The Supreme Court of the United States of America

The Judicial Branch

Jurisdiction of the courts

Types of JurisdictionOriginal Jurisdiction – this court is the first one to hear the

case

Appellate Jurisdiction – this court only hears cases from courts where the decision is being contested by the losing party

Exclusive Jurisdiction – held only by the United States Supreme CourtFor Cases in which a state is a party in the law suit

For cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers

Concurrent Jurisdiction – the case can be tried in either a federal or state court

SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION

FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION

CONCURRENT JURISDICTION

STATE COURTS JURISDICTION

Cases in which a State is a party

The United States is the plaintiff or Defendant

Murder Citizen of the state

Cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers

The complaint is based on a federal law (from the Constitution or statute)

Armed Robbery Have a business or satellite office in the state

Cases being appealed from the lower courts

Cases that occur on navigable waters

Kidnapping Conduct business within the state

Cases between citizens of different states

Drug Trafficking or Smuggling

Committed the crime in the state

How the Supreme Court decides a case

Cases get to the Supreme Court via: Writ of Certiorari – a case from a lower court is being appealed to the

Supreme Court. The Justices review the case and decide to call it up to be heard.

Certificate – the lower court has no clue how to rule on the case and asks the Supreme Court for help

Origination – those cases where the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction

Both sides in the case send briefs explaining their case Briefs – written explanations of the case and the unique circumstances

around the case.

Both sides present oral arguments before the Court Mondays through Thursdays

On Fridays, the Justices meet behind closed doors to discuss the cases they have heard and those petitioning to be heard by the Court

It may take many months of debate among the justices before an opinion is issued

The Justices vote. Majority rules and opinions are written.

Majority Opinion is usually written by one of the justices from the majority. This explains the reasoning behind the Court’s decision.

Dissenting Opinion is usually written by a justice(s) who voted against the majority opinion. This explains why they voted against those in the majority

These opinions are very important because they can be used in future cases

Concurring Opinions are usually written by justices who agree with the decision of the majority, but they feel the decision should be based on something else. This is also important because it can be used to argue future cases too.

Mondays are DECISION DAY – it is the day most court decisions are announced to the public

Philosophies of Judicial Interpretation

Judicial Restraint – cases before the Supreme Court should be decided based on the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution and/or precedent that has already been set.

Judicial Activism – Cases should be decided based on recent changes and/or current social values

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, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.

In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature.

Judicially-restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.

Source: Boundless. “Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 27 Jun. 2014. Retrieved 01 May. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/the-judiciary-14/judicial-review-and-policy-making-93/judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint-508-909/

Judicial Activism

describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.

The definition of judicial activism and which specific decisions are activist, is a controversial political issue.

The phrase is generally traced back to a comment by Thomas Jefferson, referring to the despotic behavior of Federalist federal judges, in particular, John Marshall. 

Detractors of judicial activism argue that it usurps the power of elected branches of government or appointed agencies, damaging the rule of law and democracy.

Defenders say that in many cases it is a legitimate form of judicial review and that interpretations of the law must change with the times.

Source: Boundless. “Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 27 Jun. 2014. Retrieved 01 May. 2015 from https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/the-judiciary-14/judicial-review-and-policy-making-93/judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint-508-909/

Famous Supreme Court Justices

and their cases

Chief Justice John Marshall (judicial activism)

Appointed by President John AdamsHoly Trinity of Court Cases (all three while John

Marshall was Chief Justice)Marbury v Madison, 1803 – established the concept of

Judicial Review

McCulloch v Maryland, 1819 – upheld the implied powers of Congress and upheld the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution

Gibbons v Ogden, 1924 – upheld the Commerce Power of the Congress

Chief Justice Earl Warren (judicial activism)

Appointed by President EisenhowerBrown v. Board of Education, Topeka, KS 1954

Declared “separate-but-equal” to be inherently unequal in the case of public education

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961More clearly defined the Exclusionary Rule stating that

evidence obtained without a search warrant could not be used against the defendant

Engel v. Vitale, 1962 Court ruled that standard morning prayers in public schools violated the

Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Court ruled that the right to counsel applied to all criminal cases.

Westberry v. Sanders, 1964 Court established the one-man-one-vote rule. Again, upheld the illegality

of gerrymandering

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S., 1964 Court ruled that Congress could order the desegregation of private

businesses that may profit from interstate commerce.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Court ruled that the marriage bedroom was a private place and the government

had no business invading that privacy

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966 Established the Miranda Rights which must be read to and understood by those

accused of a crime prior to being questioned.

In Re Gault, 1967 The Court ruled that juveniles have some of the same due process rights

as adults

Tinker v. Des Moines Indiana Community School District, 1969 Court ruled that schools could not interfere with a student’s freedom of

expression as long as the expression did not interfere with instruction.

Chief Justice Warren Burger (supposed to be one of judicial restraint, but ended up being more of an activist)

Appointed by President Nixon

Furman v. Georgia, 1972 Death penalty is deemed unconstitutional for violating the 8th

amendment.

Roe v Wade, 1972 The Court declared state laws making abortions illegal to be

unconstitutional.

Miller v California, 1973 The Court ruled that “contemporary community standards” be used in

judging what is obscene.

Gregg v Georgia, 1976 The Death Penalty was justified as long as certain steps were followed prior to

issuing the penalty.

Board of Regents University of California v. Bakke, 1978The Court ruled that race should not be the only factor in making

affirmative action decisions, but it can be considered.

Lynch v Donnelly, 1984The Court ruled that public displays of religious beliefs are

permissible only if they are part of an otherwise nonreligious or multi-religious display.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist “reaffirmed most of those liberal decisions [of his predecessors] while creating its own brand of conservative judicial activism.” (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo3642194.html)

Appointed by President Reagan

Bob Jones University v The United States, 1983 Institutions receiving tax exempt status would lose that status if they

practice discrimination

New Jersey v T.L.O., 1985 School officials only need “reasonable suspicion” to search a student

Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier, 1988 The Court stated, “a school need not tolerate student speech that is

inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”

United States v Eichman, 1990 The Court declared the Flag Protection Act unconstitutional.

Board of Education Westside Community Schools v Mergens, 1990 The Court upheld the Equal Access Clause from 1984.

U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, 1995 The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for Arkansas to limit the terms of

U.S. Congressmen.

United States v The American Library Association, 2003 The Court ruled in favor of public libraries being able to block internet

accessibility to certain sites that might display questionable materials.

Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. (“If it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history,” Justice Ginsburg)

Appointed by President George W. Bush

Georgia v. Randolph, 2006 police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant

consents and the other objects

House v. Bell, 2006 Post-conviction DNA forensic evidence can be considered in death penalty

appeals

Hudson v. Michigan, 2006 evidence obtained with a search warrant is admissible even when police

violate 'knock-and-announce' rule

Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007 Upheld the Constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

Morse v. Frederick, 2007 Upheld the censorship of free speech rights of high school students ("Bong

Hits 4 Jesus")

Baze v. Rees, 2008 Upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection protocols under the Eighth

Amendment

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 2008 Upheld the constitutionality of requiring voters to show ID before voting

McDonald v. Chicago, 2010 The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms"

protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Florida v. Harris, 2013 Because the police provided evidence showing the dog did well at training,

a dog sniff provided probable cause for a search of a vehicle.

Florida v. Jardines, 2013 A dog sniff at the front door of a house constitutes a "search" for purposes

of the Fourth Amendment.

United States v. Windsor, 2013Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional,

as it violates due process and equal protection.

2015 – Supreme Court is expected to announce it’s decision on Same-Sex Marriages in June…