AP US GOVERNMENT& POLITICS

UNIT 7 THE JUDICIARYPOWERPOINT #12:

The Judiciary

THE FEDERAL COURTS

Where do federal cases begin?

DistrictCourts

Court ofAppeals

Supreme Court

90 plus courts 12 courts

Only 1

Originaljurisdiction

Appellatejurisdiction

Original & Appellate

jurisdiction

District Courts

• Most federal cases begin here.

• Usually only one judge presides over the court(However, each district court has multiple judges depending upon how much case work there is in that territory).

• Important players:– Federal magistrates: issue warrants for arrest, set

bail (kind of like a judge – they assist the district judges)

– U.S. Attorneys: nominated by the president theyprosecute violators of federal law

Court of Appeals

• Its purpose is to focus on correcting errors of procedure and law that occurred in originalproceedings; thus unlike District Courts there is no trial & testimony.

• It serves as a “gatekeeper” to the Supreme Courtweeding out cases that ought to be reconsidered.

• Cases are heard by rotating judges, but occasionally 3 judges will sit and review acase together.

The Supreme Court

• The highest court in the land and it has thefinal say in all legal matters.

• Most cases arrive through appeals, but it also has original jurisdiction. (In other words a case can

begin there, but for the most part one arrives after someone appeals what an appeals court has said).

Federal judges are appointed, not elected

• The president attempts to select a nominee that shares their constitutional philosophy, but also one that can survive Senate confirmation.

• Unlike lower court nominations which have often been unanimously approved, in recent decades Senateapproval has been partisan.

• Federal judges do NOT have to worry about a “term,” they serve for life (i.e. “during good behavior”) and can only be removed through impeachment.

The President

The Senate

Supreme Court

The President nominates

someone to thefederal judiciary

The Senate Judiciary Committee and then Senate confirm the

nominee

The individual becomes a

member of thefederal court

system

This is an example of the president’sand Congress’ judicial power

Selecting a judge for the . . .

The Lower Courts (District & Appeals):

• Presidents nominate a judge of their choosing, but do so under senatorial courtesy:

– If a Senator from a state where the judge will serve(and also from the same party as the president) objects to the nomination other Senators will align with that Senator out of courtesy and refuse to confirm the nomination.

– As a result, president usually work with home state senators and ask for suggestions when making lower court nominations.

– Senatorial courtesy tends be strongest for district appointments, not appeals court appointments.

The Supreme Court:

• Presidents do not have “senatorial courtesy” obstructing their Supreme Court nominations,but since the court has the final say in all legal matters both the Senate, the president, andvarious political interests (political parties, interest

groups, etc.) have a vested interest in who gets nominated.

How do the federal courts (judicial branch) affectAmerican policy?

• They interpret the Constitution as well as theactions of the legislative & executive branches. Therefore, unlike other policymakers who createpolicy out of thin air, the courts make policy bymaking decisions on disputed matters.

Permitting openly gay soldiers to servein the military

Pass a law that opens trade with Cuba

In Brown v. Board of Education segregation wasfound unconstitutional

Getting your case heard in federal court

• Federal cases involve constitutional issues and cases where the parties are government agenciesor states.

• It is almost impossible for district courts to turndown a case – for federal cases are supposed to beginwith them!

• Courts with appellate jurisdiction (Appeals, U.S.

Supreme Court) have more flexibility.

• 8,000 cases are appealed to the Supreme Court each year, theCourt usually only chooses to hear a few hundred.

• In order to be heard at the Supreme Court four of the justices must agree to hear it – Rule of four.

• When the Supreme Court decides to hear a petition or bring upa case from a lower court (using their appellate abilities) they are granting a writ of certiorari.

How do they decide what to hear?• Rule of four (Supreme Court) if they can’t get 4 justices to want to

hear its probably not worth it.

• Issues involving civil liberties get a lot of attention.

• Issues where litigants have a serious interest in theoutcome in the case (standing to sue).

• They try to avoid topics that are too “hot” or too political.

• They tend to take the requests of the U.S. solicitor general:– They represent the side of the federal government in the U.S. Supreme

Court when the government is one of the litigants

– A top ranking official in the Justice Department

– Presidential appointee

Making a decision on cases

• The Supreme Court’s decision and the legal reasoning behind it is called the opinion of the court (also called themajority opinion).

• Not all justices may agree with the decision and choose to write their own opinion.

– Concurring opinion: a justice’s opinion who AGREES with thecourt’s decision / majority opinion.

– Dissenting opinion: a justice’s opinion who DISAGREES with thecourt’s decision / majority opinion.

• The Supreme Court ultimately decides on less than 100 cases a year, often they return the caseback to a lower court or like the appeals courtswill settle on the principle of stare decisis ‐ theywill “let the decision stand” from the previous lower court.

– Judicial restraint: a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional.

– Judicial activism: describes judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.

• Generally, judges don’t like to createpolicy, but as a result of their decisions they do affect public policy.

Court History

• Various court eras exist where some issues anddecisions have been more prominent than others:– 1789 – 1860: issues dealt with slavery and the strength &

legitimacy of the federal government. Cases often resultedin the favor of the supremacy of the federal government(i.e. McCulloch v. Maryland).

– 1860 – 1937: issues dealt with the relationship between thefederal government and the economy; the Court usuallyrestricted the government’s power.

– 1937 – present: issues have dealt with personal liberty andsocial and political equality. The court has expanded thescope of personal freedom and civil rights and given moreflexibility to government’s ability to regulate the economy.

• In recent decades shorter periods of judicial activity where there has been a consistentconstitutional viewpoint by the Supreme Courtthey have been labeled by the Chief Justices whopresided over them.

1937 – the present

Warren Court

Burger Court

Rehnquist Court

Roberts Court

LiberalBrown v. Board of Education

Gideon v. Wainwright

Conservative, but . . .

Conservative

Conservative, but . . .

Latin Legal Terms you NEED TO KNOW.TERM DEFINITION

Amicus Curiae “Friend of the Court” A brief filed by a non litigant hoping to influence a court to find for one party over another. Ex. The AMA filed an amicus curiae brief in “ObamaCare” case.

De Facto “As a matter of fact” Term used to describe something that is true in practice, but not in theory. Ex. The de facto segregation that persisted after the Brown ruling caused the Court to issue Brown II.

Ex Post Facto “After the fact” Term used to describe the idea that laws are not retroactive. Ex. Hand held devices while driving was made illegal in 2014. The courts cannot fine you for a incidence of using them while driving that occurred back in 2013.

Habeas Corpus “Show me the body” Idea that all detained citizens must appear before a judge and be officially charged or let free. Ex. During WWII, FDR suspended Habeas Corpus in the internment of Japanese Americans. The Supreme Court upheld this suspension in Korematsu v. United States.

Subpoena A written command from the court to surrender evidence or to appear before the court to testify. Ex. After the Watergate Scandal, the courts subpoenaed Nixon’s recorded conversations

Stare Decisis “Do not disturb the undisturbed”. The idea that courts should abide by established precedents and previous rulings. Ex. Opponents of abortion law reform would support stare decisis in the matter.

Writ of Certiorari A decision by the Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a lower court’s opinion. Ex: The largest part of the Supreme Court’s caseload comes from writs of certiorari issued to losers of appellate court cases.

Writ of Mandamus “We command” An order that the Supreme Court can send to the lower courts that must be obeyed. These order firmly establish the hierarchy in the court system. Ex. The Supreme Court can order a lower court to hear a motion with a writ of mandamus