THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: A FEARLESS

COURT

ORGANIZING QUESTIONS OF THE UNIT:

How does the judicial system protect the rights of individuals?

How does the judicial branch participate in the system of checks and balances?

How does the Supreme Court influence public policy in America?

How does the structure of the federal court system ensure equal justice before the law?

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE UNITED STATES?

The purpose of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is to interpret the laws of the nation, whether they be on the local, state, or federal level.

The Supreme Court can evaluate the laws passed by Congress and signed into law for constitutionality. If they rule a law unconstitutional, it will no longer be enforced.

Similarly, the SCOTUS can rule an executive order of the President of the United States unconstitutional.

The justices of the Supreme Court use the Constitution and precedent – previous decisions – to justify their decisions.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM

The United States Supreme Court – Highest Court in the Land, and “the Court of last resort.”

The United States Court of Appeals – Reviews Decisions of the District Courts

The United States District Courts – Lowest Level of the Federal Court System

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

The Federal District Courts consist of 12 Circuits (the one which appears to be missing is the DC Circuit Court, which manages the many, many, cases coming out of Washington, DC) and a special circuit which hears unique cases from around the nation. The District Courts hear cases involving federal crimes and civil cases. They hear both grand jury trials or trials before petit juries. Federal judges rule the courtroom during these proceedings.

Although the Supreme Court grabs most of the attention in the Judicial Branch, the District Courts are the real “workhorses” of the Federal Judicial System.

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

The US Court of Appeals hears all cases which have been appealed to theme by lower courts. In this sense, it has appellate jurisdiction only.

You can see eleven Courts of Appeals on the map – but there are two others: One is the Washington, DC Circuit Court, and the other is a court which specializes in unique cases like patent law and has the entire nation for a geographic jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals is unique in the way it hears cases and makes decisions. There is no jury; however, there is a panel of judges. The judges decide matters by a majority vote.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT

The United States Supreme Court is the “court of last resort.” Their decisions are final, and there can be no appeal above the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court consists of 9 justices, one of whom has the title “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

During oral arguments, no witnesses are brought forth, but both sides make their case in front of the justices. The justices cross-examine the lawyers in these trials – often interrupting them time and time again as they attempt to make their arguments.

A majority decision is required for the plaintiff or defendant to prevail.

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL’S DEFINING ROLE ON THE SCOTUS

Chief Justice John Marshall was not the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (that was John Jay…); however, he was the most important of the courts leaders.

John Marshall asserted the Supreme Court’s right to “judicial review.” He argued that matters of constitutionality could not be resolved between legislatures on the state and national level within the federals system. Instead, it was the role of the Supreme Court to resolve any questions of constitutionality which emerged between the federal government and the state government (or vice versa.)

In the late 1790s, a dispute between John Adams and the state governments had nearly destroyed the Constitution. Adams Alien and Sedition Acts – which forbid criticism of the government, were viewed as unconstitutional by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They passed the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which encouraged nullification of federal laws – a path which could easily have led to disunion. John Marshall’s assertion of the Supreme Court’s right to judicial review diffused this issue for decades.

MARBURY V. MADISON (1803)

The case of Marbury V. Madison resulted in a decision which allowed Marshall to assert the right to judicial review.

The case itself was complicated. A judge who was appointed to the federal bench by John Adams never received his letter of appointment. The reason? Thomas Jefferson didn’t want him appointed, and James Madison, the Secretary of State, refused to mail him the letter of appointment.

The Supreme Court announced that (1) they didn’t care who was appointed to the federal court, and they had no way of resolving a dispute between two Presidents and, much more importantly, (2) if there was ever a question of constitutionality, it would be the role of the Supreme Court to make a judgment on the issue – which would become law. That, in a nutshell, is judicial review.

MC CULLOUGH V. MARYLAND (1819)

Chief Justice John Marshall consistently supported the powers of the Federal Government over the states with his decisions.

When the state of Maryland attempted to place a tax on the Bank of the United States – a federal institution – the US government sued.

John Marshall and the Supreme Court ruled that states could not ever tax national institutions: the federal government was the supreme law of the land and not subject to state taxes or any other assertion of state sovereignty.

GIBBONS V. OGDEN (1824)

In this case, a state government – that of New York – attempted to assert that they had a monopoly on transportation up and down the Hudson River.

The Supreme Court ruled that the state of New York could not ban the federal government from issuing licenses to companies engaged in commerce in their state.

Congress, of course, had the ability to regulate commerce, and since the Constitution was the supreme law of the land, the states could not nullify a national license.

JURISDICTIONS: THE LIMITS OF THE COURT TO INTERPRET LAW

Original Jurisdiction

Original jurisdiction is simply the power of a court of law to hear a case first – before any other court makes a judgment about the case.

Depending on the court, the exact nature of original jurisdiction varies. But suffice to say, a simple traffic citation on West Neck Rd. doesn’t go to the Supreme Court first! It goes to traffic court. Violations of federal law – like piracy or immigration infractions – would go to the federal district court in Norfolk.

Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Jurisdiction is the authority of a court to review decisions of inferior (lower) courts.

Courts of Appeal don’t have any original jurisdiction: cases have to be appealed to be heard here.

Let’s say a man is accused of breaking federal law by growing and selling marijuana. If he is convicted in federal district court, he may appeal the decision to another court: The US Court of Appeals. If the appeal doesn’t have merit, it will be tossed out. But if it does, the Court of Appeals will hear the evidence and then either uphold the ruling of the court or, perhaps, grant a new trial.

JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS

Federal District Courts are set up in order to hear cases that involve infractions of federal law. We live in Virginia’s Eastern District, so locally, federal cases are heard in Norfolk, VA.

Norfolk’s Federal District Court is a fairly busy circuit – with many issues involving trade and commerce, as well as the US Navy.

Recently, a group of pirates from Somalia were put on trial in Norfolk, for example. If the case involves the breaking of a federal law and it took place in our geographic region or influenced citizens of our region, the trial’s original jurisdiction is in the Federal Court in Norfolk, VA.

JURISDICTIONS OF THE US COURT OF APPEALS

The Courts of Appeals are centrally located within each District of the federal court system.

The US Courts of Appeal have appellate jurisdiction only – a case must be appealed to them from one of the Federal District Courts.

Decisions rendered by the Court of Appeals do not determine the guilt or innocence of the stakeholders in a case; rather, they determine whether or not the defendant received a fair trial. If they determine the defendant has received a fair trial, they may deny the appeal. They may, on the other hand, grant the defendant a re-trial.

THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court is unique in that it has both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. Most of it’s cases, though, come through appeal.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction on two occasions:

1. When a United States state is a party in the case.

2. When an ambassador, foreign minister, or consul is involved in a case.

Much more frequently, the Supreme Court’s docket consists of cases that have been appealed from the Federal Courts. They select these cases based on the constitutional questions at stake in each case. Generally, there are thousands of cases appealed to the Supreme Court each year, but only a few hundred will actually be argued before the court.

PROCEDURES OF THE SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court’s Process:

1. Writ of Certiorari

2. Briefs

3. Oral Arguments Before the Court

4. Conference of Justices

5. The Writing of Opinions

6. Decision Announced

THE WRIT OF CERTIORARI

A writ of certiorari is an appeal to the Supreme Court to send up the record of a case from the lower courts for their review.

Appeals that reach the Supreme Court are usually denied, which means that the ruling of the lower court stands. It’s not really a judgment by the Supreme Court that the verdict was correct or incorrect; it just means that the Court didn’t find a worthwhile constitutional issue in the case to make it worth hearing.

If, on the other hand, at least four of the Justices of the Supreme Court agree, the case will be heard!

One of the most famous writs of certiorari is picture to the right: a hand written appeal by Clarence Earl Gideon, which got his case to the Supreme Court. And, he won!

BRIEFS: WRITTEN SUMMARIES AND AMICES CURIAE

Before the Supreme Court hears any arguments, they receive briefs from both sides in the case and a series of amices curiae.

Briefs – are the arguments which both sides plan to make before the court. They are highly detailed statements which spell out the position of each side, and point out all of the most relevant facts of the case. Briefs will also cite all of the legal precedents which they find on their side in making their argument. Briefs are presented by the parties which actually have a “dog in the fight” so to speak, and they may go on for many hundreds of pages.

Amices Curiae – literally, this means “friend of the court.” These are briefs filed by people who are not actually involved in the case, but have strong feeling about the case of concerns that implications of the Supreme Court’s decisions may influence their lives.

ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT

Arguments before the Supreme Court are nothing at all like arguments made in a regular court case. In many ways, the roles are reversed. Lawyers before the Supreme Court attempt to make the most persuasive arguments they can; however, they are being cross-examined by nine Supreme Court Justices, each of whom may have some points to make of their own. Answering the arguments of the members of the Supreme Court is the most difficult challenge lawyers have when they represent clients before the body. Their case rests entirely on their ability to answer the justices in a satisfactory manner.

CONFERENCES OF THE JUSTICES

After all of the arguments have been made, it is left to the justices of the Supreme Court to make their decisions. The Court meets in conference in order to discuss their decisions – and to hear the perspectives of each of the other justices. These meetings must be animated to say the least, because the justices are all very opinionated and most of them are very independent minded. The liberal members of the Supreme Court: Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer, find themselves constantly opposed by staunch conservative justices like Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas. Anthony Kennedy is often the “swing vote” in ideological decisions; he doesn’t fall into one group or the other, really.

Recently, it has become obvious that a major rift exists on the Supreme Court. Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing criticism of the liberal justices on the court frequently approaching name-calling and childishness.

MAJORITY OPINIONS & CONCURRING

The majority opinion is written by the justices on the winning side of the case. Usually one justice will write the majority opinion, but occasionally, justices who feel like the rationale being offered by the majority is not exactly what they were thinking, so they will offer their own concurring opinions to explicate their beliefs.

The majority opinions will establish precedents that future generations of judges and lawyers can use to justify their arguments and interpretations of the Constitution.

Hence, the decision in the case is not the only important factor. By explaining how they have arrived at their decisions and why they interpret the Constitution the way they do, the justices do a service to both the public and to posterity.

THE DISSENTING MINORITY OPINION

This is the opinion of the losing side in the decision. Usually, the person writing attempts to explain why they can’t go along with the decision rendered by the Court by using the Constitution to make a different argument than the majority.

Recently, Justice Scalia has gotten into the habit of criticizing any decisions he doesn’t join and even seemingly ridiculing his fellow justices when they disagree.

Minority dissents are important because sometimes, the Supreme Court reverses itself!

ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISIONS

All Supreme Court decisions are released to the public – in time. Justices, though, need time to argue with one another, and to write out their comprehensive decisions.

There are several dates throughout the year when the Supreme Court announces it’s decision, and often there are several cases which are announced on the same date.

Public reaction to Supreme Court cases can be pretty intense, as well. Recently we’ve seen cases like the Obamacare decision have mixed reviews, while the Gay Marriage decision was met with jubilation from many groups.

CHECKS ON THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

CHECKS ON THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM: THE WARREN COURT

Judicial activism is the willingness of the Supreme Court to overturn precedents and interpret the law in an assertive manner in order to promote civil rights and justice – at least, justice according to the nine justices on the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Earl Warren’s Supreme Court in the 1950s and 1960s may be the most important example of judicial activism in history:

Brown V. Board of Education, Topeka, KS

Miranda V. Arizona

Gideon V. Wainwright

Overall, this group of judges consistently found in favor of the expansion of civil rights to African-Americas, women, and minority groups. Moreover, they sought to protect the rights of the accused and criminals.

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT…

The policy of judicial restraint is one which encourages the justices of the Supreme Court NOT TO make major rulings from the bench which rule laws unconstitutional except in egregious cases. The logic behind this philosophy is simple. When justices make major rulings from the bench, it is anti-democratic. (Consider: Laws are made by democratic institutions. The Supreme Court is not democratic institution: none of its members are elected!) People who advocate for judicial restraint – and many of the justices on the Supreme Court do – would say that it’s better to stick with democratic institutions, even if they sometimes deny justice or they can be interpreted in such a way as to seem to violate the Constitution.

RECENT DECISIONS OF NOTE

Summer 2015

OBAMACARE: THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT

In a five to four vote, the Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Health Care Act as constitutional. Although the Obama Administration argued that the comprehensive health care program was constitutional because it “promotes the general welfare” of the people, the Supreme Court found that argument dubious.

Instead, the Supreme Court stated that the Affordable Health Care Act was constitutional simply because the Congress enacted the law and it has the power to tax.

Obamacare, they stated, was just another tax. More recently, another aspect of the law as it applies to state governments was also confirmed as being constitutional. No matter what logic they used in their ruling, it appears that Obamacare is here to stay.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

For decades, Americans have identified unlimited campaign financing by outside groups as a problem in politics. If individuals or companies are able to donate as much money as they like to political campaigns – literally hundreds of millions of dollars in some cases – then, they may expect something in return. What?

1. They may expect for politicians to vote in a certain way, so as to promote their personal interests.

2. Politicians may become corrupt.

3. The influence of huge campaign contributions on political advertisements or debate can be stifling. Often political ads slander candidates or spread mistruths.

If campaign contributions were limited – it may produce a fairer, more honest political process.

THE GAY MARRIAGE DECISION: OBERGEFELL V. HODGES (2015)

During the summer of 2015, the Supreme Court released its decision in one of the most important cases ever regarding the marriage rights of homosexuals.

In a split decision – 5 to 4, with all of the conservative justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissenting – the Supreme Court affirmed the right of gay couples to wed.

Since the 4th Amendment makes state licenses and certifications reciprocal across borders – and the 14th Amendment guarantees equality under the law, the Court decided in favor of Obergefell and the right to wed for homosexual couples.

SECOND AMENDMENT CASES

There are continuous cases which are brought to the Supreme Court regarding 2nd Amendment rights. How the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment should be interpreted are at the heart of the matter here:

The 2nd Amendment:

“A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What does this mean? Are guns for the collective security of the commonwealth, or for individual self-defense? Should the government be able to keep detailed records of who has what weapons? Should there be background checks to determine if a person has dangerous tendencies? How can we prevent the epidemic of murderous gun violence in the United States of American from continuing for another generation?

ABORTION RIGHTS

One of the most controversial cases the Supreme Court has ever ruled on was Roe V. Wade (1973). The opinion of the court was that a pregnant woman had the right to end her pregnancy by aborting the fetus if she chose to do so prior to the third trimester of the pregnancy.

In deciding the case, the court identified both the equal protection clause and a perceived right to privacy for all women. They considered what might happen if a woman did not have access to a safe abortion from medical clinics, too. When abortions were illegal, there were a variety of methods used to end pregnancies which endangered the life of the woman.

Although this case has been on the books for over forty years now, there are still frequent challenges made. A devoted corps of anti-abortion (pro-life) advocates have designed new laws to test the limits of the Roe V. Wade decision.