges are unelected officials with lifetime appointments, which places them beyond the reach of the voters This power is most dramatically evident when courts declare laws enacted by Congress to be unconstitutional Unelected judges substitute their judgment for that of the people’s elected representatives The judiciary’s power has been a source of controversy throughout the nation’s history, but the debate has seldom been livelier than during recent decades The sheer number of legal disputes is among the reasons Federal cases have increased threefold over the past half century as Americans have increasingly turned to the courts to settle their disputes The judiciary at times has acted almost legislatively by addressing broad social issues, such as abortion, busing, affirmative action, church‐state relations, campaign finance, and prison reform The judiciary has become more extensively involved in policymaking for many of the same reasons that Congress and the president have been thrust into new policy areas and become more deeply involved in old ones Social and economic changes have required government to play a larger role in society, and this development has generated a seemingly endless series of new legal controversies Originalism Theory versus Living Constitution Theory ◆ Originalism theory, a prominent philosophy of conservatives, holds that the Constitution should be interpreted in the way that a reasonable person would have interpreted it at the time it was written ● Originalists emphasize the wording of the law, arguing that the words of the framers are the only reliable indicator of how the law should be interpreted ◆ An opposing theory, embraced more often by liberals, holds that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in light of changing circumstances ● Proponents of the l iving constitution theory claim that the framers, through the use of broad language and basic principles, intended the Constitution to be an adaptable instrument ◆ Critics of the living constitution theory argue that, in practice, it allows judges to promote their personal views by enabling them to devise arguments that support the rulings they prefer ● Such judges are said to turn the law into what they want to say, rather than what it actually says ◆ Critics of Originalism theory say that the framers in using broad terms such as “search and seizure” could not possibly have had the practices of their time solely in mind ● If that was their intention, they would have provided detailed information on how such terms were to be interpreted ■ Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism ◆ The doctrine of j udicial restraint holds that judges should generally defer to precedent and to decisions made by legislatures ● The restraint doctrine holds that in nearly every instance policy issues should be decided by elected lawmakers and not by appointed judges ● The role of the judge is to apply the law rather than determine it ● Advocates of judicial restraint say that when judges substitute their vies for those of elected representatives, they undermine the fundamental principle of self‐government—the right of the majority, through its elected representatives, to determine how they will be governed ● Policy is the result of conflicts between contending interests and that elected representatives, because they have to deal directly with these interests, are better positioned than judges to determine how these conflicts should be resolved ◆ The doctrine of judicial activism holds that judges should actively interpret the Constitution, statues, and precedents in light of fundamental principles and should intervene when elected representatives fail to act in accord with these principals ◆ Although advocates of judicial activism acknowledge the importance of majority rule, they claim that the courts should not blindly defer to the decisions of elected officials when core principles—such as liberty, equality, and self‐government—are threatened ◆ They also contend that precedent should be respected only if its based on legal reasoning that is as should today as it was when the precedent was decided |