8/22/19

1

AP GOV

REVIEWED! Government in America(Pearson) Chapter 15

American Government: Institutions & Policies

COURTS THE FEDERAL

(Wilson) Chapter 16

•  SupremeCourthasthepowerofjudicialreview:checkthepowerofotherbranchesofgovernmentand/orstategovernments

•  “Thefounda>onforpowersofthejudicialbranchandhowitsindependencechecksthepowerofotherins>tu>onsandstategovernmentsaresetforthin:”–  Ar>cleIIIoftheCons>tu>on:“Thejudicial

poweroftheUnitedStates,shallbevestedinoneSupremeCourt,andinsuchinferiorcourtsastheCongressmayfrom>meto>meordainandestablish.”

–  FederalistNo.78:WriKenbyHamiltonin1788todiscusspowerofaindependentjudiciary

–  Marburyv.Madison(1803):“establishedtheprincipleofjudicialreviewempoweringtheSupremeCourttonullifyanactofthelegisla>veorexecu>vebranchthatviolatestheCons>tu>on”

THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

•  Twobasictypesofcases:–  1)Criminal:governmentchargessomebodywithviola>ngthelaw

–  2)Civil:disputebetweentwoprivatepar>es(individual,organiza>on,group,company,etc.)

•  Par>cipantsintheJudicialSystem–  Plain>ffistheonemakingtheaccusa>on

•  thecourtdeterminesplain>ffhasstandingtosue–  Defendantistheonebeingsuedoraccused–  amicuscuriae(“friendofthecourt”)briefscanbefiledbypeopleorgroupswhoarenotapartyinacase•  Goal:hopetoinfluencethedecision,expressPOVonaissue

THE NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

8/22/19

2

•  Ar>cleIIIintheCons>tu>on

–  OnlyestablishedtheSupremeCourt–  Le`toCongresstocreateotherfederal

courts•  FederalCourtSystem:

1.   DistrictCourts:•  typicallythecourtoforiginal

jurisdic>on•  Courtoforiginaljurisdic>onisthe

1stcourtthathearsacase–  Determinethefactsofthecase

2.   CourtofAppeals/CircuitCourts•  Notallappealswillbeheard•  Appellatecourtspresideovercases

onappealfromthelowercourt–  Donotreviewthefactsofthe

case---onlyreviewanylegalissues(appellatejurisdic>on)

3.   SupremeCourt•  Laststop

THE POLITICS OF JUDICIAL SELECTION •  Federaljudicialappointmentsarenominated

bythePresidentandsubjecttoSenateconfirma>on–  AllowsPresidenttohaveaimpactwell

pasttheirterminoffice–  Eraofdividedgovernmenthasmadethe

processofjudicialselec>onveryconten>ous

•  TheSenateJudiciaryCommiKeeholdsatremendousamountofpowerintheSupremeCourtconfirma>onprocess–  Conductshearings–  Confirma>onvote

•  Backgroundofjus>ceshavehistoricallynotbeenrepresenta>veoftheAmericanpopula>on

•  Mainfactorinselec>ngjudicialnomineeshasbeenlikemindedideology

THE SUPREME COURT •  Highestcourtintheland•  Composi>onofthecourt

–  Currently9jus>cesontheSC•  Casesbeforethecourt

–  Controlswhichcasesitwillhear•  RuleofFour

–  briefs,amicuscuriaebriefs,oralarguments•  UsuallytherearetwosidestoaSupremeCourtdecision(majorityorminority

opinion)–  Eachsidehasajus>cewriteanopinionthatprovidesaexplana>onofthe

ruling/decision•  Majorityopinion:hasmostsupportanditsdecisiontakeseffect•  MinorityorDissen>ngopinion:legalargumentofthelosingside•  Concurringopinion:jus>cemayagreewiththeoutcomebutmayhaveadifferentlegalreasoningthanthemajority

8/22/19

3

REQUIRED SUPREME COURT CASES •  McCullochv.Maryland(1819)•  UnitedStatesv.Lopez(1995)•  Engelv.Vitale(1962)•  Wisconsinv.Yoder(1972)•  Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969)•  NewYorkTimesCo.v.UnitedStates(1971)•  Schenckv.UnitedStates(1919)•  Gideonv.Wainwright(1963)•  Roev.Wade(1973)•  McDonaldv.Chicago(2010)•  Brownv.BoardofEducaTon(1954)•  CiTzensUnitedv.FederalElecTonCommission(2010)•  Bakerv.Carr(1961)•  Shawv.Reno(1993)•  Marburyv.Madison(1803)

THE SUPREME COURT •  “Precedentsandstaredecisisplayanimportant

roleinjudicialdecisionmaking.”•  Majorityopinionestablishesaprecedent

–  Decisionsmadebyhighercourtsestablishthelegalstandardforsimilarcasesmovingforward

–  lowercourtsmustfollowthelegalruling…BUT….

•  TheSupremeCourtcanoverturnaprecedentfromapriorSupremeCourtdecision–  RememberBrownv.BoardofEduca>on(1954)

overturnedPlessyv.Ferguson(1896)•  Precedentshouldnotbecasuallyoverturned

–  Conceptofstaredecisis(“thedecisionstands”)•  Principleofrespec>ngprecedent

•  Ideologicalshi`sinthemakeupoftheSupremeCourthaveledtotheCourt’sestablishingneworrejec>ngexis>ngprecedent

A SHORT HISTORY: THE COURTS & PUBLIC POLICY •  JohnMarshallcourt:

–  Marburyv.Madison(1803):SupremeCourthasthepowertointerprettheCons>tu>on(judicialreview)

•  NewDeal:ManyNewDealprogramswereruleduncons>tu>onalbytheconserva>vecourt–  FDR’scourt-packingplancalledforaincrease

inthenumberofjus>cesontheSupremeCourt•  RejectedbyCongress

•  WarrenCourt(1953-1969):–  Drama>cincreaseinindividualrights/civil

liber>es•  BurgerCourt

–  Movedthecourtinamoreconserva>vedirec>on

•  SupremeCourtsince1980–  Tiltsconserva>ve

8/22/19

4

•  Jus>ceso`endisagreeonhowtointerprettheCons>tu>on–  “dueprocess,”“equalprotec>on,”“unreasonablesearchandseizure,”&“beararms”

•  Originalism:beliefthecourtshouldinterprettheCons>tu>onasitwasoriginallywriKen

•  LivingCons>tu>on:beliefthewordsintheCons>tu>onmustbeunderstoodwithinthecontextofthe>mesandtheyhaveadynamicmeaning

•  TheJudicialbranchdoesNOTimplementorenforcetheirdecisions–  Some>mesthedecisionsarenotenforced(example:MostoftheSouth

refusedtointegratea`erBrownv.BoardofEduca>on•  Decisionsthatarecontroversialorunpopularhaveledtoques>onsaboutthe

Court’slegi>macyandpower

•  Arethecourtstoopowerful?–  Judicialrestraint:defertodemocra>callyelectedlegislatures

–  Judicialac>vism:courtsshouldplayalargeroleinprotec>ngtherightsoftheminority

•  Restric>onsontheSupremeCourt:–  Congressionallegisla>ontochangeimpactofSCdecisions

–  Cons>tu>onalamendments–  Judicialappointmentsandconfirma>ons

–  Presidentand/orstatesignoringSCdecisions

–  Legisla>onimpac>ngcourtjurisdic>on

UNDERSTANDING THE COURTS

Subscribe to

Productions