The United States employs a dual court system that features a national court system and separate court systems in each of the states.
The national court system includes 94 U.S. district courts.
- District courts are trial courts.
- District courts deal with cases involving federal labor, civil rights, Social Security, truth-in-lending, and antitrust laws.
There are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals.
- Losing parties in federal courts have automatic appeal to appellate courts.
Congress creates specialized national courts to help administer specific congressional statutes.
NATURE OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS
Colonists brought English common law to America.
- National judge-made law common to the entire country
- Judicial decisions served both to settle controversies and establish precedents
- Provided the basis for judicial review in the United States
Judicial review: Supreme Court can strike down acts of Congress it considers unconstitutional.
- Established in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)
There are two basic types of law under U.S. judicial system: criminal and civil law.
- Criminal law: prosecution of individuals who commit acts prohibited by government
- Civil law: disputes between private parties
- In most cases, a plaintiff brings suit against a defendant.
- In a class action suit, one or more persons sue on behalf of a larger set of people.
Judicial requirements limit the kinds of cases a court can hear.
- Each court has jurisdiction, or power to hear, certain types of cases.
- The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction.
- Justiciability: a court's power to exclude certain cases from consideration
- A plaintiff must show that he or she was harmed by the defendant's actions.
- Federal courts will not hear cases that involve political questions.
Courts must determine the facts of a case before addressing legal questions.
- Original jurisdiction courts determine facts.
- Appellate courts apply the facts to relevant law.
Americans increasingly look to the courts to resolve their disputes.
CHANGING NATURE OF THE SUPREME COURT
The early Supreme Court heard few cases and was perceived as a weak institution.
- Marbury v. Madison made the court a force to reckon with.
- The Marshall Court tended to affirm government policies.
The Taney Court vigorously protected states' rights.
- Ruled consistently in favor of slave owners
- Frequently at odds with other branches of government
- Republicans tried to weaken Court by altering its composition and jurisdiction
The Court clashed with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal economic policies.
- FDR tried unsuccessfully to pack court with sympathetic justices
- Court softened opposition to New Deal programs to maintain independence
The modern Supreme Court emphasizes cases involving civil liberties and civil rights.
SUPREME COURT DECISION MAKING
The Supreme Court has almost complete discretion in deciding which cases to review.
- Today, almost all cases arrive at Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari.
- The Chief justice prepares a list of the cases the Court should consider at its next meeting.
- The Court will hear a case if at least four of the justices vote to grant certiorari.
- The subject of the case often determines whether it gets a hearing.
- The Court is more likely to hear cases for which supporters submit amicus curiae briefs.
After hearing oral arguments, the justices meet to discuss and vote on the case.
After casting votes, the justices write opinions on the case.
- The majority opinion explains the reasoning behind the decision reached by the majority of the justices.
- A justice who agrees with the majority decision, but for a different reason, can write a concurring opinion.
- A dissenting opinion is one that disagrees with the Court's decision.
The Court cannot enforce its decisions; it must depend on other officials to do so.
External factors help shape Court decisions.
- Congress can propose constitutional amendments to overturn Court decisions.
- Congress can threaten to modify the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
- Presidents exercise control by filling vacancies on the Court.
- Presidents play a key role in implementing Supreme Court decisions.
- Public opinion can influence Court decisions.
Ideology affects the decisions of individual justices.
Justices have different interpretations of their proper role.
- Judicial activism argues that the Court should make public policy and vigorously review government policies.
- Judicial restraint argues that the Court should not make policy or challenge other branches unless absolutely necessary.
SUPREME COURT SELECTION
The president nominates replacements for deceased or retiring justices.
- Most nominees are personal friends of the president.
- All nominees undergo an FBI background check.
Typical qualifications for Supreme Court nominees are:
- Distinguished legal career and good personal reputation
- Sharing the views of president about policy
- Old enough to be prominent, but young enough to serve a long time on Court
- Diversity in gender, race, and ethnicity considerations in more recent nominees
The Senate must confirm Supreme Court nominees.
- Confirmation by majority vote
- Confirmation less likely if opposition party controls Senate, when Court is ideologically split, or late in a president's term
- Senate Judiciary Committee probes nominee's background and holds hearings on the nominee's fitness
LOWER COURT SELECTION
The president is typically less involved in the selection of lower court judges.
Senatorial courtesy: Senators from the home state of a nominee for a lower court that are of the same party of the president may exercise veto power over the nomination.
Political partisanship has become a greater factor in nominating lower court judges.
