JUSTICE FOR ALL?How Cases Reach the U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court

The highest court in the judicial branch of the U.S. gov’t

The court of last resort in civil and criminal cases

The Nine Justices

One Chief Justice Eight associate

justices Appointed by the

president With the advice and

consent of the Senate

Serve during good behavior until death, retirement, or resignation

U.S.

Canada

Judicial Review

Judicial review empowers the Court to: Interpret the Constitution and invalidate laws

violating the Constitution Interpret federal statutes and other federal law Ensure the supremacy of federal laws over state

and local laws

Legal Influences

The Constraints of the Facts The circumstances of a

litigation Cannot rule unless the

parties bring an actual case The Constraints of the

Law Which laws are relevant Interpretation of the

Constitution Interpretation of statutes Interpretation of precedent

Political Influences

Outside Influences Public opinion Interest groups Public officials

Inside Influences Personal beliefs Political attitudes Relationships between

justices

Appeals from Federal Courts

Getting Your Day in Court

Requests for review per year: ~9000

Decisions per year: ~80

Cases can reach the Supreme Court in three ways.

Denied99%

Granted1%

Certiori Petitions Granted

Granted (1%)

Not Granted (99%)

Supreme Court Review

Path #1: Original Jurisdiction

Cases that only the Supreme Court is empowered to hear

Don’t require appeal Example: disputes

between states over boundaries

Relatively rare (1-2 per Term)

Path #2: Appeal from Federal Court

Cases on appeal from lower federal courts

The Court is required to hear some cases as a matter of law.

However, it can choose to hear most cases as a matter of discretion. By granting or refusing a

writ of certiorari Granting the writ

requires four justices to vote to hear case

Path #3: Appeal from State Court

Cases on appeal from state supreme courts that present a substantial federal question

Usually involving the denial of constitutional rights

Review is discretionary

Process

Justices grant certiorari

Parties submit briefs

Others who are not involved in the case but have an interest in the outcome submit amicus briefs

Oral arguments Opinions

Oral Arguments

Give-and-take between the lawyers and the Justices

Helps identify issues that weren’t properly briefed

Magnifies the strengths and weaknesses of each side's arguments

Lets Justices ask hypothetical questions to gauge likely effects

Allows the public and media to hear judicial proceedings

Blah!

Opinions

Very long, extensively footnoted documents that serve as a record of the decisions

Written with help of Justices’ law clerks

Four main types Majority Concurring Dissenting Per curiam

Lockyer v. Andrade

Under California’s three strikes law, a court sentenced Andrade to life in prison for shoplifting. Did this violate 8th Amendment prohibition on cruel & unusual punishment?

Andrade

Chemerinsky (Lawyer)

Lockyer: Holding

No. Without any clearly established law to define a three-strikes policy as cruel and unusual punishment, Andrade’s sentence didn’t violate the 8th Amendment.

Sources on Lockyer v. Andrade http://

supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2002/november.html (lower court decisions and briefs)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_1127 (audio recording and transcript of oral argument)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-1127.ZS.html (Supreme Court opinions)

Morse v. Frederick

An Alaska high school principal disciplined a student for displaying a banner saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sponsored event. Did this violate First Amendment protection for freedom of speech?

Morse: Holding

No. Without violating the First Amendment, educators could suppress student speech at school-supervised events on the grounds that the speech was reasonably viewed as promoting use of illegal drugs.

Morse: Appeal

Oral Argument

Student Protest

Mertz (Lawyer)

Morse v. Frederick raised questions about the balance between the right to speech versus the need for order. Some students had very strong opinions on where to draw the line.

Morse: Conclusion

Morse v. Frederick eventually settled for $45,000. Last we heard, Frederick was abroad teaching English (but not constitutional law) in China. Meanwhile, “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” became a popular T-shirt slogan.

Sources on Morse v. Frederick http://

www.aclu.org/free-speech/morse-v-frederick (Supreme Court briefs)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278 (audio recording and transcript of oral argument)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-278.ZS.html (Supreme Court opinion)

Safford Unified School Dist. v. Redding

Arizona school officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl accused of giving her classmate some Ibuprofen. Did this violate Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches?

Redding, her mom, and her attorney

YouTube video: http://rubroadcastnewswriting.wordpress.com/2009/06/

Savana Redding

Safford: Holding

Yes. The strip search violated the Fourth Amendment because the officials lacked reasons to suspect that the Ibuprofen was a danger or that it was concealed in her underwear.

Sources on Safford v. Redding http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cas

es/safford-united-school-district-1-v-redding/ (lower court decisions and briefs)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_08_479 (oral argument transcript and audio recording)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-479.ZS.html (Supreme Court opinion)

Select Sources

http://www.catea.gatech.edu/grade/legal/scotus.html

http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/court.html

This presentation is adjourned.