The Judicial Branch

• The court system makes up the judicial branch of American government.

• Role: interpret the law and establish justice.• 12 courts of appeals and 94 federal courts• The highest court of the land is the Supreme

Court. It has the final say in which laws are Constitutional.

• There are 9 justices on the Supreme Court, appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, given lifetime terms.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

James Madison—didn’tDeliver commission

Thomas Jefferson- New president told new Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver commission

John Adams—Appointed Marburyto the bench just beforehe left office

Chief Justice John Marshall—Used this opportunity to assertSupreme Court’s authority todeclare laws unconstitutional (power of judicial review)William Marbury-

Appointed to federalJudgeship by Adams The Vote: 5-0

Ruling• The court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied

Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.

• A clause granting the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus outside its appellate jurisdiction was declared unconstitutional by Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), one of the seminal cases in American law. Thus, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was the first act of Congress to be partially invalidated by the Supreme Court.

• A writ of mandamus or mandamus (which means "we command" in Latin), or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly."

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

James McCulloch—Cashier at BaltimoreBranch of 2nd Bank of U.S.;

Second Bank of the United States

Maryland placed a tax on transactions madeby the Bank of the U.S.

John Marshall’s court ruled that

a) Congress had the IMPLIED power to setup a bank as part of its taxing power (NecessaryAnd Proper Clause)

b) The National Govt is Supreme over the States

The Vote: 5-1

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Homer Plessy

•Plessy was 1/8 black, classified as “colored” under Louisiana law

•Refused to move to “colored” section of train because it violated his 14th amendment right to “equal protection of the laws.”

•Supreme Court ruled that “separate but equal” accommodations were constitutional— this remained the legal precedent for Jim Crow laws for the next 60 years.

The Vote: 7-1

Plessy Majority Opinion• Justice Brown summarized,

“We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced segregation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction on it.”

Plessy Dissenting Opinion

• Justice Harlan:

“We boast of the freedom enjoyed by our people above all peoples. But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and depradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens,--our equals before the law. The thin disguise of ‘equal’ accommodations for passengers in railroad coaches will not be mislead any one, nor atone for the wrong this day done.”

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

» •Japanese Americans were forced reside in internment camps during World War II because they were thought to be a threat to national security.

•The petitioner, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was convicted in a federal district court for remaining in San Leandro, California, a "Military Area," contrary to Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the Commanding General of the Western Command, U.S. Army, which directed that after May 9, 1942, all persons of Japanese ancestry should be excluded from that area. No question was raised as to petitioner's loyalty to the United States.

FredKorematsu

Korematsu Majority Opinion

• MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.The Vote: 6-3

• “Like curfew, exclusion of those of Japanese origin was deemed necessary because of the presence of an unascertained number of disloyal members of the group, most of whom we have no doubt were loyal to this country. It was because we could not reject the finding of the military authorities that it was impossible to bring about an immediate segregation of the disloyal from the loyal that we sustained the validity of the curfew order as applying to the whole group…

• We uphold the exclusion order as of the time it was made and when the petitioner violated it.  In doing so, we are not unmindful of the hardships imposed by it upon a large group of American citizens.  But hardships are part of war, and war is an aggregation of hardships. “

Korematsu Dissenting Opinion

• MR. JUSTICE MURPHY, dissenting. “This exclusion of "all persons of Japanese

ancestry, both alien and non-alien," from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over "the very brink of constitutional power" and falls into the ugly abyss of racism.”

Brown v. Board of Education Topeka (1954)

10-year old Linda Brown could notattend her local public school based on her race. The court revisited the Issue of whether “separatebut equal” was a violation of the Equal ProtectionClause.

The Court dramatically overturnedPlessy, declaring that “segregation isa violation of the equal protection of theLaws.”This was the beginning of the end of legal segregation.

Linda Brown on 1st day of school Fall 1954

Thurgood Marshall,et al celebrate

The Vote: 9-0

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)Griswold v. Connecticut involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception."

Estelle Griswold (Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Buxton (a physician and professor at the Yale School of Medicine) opened a birth control clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in order to test the contraception law once again. Shortly after the clinic was opened, Griswold and Buxton were arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined $100 each.

Majority Opinion

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS: “… the First Amendment has a penumbra where

privacy is protected from governmental intrusion. In like context, we have protected forms of "association" that are not political in the customary sense, but pertain to the social, legal, and economic benefit of the members.

…The Fourth and Fifth Amendments were described in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630, as protection against all governmental invasions "of the sanctity of a man's home and the privacies of life."

The Vote: 7-2

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Miranda, while in police custody was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. Defendant was not given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process and was sentenced without adequate defense.

Majority Opinion

• “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in the court of law; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” – Chief Justice Earl Warren

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

• Issue: Can states make laws banning interracial marriage?

Virginia (as well as some other states)classified "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.

The Loving Story• In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro

woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws.

• Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages.

• On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

• "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Majority Opinion

• …NO!“…violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses

of the Fourteenth Amendment.” -Chief Justice Earl Warren

VOTE: 9-0

Question:How is this issue similar or differentFrom the issue of same sex marriage?

Tinker v. DeMoines School District (1969)

• In DeMoines, Iowa, 3 students John F. Tinker (15 years old), John's younger sister Mary Beth Tinker, (13 years old) and their friend Christopher Eckhardt (16 years old) wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War in 1965.

• The school board passed a policy banning the wearing of armbands to school. Violating students would be suspended and allowed to return to school after agreeing to comply with the policy.

• The ACLU assisted the Tinkers in filing suit.

Majority Decision

• The First Amendment applies to public schools and administrators have to demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons for any specific regulation of speech in the classroom.

• You may protest peacefully at school as long as it is not disruptive (i.e. “Day of Silence”).

Vote: 7-2

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Norma McCorvey a.k.a. Jane Roe

Norma McCorvey, known by the pseudonym Jane Roe, challenged a Texas stateLaw forbidding abortion, claiming she had a “fundamental right to privacy”

The Court affirmed that a woman has a constitutional right to chooseto have an abortion during the first trimester based on “the 14th Amendment’sconcept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action”

The Vote: 7-2

United States v. Nixon (1974)

The Court overruled the president and orderedhim to surrender the tapes, thereby limiting the scope of presidential powers.

•During the Watergate scandal, Nixon refused to turn over tapes that he hadmade of conversations in the White House.

•He claimed “executive privilege”, that as president he had special rights to confidentiality

The Vote: 8-0

University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978)

First challenge of “Affirmative Action”•Allan Bakke not admitted to U.C.Davis Medical School his test scores/qualifications were higher than several students admitted through a special quota system•Bakke argued the policy violated the equal protection policies of both the California and Federal constitutions

•Court ruled that Bakke must be given admission•Court did NOT say affirmative action was unconstitutional•Court said that quotas could not be used, but that race/ gender could be used as ONE AMONG MANY FACTORS in admissions/hiring decisions

Allan Bakke

The Vote: 5-4U.C. Davis

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña(1995)

• Many contracts that are let by agencies of the US federal government contain financial incentives for the prime contractor to employ subcontractors that are owned or controlled by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”

• In this case the contract stated that “...the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...”

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña(1995)

• In 1989 the US Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a highway construction contract in Colorado to Mountain Gravel and Construction Company. Mountain Gravel solicited bids for a subcontract for guardrails along the highway.

• The lowest bid was submitted by Adarand Constructors, with a higher bid being submitted by Gonzales Construction. However, Gonzales Construction had been certified by the Small Business Administration as a disadvantaged business so they were granted the contract.

Majority OpinionVote: 6-3

• “Adarand has standing to seek forward looking relief. It has met the requirements necessary to maintain its claim by alleging an invasion of a legally protected interest in a particularized manner, and by showing that it is very likely to bid, in the relatively near future, on another Government contract offering financial incentives to a prime contractor for hiring disadvantaged subcontractors.”

• -Justice O’Connor

United States v. Virginia (1996)

• The Supreme Court struck down the Virginia Military

Institute’s long-standing male only admission policy. • Vote: 7-1 (Justice Clarence Thomas recused

himself from the case, presumably because

his son was enrolled at VMI at the time.)

Majority Opinionwritten by Justice Ginsburg

“Virginia Military Institute (VMI) is the sole single sex school among Virginia's public institutions of higher learning. VMI's distinctive mission is to produce "citizen soldiers," men prepared for leadership in civilian life and in military service…Virginia's categorical exclusion of womenfrom the educational opportunities VMI provides denies equal protection to women.” -Justice Ginsburg

14th Amendment violation