Chapter Outline

Introduction

The Federal Judicial System

1. The Supreme Court of the U.S. is the nation's highest court. The Constitution gives it both original (first court to hear and decide cases) and appellate jurisdiction (reviews cases that have already been heardin lower courts). Its original jurisdiction includes exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving diplomats and other foreign officials and an ability to hear cases involving disputes between states.
2. The primary function of the judiciary is to interpret the law in such a way that rules made in the past can be applied reasonably in the present. The court focuses on broad legal questions.
3. Cases come to the Supreme Court through approval of a writ of certiorari submitted by a lower court.
4. A key element of the Supreme court's influence is its ability to set legal precedents that guide lower courts. A precedent is a judicial decision that serves as a rule for settling subsequent cases of a similar nature.
5. The court hears cases involving violations of the U.S. Constitution, federal laws and treaties.
6. Some cases are heard in oral argument and all cases are decided in judicial conferences of the nine Supreme Court justices.
7. Judicial decisions indicate which party the Court supports and by how large a margin.
8. Judicial opinions include the reasons behind the decision. Types of opinions are the majority opinion (a majority of justices agree; their opinion is binding); plurality opinion (a view held by most of the justices who side with the winning party); concurring opinion (a separate view written by a justice who agrees with the majority but for different reasons); dissenting opinion (disagrees with the majority opinion).

While there is only one U.S. Supreme Court at the top of the judicial system, there are other federal courts with important jurisdiction. The "upper-court myth" contends that the appellate courts and the Supreme Court in particular are the only truly significant courts and that lower courts dutifully follow the rulings handed down by the appellate level.

1. Federal district courts are trial courts which hear most federal cases, exercising considerable discretion in their judgments. Most of their decisions are not appealed to a higher court.
2. Cases are appealed from the district courts to the federal court of appeals which make up the second level of the federal court system. They review trial-court decisions and correct what they consider to be legal errors.
3. Special U.S. courts include the Claims Court, Court of International Trade, and Court of Military Appeals.
4. Each state has its own court system which has trial courts at the bottom level and appellate courts at the top. Each state can decide how to select its own justices with some preferring short appointment (merit plan) and others using general elections. The "federal court myth" inaccurately maintains that the federal judiciary is the most significant part of the judicial system and that state courts play a subordinate role. More than 95 percent of the nation's legal cases are decided in state courts. State cases that involve federal issues can be appealed to the federal court system.

Federal Court Appointees

1. Presidents prefer to nominate justices who share their own political and ideological beliefs.
2. Nearly 80 percent of presidential nominees are approved by the Senate.
3. The informal rule of senatorial courtesy governs appointments to the lower federal courts. Senatorial courtesy holds that a senator from the state in which a vacancy has arisen should be given a say in the nomination if the senator is of the same party as the president.
4. Partisan backgrounds of judges are a significant influence on their decisions, but all judicial decision-making may not reflect partisan differences.
5. Prior judicial experience has become an important criterion for recent judicial appointments.
6. The federal court system over-represents white males and under- represents females and minorities. Whether the courts should mirror the demographic characteristics of the American people is a matter of debate.

The Nature of Judicial Decision Making

1. Justices are constrained by the facts of a case as determined by trial courts. These are the relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense and determine which law or laws are applicable to the case.
2. They are constrained by the existing laws that apply to the situation. These include constitutional provisions, legislative statutes, or judicial precedents.
3. Judicial interpretation is restricted by the purpose and intent of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes and administrative regulations, and interpretation of precedents (holding that a court decision should be consistent with previous rulings).

Rulings made by justices reflect not only legal infuences but political ones, which come from both outside and inside the judicial system.

1. Outside influences on court decisions include public expectations as well as pressure from interest groups and elected representatives.
1. Justices are responsive to public opinion, though less so than are elected officials.
2. Interest groups can influence the courts by filing amicus curiae briefs.
3. Elected officials try to persuade the judiciary to hand down rulings favored by their constituents. Congress can exercise authority over the appellate jurisdiction of the Courts. The executive branch can choose which aspects of law it wants to implement, while president can influence the courts through their judicial appointments.
2. Inside influences on court decisions include the justices' own political beliefs.
1. Most justices maintain consistent political beliefs throughout their tenure.
2. Major shifts in the Supreme Court's positions follow changes in court personnel.

Judicial Power and Democratic Government

1. Court decisions often reflect the political philosophy of the judges, who constitute a tiny political elite that wields significant power.
2. The court can act as a check on lawmaking majorities.
3. Courts exercise judicial review when declaring executive or legislative action unconstitutional.

The question of the proper role of a judiciary in a democratic political system centers on the issue of legitimacy. There are two schools of thought regarding how far the judiciary should go in asserting its authority over that of state legislatures, Congress and the presidency.

1. Judicial restraint holds that the judiciary should respect precedent and defer to the judgment of legislatures. The judges' role is to discover the application of legislation and precedent to specific cases rather than to search for new principles that essentially alter the meaning of a law.
1. Advocates of judicial restraint contend that when the judiciary assumes policy functions that traditionally belong to elected institutions, it undermines the fundamental premise of self-government: the right of the majority to choose society's policies.
2. Secondly, judicial self-restraint is supported because it preserves the public support that is essential to the long-term authority of the courts. It often upholds the status quo.
2. Judicial activists suggest that the courts take a generous view of judicial power and involve themselves extensively in interpreting and enlarging upon the law. Liberal activists make decisions that attempt to further social justice while conservative activists restrict governmental intervention in the economy and restrict application of due process to protect the accused.
3. The proper role of the judiciary often hinges on value judgments regarding the conflicting concepts of majority rule and protecting individual rights and minority interests.