justice what is justice? how would you explain justice to a six year-old?

JusticeWhat is justice?

How would you explain justice to a six year-old?

Lady Justice

Federal Court System

• Purpose?– Overall: to ensure justice– Practical: to deal with interstate issues

Dual court system

State System National Judiciary

National Judiciary

Constitutional Courts(Regular Courts)

• Holds the judicial power of the United States

• Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, District Courts, etc.

Special Courts(Legislative Courts)

• Created by Congress to hear cases with narrow ranges

• U.S. Federal Claims Court, Territorial Courts, Court of Veteran’s Appeals, etc.

Supreme Court Membership• What is the two-step process for becoming a

Supreme Court Justice?• How many judges are there on the Supreme

Court?• How old does a person have to be in order to be

nominated for the Supreme Court?• What kind of background experience does a

person need in order to be on the Supreme Court?

• Do you think there should be additional criteria for Supreme Court nominees? Why or why not?

Jurisdiction

• “to say the law”

• Federal court has jurisdiction through…– Subject Matter

• Involves interpretation of the Constitution or any federal statute (law)

• Involves question of admiralty (high seas) or maritime law

– Parties• U.S. officers, officers of foreign govs., state sues

another state/citizen/foreign official

Different types of jurisdiction…

• Exclusive– Cases can be heard only in federal court

• Concurrent– Case can be heard in either state or federal

court

• Original– A court that hears a case first

• Appellate– A court that hears a case on appeal from a

lower court

Who has what?

District Courts have only original jurisdiction Courts of Appeal have only appellate

jurisdiction

Supreme Court exercises both

Judiciary Act of 1789

• Constitution created only one court – Supreme Court

• Developed District Courts – split states into districts

• Developed Court of Appeals

Civil v. Criminal

• Criminal Cases– Accused of breaking a federal law

• Civil Cases– Impeding the rights of another individual

Judicial Review

• Right to decide whether an act of government is constitutional

• The final authority on the meaning of the Constitution

• Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Arguments before the S.C.

• Briefs– Written documents filed with S.C. before oral

arguments– Amicus Curiae “friend of the court”

• Interested parties

– 100s pages to support one side of the case• Relevant facts• Citation of precedents

• Oral– 30 minutes to argue your side– Can be interrupted by the justices – White light and a Red light

Opinion

• Majority Opinion– Official decision of the court– “Opinion of the Court”

• Concurring Opinion– Written by justice that agreed with majority,

but for different reasons

• Dissenting (Minority) Opinion– Those justices that did not agree with the

opinion and their reasoning

Unalienable Rights

• Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

• Cannot be abridged or taken away

• Civil Liberties v. Civil Rights?– Civil Liberties – protections against

government – safety of persons, opinions and property

– Civil Rights – positive acts of government that seek to make constitutional guarantees a reality for all people

Individual Rights

• Rights are relative to each other– No one has the right to do as he/she pleases,

if it infringes on someone else’s rights

Who has these rights?

• Citizens, non-citizens, illegal, legal – they all have rights, until the government says that they don’t…

• That is what our judicial system does – decides who has the rights!

Due Process

• No state can deny to any person any right that is “basic or essential to the American concept of ordered liberty.”

A Citizen’s Vocabulary

• Requirement that evidence must be obtained properly to be admissible in court


• EXCLUSIONARY RULE– Requirement that evidence must be obtained

properly to be admissible in court


• Harsh or barbaric punishment


• CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT– Harsh or barbaric punishment


• Right of the accused to face and question witnesses testifying against him/her


• RIGHT OF CONFRONATATION– Right of the accused to face and question

witnesses testifying against him/her


• Money posted by the accused to insure that he/she will appear in court at the appointed time


• BAIL– Money posted by the accused to insure that

he/she will appear in court at the appointed time


• Reliable evidence that a crime has been committed


• PROBABLE CAUSE– Reliable evidence that a crime has been

committed


• Testimony against oneself


• SELF-INCRIMINATION– Testimony against oneself


• Body of jurors who determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to charge a person and bring him/her to trial


• GRAND JURY– Body of jurors who determine whether or not

there is sufficient evidence to charge a person and bring him/her to trial


• Document giving police permission to search and seize property


• SEARCH WARRANT– Document giving police permission to search

and seize property


• Open trial conducted without undue delays


• SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL– Open trial conducted without undue delays


• Criminal law applied retroactively to the disadvantage of the accused


• EX POST FACTO LAW– Criminal law applied retroactively to the

disadvantage of the accused


• Subjecting a suspect to more than one trial for the same offense


• DOUBLE JEOPARDY– Subjecting a suspect to more than one trial for

the same offense


• A formal charge brought by the grand jury


• INDICTMENT– A formal charge brought by the grand jury


• The right of the accused to expert legal representation


• RIGHT TO COUNSEL– The right of the accused to expert legal

representation


• Court order requiring law enforcement officials to explain to the court why an individual should not be released from custody


• WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS– Court order requiring law enforcement officials

to explain to the court why an individual should not be released from custody


• Violation of court order or disruption of courtroom proceedings


• CONTEMPT OF COURT– Violation of court order or disruption of

courtroom proceedings


• A variety of constitutional guarantees that individuals cannot be deprived of their inalienable rights without fair and reasonable court procedures


• DUE PROCESS OF LAW– A variety of constitutional guarantees that

individuals cannot be deprived of their inalienable rights without fair and reasonable court procedures


• Right of the court to force witness to testify in court


• RIGHT TO COMPEL WINESSES– Right of the court to force witness to testify in

court


• Death penalty


• CAPITAL PUNISHMENT– Death penalty


• A group of citizens who hear evidence in a case and arrive at a verdict


• PETIT JURY– A group of citizens who hear evidence in a

case and arrive at a verdict


• Requirement that person accused of a crime be informed of his/her rights when arrested


• MIRANDA RULE– Requirement that person accused of a crime

be informed of his/her rights when arrested


• Non-criminal proceedings


• CIVIL LAW– Non-criminal proceedings


• Party initiating legal action


• PLAINTIFF– Party initiating legal action


• Party being accused or sued


• DEFENDANT– Party being accused or sued


• Lowest court in the federal system


• FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT– Lowest court in the federal system


• Federal court that hears appeals from the federal district courts


• FEDERAL APPELLATE COURT– Federal court that hears appeals from the

federal district courts


• A court that hears appeals from lower state or local courts


• STATE APPELLATE COURT– A court that hears appeals from lower state or

local courts


• Highest state court


• STATE SUPREME COURT– Highest state court


• Right of the government to purchase private property at a fair price for public purpose


• EMINENT DOMAIN– Right of the government to purchase private

property at a fair price for public purpose


• A lawsuit initiated by a group of persons


• CLASS ACTION SUIT– A lawsuit initiated by a group of persons


• Action of an appellate court to overturn the decision of a lower court


• REVERSAL (REVERSE A DECISION)– Action of an appellate court to overturn the

decision of a lower court


• A law made by federal, state, or local legislative bodies


• STATUTORY LAW– A law made by federal, state, or local

legislative bodies


• A law resulting from the contents of the Constitution


• CONSTITUTIONAL LAW– A law resulting from the contents of the

Constitution

Supreme Court Cases to know…

• Marbury v. Madison, 1803Case: Marbury did not receive his judgeship and

sued the U.S. Secretary of State for not conferring President Adams’ appointment.

Ruling: Court ruled that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional.

Impact: First time Judicial Review was used.


• Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824Case: States were granting sole shipping rights on

certain rivers and ports. This created conflict between states that shared the same rivers, because states were charging substantial fees for other states’ boats to operate in that waterway.

Ruling: Court ruled that the Supremacy Clause gave only Congress the right to grant these types of rights.

Impact: Further established the power of Congress and the federal government.


• Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1856Case: A slave, living in a free territory, sued for his

freedom, after returning to his slave state.

Ruling: A slave is not a citizen, therefore can not sue in a federal court.

Impact: Court declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional hoping to end the slavery question, but they were unsuccessful.


• Ex Parte MilliganCase: During the Civil War, a citizen was convicted

in a military court of “acts of disloyalty.” Milligan sued seeking his release under habeas corpus.

Ruling: Military tribunals cannot exist where civil courts do. Martial law is not okay within the borders of the U.S.

Impact: We have to keep Gitmo prisoners out of U.S. or they are given the same rights in court as a citizen.


• Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896Case: Louisiana law of segregation on public

railroads was challenged by Herman Plessy & the NAACP arguing that his right to “equal protection of the laws” was being violated

Ruling: The Court ruled that the 14th Amendment was meant for political and civil equality – not social equality.

Impact: Established the “separate but equal” policy


• Brown v. Board of Education, Topeka, 1954

Case: Topeka 10 year-old not allowed to attend her neighborhood school because she was African-American, argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was not being upheld

Ruling: The Court agreed – “segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws”

Impact: Overturned Plessy and the “separate but equal” doctrine


• Roe v. Wade, 1973Case: Texas women challenged state law limiting

artificial termination of pregnancy saying she had “fundamental right to privacy”

Ruling: Court limited state abortion laws to allow abortions in the first trimester of gestation.

Impact: Established, under the 9th Amendment, the right to privacy.

Supreme Court Cases Teens should know…

• Tinker v. Des Moines ISD, 1969– Case: Kids want to wear black arm bands to

protest Vietnam war – School says no.– Ruling: Court says that 1st Amendment rights

are extended to students as long as it doesn’t interrupt education.

– Impact: “Disruption Test”


• Santa Fe ISD v. Jane Doe, 2000Case: School allowed prayer over public address

system before football games. Parents sued claiming the Establishment Clause

Ruling: Court students can lead prayer, but not over the public address system and faculty cannot be involved.

Impact: Upheld Free Exercise Clause without breaking the Establishment Clause


• Kent v. United States, 1966Case: 14-year-old accused of burglary and rape,

tried as an adult and convicted. Sues the U.S. claiming “cruel and unusual punishment” of his 30-90 year sentence because he was minor.

Ruling: Minors can be tried as adults with the Court considering the seriousness of the crime and the age of the defendant.

Impact: Treatment of minors differs from state to state, but in 2005 the Court ruled capital punishment “cruel and unusual” for juveniles.


• Hazelwood SD v. Kuhlmeier, 1988Case: 3 High School students want to publish an

article on teen pregnancy in the school paper and the principal said no. Sued claiming freedom of expression.

Ruling: The school newspaper is not a public forum, therefore the principal has the right to decide what is published.

Impact: Schools may censor publications of students and restrict other forms of student expression


• Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003Case: White student denied admission to the U of

Michigan Law School. She sued saying that her race was factor in her denial.

Ruling: Racial quotas were not used at the U of Michigan campus so her denial was constitutional.

Impact: Affirmative action is banned in several states because of the quota system.


• Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services, 1989

Case: Social Services return a child to a home and later was hospitalized after being beaten. The non-custodial parent sued the county for child endangerment.

Ruling: Constitution does not protect children from their parents so therefore the government was not accountable.

Impact: States have child protection laws, but cannot protect all children.


• Board of Education v. Earls (2002)Case: Lindsay Earls was required to take a drug test to

participate in extra curricular activities at her high school.

Ruling:Impact:


• Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011)

Case:Ruling:Impact:


• Safford Unified School District v. April Redding (2009)

Case:Ruling:Impact:


• United States v. Virginia (1996)Case:Ruling:Impact:


• California v. Greenwood, 1988Case: Police were tipped off that Billy Greenwood was

selling narcotics. The police searched his garbage and found cause for a search. Greenwood appealed on the grounds that the initial “warrantless” search of his garbage was unconstitutional.

Ruling: Greenwood could not reasonably expect that the contents of the garbage would remain private.

Impact: Reasonable expectation of privacy does not apply to items easily accessible to the public.


• Ingraham v. Wright, 1977Case: Junior High student swatted after rowdy

behavior. Parents sue claiming “cruel and unusual punishment”

Ruling: Schools have the right to establish and use corporal punishment.

Impact: Left up to the State to decide if schools can use corporal punishment.


• Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965Case: Connecticut law forbade the use of

contraception. Griswold, director of Planned Parenthood, was arrested for counseling a married couple on contraception.

Ruling: Connecticut law was unconstitutional because the Constitution creates “zones of privacy” in which the state cannot make laws.

Impact: Laid the groundwork for Roe on the right to privacy


• In Re Gault, 1966Case: Juvenile, Gerald Gault, was assigned to

six years juvenile detention for an alleged obscene phone call. He was tried in “family” court which meant that he did not get the right to counsel, to confront accusers, etc.

Ruling: Court overruled the juvenile proceedings and required that States provide due process to juveniles.

Impact: Juveniles were provided constitutional rights of the accused.


• Vernonia SD v. Acton, 1995Case: School required drug testing for all student

athletes – the parents refused to allow the test. Arguing that it was unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment (Search and Seizure)

Ruling: Students give up rights and student athletes give up more, therefore the school has the right to ask for drug testing.

Impact: Drug-testing is allowed to participate in extra-curricular activities.


• West Side Community Schools v. Mergens, 1990

Case: Student wants to start a religious club to meet on campus. School refuses, student sues under 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

Ruling: Court allows students to meet on public school property after school, citing that secondary students are aware that the school is not endorsing a certain religion.

Impact: If schools allow interest-based clubs they cannot disallow religious or other non-curricular clubs


• Bethel School District #403 v. Fraser, 1986Case: HS student gives a sexually suggestive speech

during an assembly on ASB elections. He was disciplined. Fraser, the student, claimed that his freedom of political speech was being unfairly limited.

Ruling: The state court upheld Fraser, but the Supreme Court overruled the State decision saying that what Fraser was doing was not political speech.

Impact: Extended the rights of schools to limit vulgar speech to protect “the fundamental values of public school education.”


• New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985– Case: Student caught smoking in school

bathroom and subsequently had her bag searched – revealing marijuana – she admits to selling. She appeals for illegal search & seizure.

– Decision: Court upheld school’s right to search school property and student property if there is reasonable suspicion

– Impact: Students have a “legitimate expectation of privacy” but can lose that expectation if there is reasonable suspicion.

justice what is justice? how would you explain justice to a six year-old?

Documents