The Judiciary Article III Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution.

The Judiciary

Article III Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are

applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution

The Judicial Branch

The Constitution created the Supreme Court. It gives power of establishing other courts to Congress. In 1789, the first Congress used this power to establish

the district and appeals courts – called the lower courts.

Three separate court levels District CourtsCourt of AppealsThe Supreme Court

Structure of the Federal Courts

District Courts: the entry point for most litigation in federal courts, trial courts.

Courts of Appeal: review all final decisions of district courts, with the authority to review and enforce orders of regulatory agencies.

Supreme Court: sets its own agenda.

Con’t.

JurisdictionThe power given to courts to interpret the law

is called jurisdictionOriginal jurisdiction: where the case is heard first,

usually in a trial.Appellate jurisdiction: cases brought on appeal from

a lower court.

Limited to federal and constitutional laws.

Con’t

The federal courts hear cases where a person or groupdisobeyed the constitution,violated a treaty, committed a crime on federal property, or broke a federal law.

Levels of the Federal System

U.S. District Courts Original jurisdiction Lowest level Judges Juries

U.S. Courts of Appeal Appellate jurisdictionJudges Points of law Court of last resort

U.S. Supreme CourtHighest level Original and

appellate jurisdiction Nine Justices

Chief justice Associate justices

Federal Cases

Federal question cases: involving the U.S. Constitutionfederal lawor treaties.

Diversity cases: involving different statesor citizens of different states.

Controversies between two state governments can only be heard by the Supreme Court.

Levels of the Federal System

U.S. District Courts

U.S. Courts of Appeal

U.S. Supreme Court

Standing to Sue

There must be a real controversy between adversaries.

Personal harm must be demonstrated.Being a taxpayer does not ordinarily constitute

entitlement to challenge federal government action;

Writs of Certiorari

Requires agreement of four justices to hear the case

Involving significant federal or constitutional question

Involving conflicting decisions by circuit courts

Involving Constitutional interpretation by one of the highest state courts

State Court System

FEDERAL

Original

Appellate

Both

STATE

District Courts

Court of Appeals

Supreme Court

Judicial Review

Definition: the right of the federal courts to rule on the constitutionality of laws and executive actions.

It is the chief judicial weapon in the checks and balances system.

ControversyFederalist Paper #78

The least feared branch = the least dangerousIt cannot enforce its decisionsOnly the courts can ensure the limits of the constitution

Marbury v. Madison

Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Supreme Court could declare a

congressional act unconstitutional

Supreme Court Decision in Marbury V. Madison

Marbury is entitled to the commission, but: The Court cannot issue

the writ because the Judiciary Act of 1789, is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court of the United States has the power to review acts of other branches and determine their constitutionality. This power is called

judicial review.

Article III, Section 2 lays out the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court "In all Cases affecting

Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction."

The Congress passes a law that says all citizens who were not born in this country must return to their country of birth within one month.

The president signs the law and says he will have the armed forces help to enforce compliance.

1. Do the people have any recourse?2. In other words, can anything be

done about this? 3. If so, what?

Understanding the Judiciary

Kinds of Court Opinions

Per curiam: brief and unsignedOpinion of the court: majority opinionConcurring opinion: agrees with the ruling

of the majority opinion, but modifies the supportive reasoning

Dissenting opinion: minority opinion

Constitutional Interpretation

Strict construction/restraint: judges are bound by the wording of the Constitution; judges are interpreters, not policy-makers.

Judicial activism: judges should look to the underlying principles of the Constitution, and this can result in new policy.

Today: most activists tend to be liberal, most strict constructionists tend to be conservative.

Arguments for Judicial Activism

Courts should correct injustices when other branches or state governments refuse to do so.

Courts are the last resort for those without the power or influence to gain new laws.

Arguments Against Judicial Activism

Judges lack expertise in designing and managing complex institutions.

Initiatives require balancing policy priorities and allocating public revenues.

Courts are not accountable because judges are not elected.

Checks on Judicial Power

Judges have no enforcement mechanismsConfirmation and impeachment

proceedingsChanging the number of judgesRevising legislationAmending the ConstitutionAltering jurisdiction

Public Opinion and the Courts

Defying public opinion frontally may be dangerous to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Appointment process and life terms insulate justices from public opinion.

Impeachment and lack of enforcement powers mean justices are not completely isolated from public opinion.