the federal courts chapter 16. supreme court denver’s district court john marshall
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
The Federal Courts
The Federal Courts
Chapter 16
![Page 2: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Supreme Court
Denver’s District Court
John Marshall
![Page 3: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
JurisdictionJurisdiction
•Original jurisdiction: where the case is heard first, usually in a trial.•Appellate jurisdiction: cases brought on appeal from a lower court.
![Page 4: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Standing to SueStanding to Sue There must be a real controversy between
adversaries. Personal harm must be demonstrated. Being a taxpayer does not ordinarily
constitute entitlement to challenge federal government action; this requirement is relaxed when the First Amendment is involved.
There must be a real controversy between adversaries.
Personal harm must be demonstrated. Being a taxpayer does not ordinarily
constitute entitlement to challenge federal government action; this requirement is relaxed when the First Amendment is involved.
![Page 5: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Federal CasesFederal Cases Federal question cases:
involving the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or treaties.
Diversity cases: involving different states, or citizens of different states.
Federal question cases: involving the U.S. Constitution, federal law, or treaties.
Diversity cases: involving different states, or citizens of different states.
![Page 6: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Federal CasesFederal Cases
Some cases that begin in state courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Controversies between two state governments can only be heard by the Supreme Court.
Some cases that begin in state courts can be appealed to the Supreme Court.
Controversies between two state governments can only be heard by the Supreme Court.
![Page 7: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Structure of the Federal Courts
•District Courts: the entry point for most litigation in federal courts, trial courts.
•Courts of Appeal: review all final decisions of district courts, with the authority to review and enforce orders of regulatory agencies.
•Supreme Court: sets its own agenda.
![Page 8: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Roberts Court
Alito
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Breyer Kennedy
Kagan
RobertsScalia
Thomas
![Page 10: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Writs of Certiorari
Requires agreement of four justices to hear the case
Involving significant federal or constitutional question
Involving conflicting decisions by circuit courts
Involving Constitutional interpretation by one of the highest state courts
![Page 11: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Judicial Review
Judicial review: the right of the federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.
It is the chief judicial weapon in the checks and balances system.
![Page 12: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
National Supremacy
Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Supreme Court could declare a congressional act unconstitutional.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): The power granted to federal government should be construed broadly and federal law is supreme over state law.
![Page 13: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Selecting JudgesSelecting Judges Party background has a strong effect on judicial behavior.
Appointees for federal courts are reviewed by senators from that state, if the senators are of the president’s party (particularly for U.S. district courts).
Party background has a strong effect on judicial behavior.
Appointees for federal courts are reviewed by senators from that state, if the senators are of the president’s party (particularly for U.S. district courts).
Senator UdallSenator Bennett
![Page 14: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Selecting JudgesSelecting Judges
Presidents seek judicial appointees who share their political ideologies.
This raises concerns that ideological tests are too dominant, and has caused delays in securing Senate confirmations.
Presidents seek judicial appointees who share their political ideologies.
This raises concerns that ideological tests are too dominant, and has caused delays in securing Senate confirmations.
Robert Bork
![Page 15: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The Supreme Court in Action
• Most cases arrive through a writ of certiorari.
• Lawyers then submit briefs that set forth the facts of the case, summarize the lower court decision, give the argument of that side of the case, and discuss other issues. Amicus curiae briefs are submitted by interest groups.
• Oral arguments are given by lawyers after briefs are submitted.
![Page 16: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Kinds of Court OpinionsKinds of Court Opinions
Per curiam: brief and unsigned
Opinion of the court: majority opinion
Concurring opinion: agrees with the ruling of the majority opinion, but modifies the supportive reasoning
Dissenting opinion: minority opinion
Stare Decisis: original ruling stands
Per curiam: brief and unsigned
Opinion of the court: majority opinion
Concurring opinion: agrees with the ruling of the majority opinion, but modifies the supportive reasoning
Dissenting opinion: minority opinion
Stare Decisis: original ruling stands
![Page 18: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Constitutional InterpretationConstitutional Interpretation Strict
construction/judicial restraint: judges are bound by the wording of the Constitution; judges are interpreters, not policy-makers. This is also called “original intent.”
Loose construction/Judicial activism: judges should look to the underlying principles of the Constitution, and this can result in new policy.
Strict construction/judicial restraint: judges are bound by the wording of the Constitution; judges are interpreters, not policy-makers. This is also called “original intent.”
Loose construction/Judicial activism: judges should look to the underlying principles of the Constitution, and this can result in new policy.
![Page 19: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Arguments for Judicial Activism
Arguments for Judicial Activism
Courts should correct injustices when other branches or state governments refuse to do so.
Courts are the last resort for those without the power or influence to gain new laws.
Courts should correct injustices when other branches or state governments refuse to do so.
Courts are the last resort for those without the power or influence to gain new laws.
![Page 20: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Arguments Against Judicial ActivismArguments Against Judicial Activism
Judges lack expertise in designing and managing complex institutions.
Initiatives require balancing policy priorities and allocating public revenues.
Courts are not accountable because judges are not elected and serve life terms.
Judges lack expertise in designing and managing complex institutions.
Initiatives require balancing policy priorities and allocating public revenues.
Courts are not accountable because judges are not elected and serve life terms.
![Page 21: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Checks on Judicial Power
Checks on Judicial Power
Judges have no enforcement mechanisms
Confirmation by Senate Impeachment for bad behavior Changing the number of judges Revising legislation Amending the Constitution Altering jurisdiction
Judges have no enforcement mechanisms
Confirmation by Senate Impeachment for bad behavior Changing the number of judges Revising legislation Amending the Constitution Altering jurisdiction
![Page 22: The Federal Courts Chapter 16. Supreme Court Denver’s District Court John Marshall](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062517/56649f2c5503460f94c47288/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Public Opinion and the Courts
Public Opinion and the Courts
Defying public opinion frontally may be dangerous to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Appointment process and life terms insulate justices from public opinion.
Justices deliberate in secret. Impeachment and lack of enforcement powers mean justices are not completely isolated from public opinion.
Defying public opinion frontally may be dangerous to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Appointment process and life terms insulate justices from public opinion.
Justices deliberate in secret. Impeachment and lack of enforcement powers mean justices are not completely isolated from public opinion.