Chapter 1 Flashcards
Define Plaintiff.
The party that brought the original law suit in the lower courts. The person who is allegedly wronged and has brought suit to seek redress.
Define Defendant.
The party that was sued in the original law suit in the lower courts. The person against whom redress is sought for the alleged wrong.
Define Appellant.
The party that disagrees with the decision of the lower court and is seeking reversal of or changes to the lower court’s decision.
Define Appellee.
The party against whom the appeal is filed. Usually the appellee agrees with the decision of the lower court and will argue that it should be upheld.
Define Amicus Curiae.
Literally “friend” of the court. Not a party to the underlying law suit but someone with an interest in the outcome of the suit who files a brief to help the court understand the broader ramifications of the case beyond the litigants.
Define Majority Opinion.
The official opinion of the court. The opinion that garnered five or more votes from the justices. This is the opinion that carries precedential value moving forward and binds the lower courts.
Define Minority Opinion.
Usually in the form of a dissent. This is the opinion of a minority of the court explaining why they think the majority is wrong and how they would have ruled in the case. No precedential value and does not bind the lower courts, but can be instructive.
How to read cases (Part 1):
Procedural History: How did we get here and what happened in the lower courts.
Parties: Who are the Appellant and Appellee? Amicus briefs filed?
Facts: What are the important facts of the underlying case?
Issues: What is being appealed? What are the legal issues on appeal?
Rulings: How does the court rule on each of the legal issues on appeal? What legal standards does the court create or use to make its decisions that will control in future cases?
How to read cases (part two):
Reasoning: What does the court say in support of its rulings? What does the court find important and what does it dismiss as unimportant? Use of precedent, tests, or standards? Establishing new precedent, or over-ruling old precedent? New standards? New tests? Clarifications of old tests or standards?
Holding: Who wins the case? The court’s final decision. Instructions the court sends to the lower courts for further action, etc.
Dissent: What does the dissent say? Same analysis as above but for the dissent. Why does the dissent disagree? How would the dissent have ruled and why?
Concurrence: How is the concurring opinion different from the majority opinion and is it helpful in understanding the majority opinion, does it try to limit or expand the majority opinion, or does it signal a different direction in the future, and why?
Define Stare Decisis.
“Let the decision stand”. Suggests that, as a general rule, judges should decide cases on the basis of previously established rulings – also referred to as precedent. Lower courts follow the rule of stare decisis routinely or they risk being overturned on appeal. BUT, the Supreme Court is not formally bound by Stare Decisis and can question and limit the precedent.
List the Federal Courts:
1) Highest Appellate Courts (The Supreme Court).
2) Intermediate Appellate Courts (U.S. Courts of Appeals, etc…).
3) Trial Courts of General Jurisdiction (U.S. District Courts).
4) Trial Courts of Limited Jurisdiction (Court of Federal Claims, Court of International Trade, etc…).
How The Supreme Court processes cases:
1) Court receives requests for review.
2) Cases are docketed.
3) Justices review docketed cases.
4) Thursday or Friday conferences.
5) Announcement of action on cases.
6) Clerk sets date for oral argument.
7) Attorneys file briefs.
8) Oral arguments.
9) Thursday or Friday conferences.
10) Assignment of majority opinion.
11) Drafting and circulating of opinions.
12) Issuing and announcing of opinions.
13) Reporting of opinions.
What is appropriate for a judge to consider when deciding a case?
Things Judges may Consider: Facts, law, race, gender, sexual orientation, political agenda, social engineering, personal bias, Bible, theology, religious preferences, morality, ethics, equity, fairness, economics, personal wealth, type of business, business and economic interest, nationality, etc.
Fear: That federal judges, who have lifetime appointments and are unelected, will make decisions based on personal bias, political agendas, personal opinions, religion, economics, etc., that do not reflect the views of the people and have little to no support in the law.
Objective: To ensure that judges are unbiased, do not make decisions based on personal opinion or political agendas, but base their decisions on the facts before them and the law as applied with an objective and fair mind based on precedent and stare decisis.
Four Judicial Philosophies:
1) Original Intent: looks at letters, papers, writings, notes, minutes, etc., of the founders to determine their intent.
2) Original Meaning: looks at the words of the Constitution itself and at dictionaries and other relevant writings of the time, including other state constitutions and federal and state statutes to determine the meaning of the words at the time – to glean intent.
3) Textualism: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” means what it says. No law, period, no exceptions. Intent doesn’t matter and what the words meant at the time doesn’t matter. English means what English means.
4) Living Document: applying modern approaches to Constitutional interpretation makes the Constitution a “living” document, applicable to all times.
Judicial Temperament or Methodology:
Activist Judges: Believes that the proper role of the Court is to assert independent positions when deciding cases, to review the actions of the other two branches vigorously, to be willing to strike down acts, statues, regulations, and decisions, and to impose far reaching remedies for legal problems whenever necessary.
Judicial Restraint: Believe that the Court should not become involved in the operations of the other branches unless absolutely necessary, that the benefit of the doubt should be given to actions taken by elected officials, and that the Court should impose remedies that are narrowly tailored to correct specific legal wrongs.
