The Judicial Branch

What courts do1. Interpret laws passed by legislatures.

• The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution

• State supreme courts interpret state constitutions.

Interpret: To decide the meaning of.

2. Settle disputes between people, or between people and the government.

3. Conduct criminal trials to determine a person’s guilt or innocence.

4. Protect people’s rights.

Alexander Hamilton: The Federalist #22

We need a third branch of the government that will “define the true meaning and operation” of the laws.

The Framers: Courts would have a traditional role

The courts should not make policy, they should simply find and apply existing law.

Right! The courts will be neutral and passive in public affairs.

The Framers: Courts would have a traditional role

I should’ve seen that coming!

• Federal courts have evolved toward judicial activism.

• Later judges believed that courts should also “make law.”

• Through history, political, economic and ideological forces have led to increased court activism.

Article III of the Constitution

Article III[Section 1.] The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. 

Section 1

• Establishes a Supreme Court

• Gives Congress the power to establish lower courts.

• Judges serve “during good behavior.”

Article III of the Constitution

Article III 

[Section 2.] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; -- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; -- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; -- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; -- to Controversies between two or more States; -- between a State and Citizens of another State; -- between Citizens of different States; -- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. 

Section 2

• Defines jurisdiction of Supreme Court.

• Guarantees right to trial by jury.

Article III of the Constitution

Article III  [Section 3.] Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. 

Section 3

• Defines treason and gives Congress the power to set punishment for treason.

Jurisdiction Vocabulary

• Jurisdiction: A court’s authority to hear and decide a case.

• Original jurisdiction: ….to be the first court to hear and decide certain types of cases.

• Appellate jurisdiction: ….to review decisions made by lower courts.

• Exclusive jurisdiction: The sole right of a court to hear and decide a case.

• Concurrent jurisdiction: cases that fall under jurisdiction of both state and federal courts.

A dual court system

U.S. District Courts

U.S. Courts of Appeals

U.S. Supreme

Court

State Trial Courts

State Appeals Courts

State Supreme Courts

Federal Court System

U.S. District Courts

Circuit Courts

of Appeals

U.S.

Supreme

Court

Federal Court System

Circuit Courts

of Appeals

U.S.

Supreme

Court

• 94 of them.

• Have original jurisdiction in most federal cases.

• All cases involve federal law.

• The main trial court in the federal system.

• Most decisions made in district courts are final.

U.S. District Courts

Federal Court System• 12 federal appeals courts in

U.S.

• They are regional courts.

• Only hear cases on appeal.

• Judges review case record and “affirm” or “reverse” lower court’s ruling.

• Decisions are final unless the S.C. agrees to hear the appeal.

U.S. District Courts

U.S.

Supreme

Court

Courts

of Appeals

Federal Court System

U.S. District Courts

Circuit Courts

of Appeals

U.S.

Supreme

Court

• Highest court in the U.S.

• “Court of last resort.” No appeal from Supreme Court.

• Final authority on meaning of the Constitution.

• Only hears cases it wants to. Most cases involve a constitutional question.

• Nine judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases:

• which involve two states in a dispute.

• which involve representatives of foreign governments.

Judicial Review Judicial review is the power

of a court to decide if a law goes against the Constitution, and overturn it.

This power is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Judicial review was established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Marbury's effect -- the Supreme Court has the final say in what the Constitution means.

John MarshallChief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

1801-1835

The Constitution means what I say it means.

I feel so powerful.

Judicial review rocks!

Judicial ReviewJudicial Activism or Judicial Restraint?

Judicial Activism: judges can adapt the meaning of the Constitution to reflect modern realities.

Judicial Restraint: A judge should interpret the Constitution according to the Framers’ original intent.

“[T]he judiciary must do more than dispense justice in cases and controversies. It must also keep the charter of government current with the times and not allow it to become archaic or out of tune with the needs of the day.”

Justice William O. Douglas

“It can never be emphasized too much that one's own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one's duty on the bench.”

Justice Felix Frankfurter

Judicial ReviewJudicial Activism or Judicial Restraint?

• Most judges declare a belief in judicial restraint.

• The power of judicial review implies some measure of judicial activism.

• Best example of social value of judicial activism: ending racial segregation.

• Current issues involving judicial activism: abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, death penalty.

Judicial ActivismPERRY V. SCHWARZENEGGER(Now: Hollingsworth v. Perry)

• Issue: same-sex marriage

• Liberal activism

• The people of California, through the initiative process, created a state law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

• Judge Vaughn Walker found that the law is unconstitutional.

o Historical context (times have changed)o Due process clause (14th Amendment)o Equal protection clause (14th Amendment)

• Judge’s decision = new law

Judicial ActivismCITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION

COMMISSION

• Issue: campaign contributions by interest groups

• Conservative activism

• Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) which regulates “electioneering communication.”

• Supreme Court found that this law inhibited the free speech of corporations.o Corporations are legally “individuals.”o 1st Amendment protects individual rights.

• 5-4 decision = new law

Judicial Activism• Advantageso Courts can correct injustices created by

other branches.o Laws can be changed when circumstances

in society changes.o Courts can protect rights of the politically

powerless.

• Criticismso Judges are not politically accountable.o Laws reflect the will of the people and

judges must respect that.o Judges lack expertise on complex details of

policy.

Judicial ReviewJudicial Activism or

Judicial Restraint?

Any time that a judge overturns a law passed by the legislature or the voters, judicial activism has occurred.

How the Framers designed things

The People The People

Electoral College

State legislatures

President U.S. SenateAPPOINT

S

CONFIRM

SFederal Judges

After Seventeenth Amendment

The People The People

Electoral College

President U.S. SenateAPPOINT

S

CONFIRM

SFederal Judges

Who are Federal Judges?Typically, federal judges

have:

held previous political office such as prosecutor or state court judge

taught law at a university

prior judicial experience

been lawyers

Women of the Supreme Court

Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena

Kagan

Who are Federal Judges?

Presidents usually nominate people to be federal judges who reflect the president’s own political beliefs.

President Obama nominates Elena Kagan to be Supreme Court Justice.

Who are Federal Judges? Once confirmed, the judges will serve for many

years, ensuring that the president’s political influence will continue for many years.

Sonya Sotomayor faces questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee (July 2009).

Who are Federal Judges?

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Sonya Sotomayor, 2001in a speech to students at UC-Berkeley

Federal Selection Process

PresidentDept. ofJustice

Senators

SenateJud. Comm.

ABA

Senate

Interest Groups

Sonya Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31.

9 of 40 Republicans supported her confirmation.

The U.S. Supreme Court Highest court in the land.

NINE Justices All but six have been white men. African-American (2):Thurgood Marshall and

Clarence Thomas Women (4): Sandra Day O’Connor , Ruth Bader

Ginsburg, Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan Hispanic (1): Sonya Sotomayor

Thurgood Marshall

The U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice: John Roberts

Selects about 100 of the over 7,000 cases that are submitted to it each year.

Chooses cases that • Involve significant Constitutional

questions • Involve other important legal

questions • Are important to the entire

country.

Will not hear cases if they believe the lower court made the correct decision.

John Roberts

Chief Justice 2005 - present

Supreme Court Decisions Majority vote required to determine outcome of

case. Write opinions.

Majority opinion: states court’s decision. Dissenting opinion: states reasons why judge(s)

disagreed with majority opinion. Concurring opinion: states reasons why a judge agrees

with the decision but for a different reason.

Courts do not have the power to enforce their decisions. The executive branch must enforce the Court’s decisions.

Powers of the Supreme Court

Powers of the U.S.

Supreme Court

Judicial Review

Interpreting Laws

What does “uses” mean

when a law says “uses a gun?”

Explains what the U.S. Constitution means. What does “unreasonable search” mean?

Power Example

How the Justices Vote Judicial Philosophy

Judicial Restraint - advocates minimalist roles for judges

Judicial Activism - feels that judges should use the law to promote justice, equality, and personal liberty.

Precedent Prior judicial decisions serve as a rule for

settling later cases of a similar nature. Precedents can change over time

Ex. Plessy vs. Ferguson and Brown vs. Board of Education

The Supreme Court’s Decision Making Process

Lawyers submit briefs to justices. Justices read briefs.

Court hears oral arguments. A lawyer from each side gets 30 minutes. Judges ask lawyers questions.

Justices get together in conference to discuss case. Then they vote.

Justices write opinions to explain the reasons for their decision.

The Court’s decision is announced to the public.

How things work: D.C. v. Heller (2008)

1975: The Washington, D.C. city council passes the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975.

Banned ownership of handguns, fully-automatic weapons and high-capacity semi-automatic weapons.

Guns owned before the law went into effect were “grandfathered.”

Required that all guns in a person’s home be "unloaded, disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"

How things work: D.C. v. Heller (2008) The law was unchallenged for 27 years.

In 2003, a group of six D.C. gun owners filed a lawsuit in federal district court claiming it violated the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The district court dismissed the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Circuit Court ruled 2-1 to reverse the district court’s decision and declared the law to be unconstitutional.

The dissenting judge believed that the 2nd Amendment establishes a state right to a militia, not an individual right.

The D.C. City Council and the Mayor asked the Circuit Court for a re-hearing. The court denied the request, so they appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because it wanted to answer an important constitutional question: Does the 2nd Amendment establish a state’s right to have a militia OR an individual right to own firearms?

How things work: D.C. v Heller (2008)

How things work: D.C. v Heller (2008)

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that in the United States individuals have a constitutional right to own firearms for traditional purposes including self-defense. The decision applied only to federal enclaves.

In 2010, the Supreme Court applied the individual right to own firearms to the states in McDonald v. Chicago.

These cases set a precedent: a court case that guides judges’ decisions in later cases.

In their dissenting opinions, Justices Stevens and Breyer argued that the 2nd Amendment protects a “militia” right, not an individual right.

Other federal court officers

U.S. Solicitor General

• Third highest ranking officer in Dept. of Justice.

• Decides what cases the government will appeal from lower courts.

• Personally approves every case the government presents to Supreme Court.

Donald Verrilli, Jr. U.S. Solicitor General

Other federal court officers

U.S. Attorneys

• The government’s prosecutors.

• Work closely with the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to bring to trial people charged with federal crimes.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder

Other federal court officers

U.S. Magistrate

• Handle a number of legal matters once dealt with by federal judges.

• Examples: issuing arrest warrants, setting bail

• Try people on minor offenses.

U.S. Magistrate

Other federal court officers

U.S. Marshals

• Make arrests in federal criminal cases

• Hold accused people in custody

• Serve legal papers

• Help emergency situations like riots.

The Virginia Court SystemState Supreme

Court (seven justices)

Reviews cases from Appeals Court and some cases from Circuit Court.

Court of Appeals (three justices)

Review Circuit Court cases.

Circuit Courts (judge and jury.)

• Try criminal cases that might lead to jail terms.

• Hear civil cases involving mounts over $1,000

• Retry cases from district courts.

The Virginia Court SystemState Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

Circuit Courts

District Courts (judge)

• Minor crimes

• Traffic violations

Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court

(judge)

• Offenses committed by juveniles.

• Offenses against children.

• Offenses committed by one family member against another.

Magistrates

• Issue arrest warrants.

Small Claims Court (judge)

• Civil cases involving amounts under $1,000.

The Virginia Court System “Sandwich”

State Supreme Court

Court of Appeals

Circuit Courts

District Courts Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court

Important Civil and Criminal Law Terminology

Criminal Law – Laws that regulate public conduct and set out duties owed to society Criminal Case: Court

determines whether person accused of breaking law is guilty or innocent

Prosecution (government) vs. defendant

Standard of Proof: Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (must not have any doubt that defendant committed crime)

Civil Law – Laws that regulate relationship between individuals/groups of individuals Civil Case: Court settles a

disagreement over issues such as contracts, divorce, accidents

Plaintiff (individual bringing complaint) vs. defendant

Standard of Proof: Preponderance of evidence (more likely than not the plaintiff’s version of case is true)