American Legal Process Midterm Flashcards
Intersections between law and politics
Law is always at the mercy of the political climate of the age in which it’s written. It can be seen throughout history with the Constitution, the Federalist’s midnight judge appointments in 1800, when Adams made more Federalist judiciaries in his last days in office. In 1801, the Judiciary Act came about which built upon the initial description of the federal court system, to implement the elimination of the Supreme Court justices’ circuit duties. Judiciary Act of 1801 was created due to the arguments that the 1789 Act passed by Washington forced the Supreme Court to “ride circuit” and be forced to reiterate decisions made by the appellate courts in order to make final rulings simply because they are the highest court. This is an example of how even today, partisan politics and who’s in office affect the way courts rule on Supreme Court cases. In addition to this, FDR’s court-packing plan presents an example of how politics affect the precedent of law, as well as the Nixon decision in 1974. Nixon’s attorney filed an executive privilege claim to the justices that he could withhold sensitive info from other government branches for confidentiality, but a unanimous court ruled against the president, and he resigned two weeks later.
Judiciary Act of 1789
The Judiciary Act of 1789 signed by Washington established a separate federal court system from individual state courts. It was one of the first acts of legislation describing a plan for the structure of the federal and state systems. The Act decided that Congress could regulate the jurisdiction of all federal courts, the federal district and circuit courts had limited jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to alter the Constitution. In addition to this, the Act decided that the Supreme Court would handle appeals from the federal circuit courts and specific state court appeals. The Act established the 3-tier structure of the federal courts in the US.
Defending a “political” court?
In defending a political court, one must understand that the courts are just one part of the overall political system made up of three branches subject to separation of powers and checks and balances. As a result, the ability of judges to influence outcomes and policy depends significantly on the legal system and institutions at the time of the case and the time of eventual appeal. In addition to this, any decisions are made by the judge based only on the evidence that is placed before them or offered by attorneys. Any new evidence that is accepted is up to the judge’s discretion, which is more difficult in an appellate court as judges here would be more likely to stick to the evidence brought forth in the original hearing. Just as judges are at the mercy of the political system when making decisions, Terri Jennings Peretti in her book on a political court argues that when justices make decisions informed by their ideological values and anticipate the ripple effects of their decisions in the other branches, it is positive, especially because this can affect the opinions of the public as well as the court’s overall legitimacy. This is the pluralist theory in which a political court is instrumental in affecting American democracy because they have the power of judicial review and can change applications of the Constitution through precedent, which is the foundation of American democracy overall.
Supreme Court legitimacy
One part of determining the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is public approval but is both the confidence the American public has as a part of the separation of power and how their actions are indicative of the system. One can personally approve their decisions but question their legitimacy regarding ethics especially as Supreme Court justices are not placed under the same ethical guidelines are other federal and state court judges. This is also because after the Supreme Court decides, they have no way of enforcing their decision without help from the other branches. The more legitimacy the SC has, the more likely the other branches will uphold their rulings. Their power is solely in the appellate and original jurisdiction and discretionary processes of choosing to hear cases and make decisions that affect/amend the Constitution.
Public approval of the federal judiciary
A lot is correlated to partisan politics and the distribution of partisan support among citizens. For example, depending on what president nominated which judges and the general partisan leaning of those judges, even though judges are meant to be nonpartisan, Republicans and Democrats will lean different ways. In one of the graphs discussed in class from Gallup in 2024, Supreme Court approval especially among Democrats decreased significantly to 15% compared to a relative average score of about 53% in 2022. From Pew, in 2001, 62% total with Republicans at 74% and Democrats 54%, when in 2023 it was Republicans at 62% of the 40% and 17% Democrats.
One thing that could’ve affected this general decrease in Supreme Court approval overall, is the politicization of appointment which took place when Rehnquist died and O’Connor resigned from the court, meaning having 2 vacancies on the court created social interest in who the next appointments would be. This occurred during Bush’s administration and the fact that Rehnquist was chief increased interest as to who he would appoint to take over that position, who of course was John Roberts in 2005.
Public approval matters, especially among the other branches because if a court’s ruling isn’t supported by the public, they have no way of enforcing it beyond the enforcing power of the executive branch and legislative branch to apply the ruling to written law.
Article III of the Constitution
Article III of the Constitution comes after Article I which describes Congressional powers, and Article II which defines the executive. It’s relatively short and describes the Court power of the Supreme Court and courts below in the federal branch as well as jurisdiction and lifetime appointments for good behavior, but it is fairly vague.
Original jurisdiction – the right to hear a trial when the case enters the trial process
Appellate Jurisdiction – In Marbury v. Madison, Article III Section II, the Supreme Court claimed not to have appellate jurisdiction, which is what Marbury applied for, and Marshall ruled that they had original in which the plaintiff is a state/diplomat against another state or federal entity.
Conflict over the Judiciary at the Constitutional Convention
The conflict over the judiciary describes the debate between delegates at the Convention regarding how to balance federal and state judicial power and is a repeated term to those below, and generally includes the terms, definitions, and relationships between Federalist 78, judicial review, and Article III of the Constitution.
Federalist 78
Federalist 78 by Hamilton describes the supposed ‘defense’ of judicial review arguing for an independent judiciary and that, “if any law passed by Congress conflicts with the Constitution, “the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” This means that the Supreme Court can and should be allowed to change statutes of the Constitution.
Judicial Review
Judicial review does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, but Hamilton refers to it in Federalist 78 in 1788, overall, the term refers to the authority of the court to determine the constitutional validity of the other elected branches’ actions. Meaning, the Supreme Court is allowed to try and judge Congress and the Executive branch for violating the Constitution, which is what they did in Nixon’s 1974 indictment trial before his resignation. The question of judicial review was debated during the convention, and members rejected the idea of giving the Supreme Court authority over Congress, even though they still defended the Constitution as the supreme law. This supremacy clause is found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution and also allows the federal government to enforce treaties and enact legislation without interference from the states.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Marbury v. Madison settled the question described and presented in the past few years before 1803 regarding judicial review and the description of the Supreme Court in the 1789 Judiciary Act. This act enlarged the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court defined in Article III which supposedly ran counter to the Court’s interpretation of Article III. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion for the Court and held that the US law regarding Madison’s withholding the appointments made by Adams in the last days of his presidency was a formality, even though without the form formally appointing him, which was supposed to be delivered by Madison, Jeffersons’ secretary of state, but was withheld. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus which would’ve compelled Madison to follow through with his job. In his ruling and opinion, Marshall established the power of the court in its position as the ultimate enforcer of the Constitution, while chastising Jefferson for its failure to obey the law and avoid having the administration challenge the court’s authority. Marshall held that the validity of a commission existed once a president signed it and transmitted it to the secretary of state to affix the seal. The case also describes how intersections between law and politics, as the cases of Brown v. Board and Roe v. Wade wouldn’t have occurred
Judicial Activism
Generally, activism describes the court’s appropriate role to invalidate the actions of the elected branches of government when they violate or have conflict with the Constitution. Related to the proper role via a normative question, of the courts in the separation of powers among elected judges making decisions that affect the other branches. This branches from concern about our American system of democracy, in which a judicially active judge is more likely to strike down acts of the other elected branches of government, while a judge who is restrained will more likely not decide on other branches and grant them more independence. That being said, no judge is entirely restrained or active, and the level of activity or restraint for a judge depends on what court and system the act is coming from, whether it be state or federal. Some judges are more likely to strike down state legislation, which is where federalism comes into play because some judges find it important to give the state more centralized power.
Judicial Restraint
Restraint generally refers to the fact that unless an elected branch action very clearly/explicitly violated the Constitution, the courts should let their actions stand. This places the term activism in conversation with the debate of how the Supreme Court is properly ‘democratic’ as there are constraints on the Supreme Court by the other branches of government. It matters a great deal how much the individual judge interprets aspects of the constitution relegated to state power
Federal Court Structure
The basic structure of the federal court system is similar to the state in terms of jurisdiction in that the lower courts have a less narrow/specialized jurisdiction than the court of last resort or Supreme Court. In the federal system, the lowest court is the federal district court of specific jurisdiction, the circuit courts of appeals, and then the Supreme Court of final appeals. While states can appeal for an outcome of the lower courts to be appealed to the federal courts, state laws that limit speech, religion, and other laws included in the Bill of Rights can be reviewed by the Supreme Court but have to be evaluated under strict scrutiny. In addition to their difference in jurisdiction, the number of cases that come through the federal court system is much fewer than states, as the average state files 60 million cases a year, while the federal court has an average of 350,000 cases both criminal and civil cases filed yearly.
Jurisdiction state and federal
Jurisdiction refers to the types of cases a court may hear. State courts have general jurisdiction, meaning they have authority over all kinds of cases. Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and only hear matters involving federal questions and constitutional matters. Whereas the state courts are at the mercy of state constitutions and federal law and have broad jurisdiction over matters of both criminal and civil law, federal courts as established under the US Constitution have a narrower jurisdiction related to actions that violate federal laws and acts of other branches of government that are unconstitutional.
Jurisdiction on the pyramid provided by Zelden, describes the levels of jurisdiction regarding trial courts, with the lowest courts having limited or specific jurisdiction, the second having general jurisdiction, the third having intermediate appellate jurisdiction, and the top having last resort or supreme jurisdiction. The lower courts, especially in states, hear more than 50% of the cases made every year, whether it be criminal matters, juvenile, or traffic violations.
Federal jurisdiction exists for a claim if there is any claim over which a federal court has an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction. Federal jurisdiction may exist for a claim if there is either diversity of citizenship or a federal question
Federal question jurisdiction (most common) is one of the two ways for a federal court to gain subject matter jurisdiction over a case (the other way is through diversity jurisdiction). Generally, for federal question jurisdiction to exist, the cause of action must arise under federal law.
Types of jurisdictions include federal question, general, specific/limited (traffic courts), and personal; federal also has removal jurisdiction which is similar to change of venue, but just for state to federal courts.
After a certain point, the cases the Supreme Court takes/hears are up to their complete discretion, unless it is in specific cases that include the other branches.
As a result, the Court of Appeals is frequently the court of last resort
Mandatory Appellate Jurisdiction
Discretionary Appellate Jurisdiction
State Court Structure
The state court structure and the mix of judicial functions/responsibilities expected of specific courts varies by state, for example, the court system in New York has a top court as the Court of Appeals rather than a typical state supreme court at the top, and the New York Supreme Court is a mix of both trial and appellate court above those of the county. Some states like Florida even have different names for trial courts, like circuit, and district for the intermediate appellate courts. Usually, the state Supreme Court tenure for judges is 12 years, whereas at the federal level, it’s for life. The trend for state courts in structure has been consolidation and making the most use out of the resources each court or region of courts can. In major trial courts, about 44 million cases are filed across 30 states, but in minor trial courts, there are many more function divisions, preliminary felony charges, and small stakes involved in the cases. At the minor level is where more horizontal jurisdiction activity like change of venue and forum shopping take place.
