Chapter 14: The Courts Flashcards
Article III of the Constitution
concerns the judicial branch of government. created one Supreme Court and gave the courts independence by providing federal judges with lifetime terms (assuming “good behavior”)
Judicial review
the Supreme Court’s power to strike down a law or an executive branch action that it finds unconstitutional
Why is judicial review important for the Supreme Court?
it puts the Court on an equal institutional footing with Congress and the president
What did the Federalists and Antifederalists disagree about regarding the judiciary?
judicial review and how powerful the Court should be
Original jurisdiction
refers to the court which first hears a case, as in the Supreme Court’s authority to initially hear disputes between two states. however, original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court is not exclusive; the Court may assign such a case to a lower court
Judiciary Act of 1789
the law in which Congress laid out the organization of the federal judiciary. clarified federal court jurisdiction, set the original number of justices at six (one chief justice and five associates), created the office of the attorney general, and established the lower federal courts
Where does the power of judicial review come from?
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Constitutional interpretation
the process of determining whether a piece of legislation or governmental action is supported by the Constitution. main focus of judicial review
Statutory interpretation
methods/tests used by the courts for determining the meaning of a law and applying it to specific situations. Congress may overturn the courts’ interpretation by writing a new law
Why can judicial review be controversial?
critics are concerned about its antidemocratic nature. why, for example, do we give nine unelected justices such extraordinary power over our elected representatives?
Administrative law
Court assesses how federal agencies have interpreted and implemented laws passed by Congress. often involves the controversial practice of consulting legislative histories (floor debates, congressional hearings, etc) to determine how the legislature intended the laws to be interpreted
Why is the practice of consulting legislative histories controversial?
some people (including late justice Antonin Scalia) argue that it is inherently subjective and that justices should interpret only the actual text of the laws in question
Plaintiff
the person or party who brings a case to court
Defendant
the person or party who is being sued or charged with a crime
What does it mean when a case is appealed?
an appeal is a request to a higher court to review a decision made by a lower court. the petitioner is the person bringing the appeal and the respondent is on the other side of the case
Civil case
a non-criminal lawsuit that involves a dispute between individuals or organizations where the plaintiff sues to determine who is right or wrong and to gain compensation, such as monetary damages
Criminal case
the plaintiff is the government and the prosecutor attempts to prove the guilt of the defendant (the person accused of the crime)
Plaintiff vs prosecutor
-plaintiff initiates a civil lawsuit
-prosecutor represents the government in criminal cases
Many, but not all, civil and criminal cases are heard before a jury that decides the outcome in the case, which is called…
the verdict
Plea bargaining
negotiating an agreement between a plaintiff and defendant to settle a case before it goes to trial or the verdict is decided
What does plea bargaining mean in civil cases? What about in criminal cases?
-civil case: admission of guilt and agreement on monetary settlement
-criminal case: admission of guilt in return for a reduced charge or sentence
Differences between civil and criminal cases
- standard of proof that determines outcome of the case
-civil cases: jury determines whether the “preponderance (majority) of evidence” proves that plaintiff wins
-criminal cases defendant must be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” - where the burden of proof lies
-criminal cases: “innocent until proven guilty,” so prosecution must prove guilt of defendant. it’s not the defendant’s responsibility to prove their innocence
-civil cases: burden of proof typically on plaintiff, but may be on either plaintiff or defendant, depending on the law that governs the case. plaintiff may also have to prove certain points and the defendant other points (defendant may need to show that plaintiff’s claims are false)
Burden of proof
requires parties to provide evidence to demonstrate that a claim is valid
Class-action lawsuit
type of civil suit where a group of people (the class), all claiming to have suffered similar harm, are represented collectively by one or more members of that group (the lead plaintiffs). often against corporations
Elements of the judicial system that apply to all cases
- adversarial system: both parties can present their case to compete for the court’s agreement. process of discovery
- common law: legal decisions based on the precedent of previous rulings
- the person bringing the case must have standing to sue in a civil case (legitimate justification for bringing the case to court)
- Jurisdiction of the court (which court actually has the power to hear your case)
Discovery
process in which both sides share the information that will be presented in court before the trial begins
Precedent
a legal norm established in court cases that is then applied to future cases dealing with the same legal questions
Stare decisis
“let the decision stand”; essentially the principle of adhering to precedent
How does the Supreme Court behave toward precedent?
it tries to follow its own precedents but more recently, justices have been willing to deviate from earlier decisions when they think the precedent is flawed
The Court has developed four factors that it uses to decide if a case should be overturned. What are they?
- the quality of the past decision’s reasoning
- its consistency with related decisions
- legal developments since the past decision
- reliance on the decision throughout the legal system and society
HOWEVER, the Court sometimes overturns a precedent simply because its ideological composition has changed
True or false: precedent is not a rule the Court must follow but a norm that constrains its behavior
True
Venue shopping
the practice of seeking the best court for your case
Courts are organized into two main tracks, which are…
- state and local courts
- federal courts
within each level of government, both tracks include courts of original jurisdiction, appeals courts, and courts of special jurisdiction
State courts
-entirely separate from federal courts, with exception of the small amount of cases that are appealed from a state supreme court to the U.S. Supreme Court
-structured differently in each state but follow same general guidelines
District courts
the 94 lower-level trial courts of the federal judicial system that handle most federal cases (civil and criminal). have original jurisdiction
“workhorses of the federal system”; each state has at least one U.S. District Court
What are the two special jurisdiction district courts (can only hear certain types of cases)?
Court of International Trade (for cases involving international trade and customs issues)
U.S. Court of Federal Claims (for claims against the United States)
Appeals courts (formerly called circuit courts)
intermediate courts of appeal with appellate jurisdiction
in practice are the final court for most federal cases that are appealed from the district courts (since Supreme Court is a busy gyal)
Appellate jurisdiction
the authority of a court to hear appeals from lower courts and change or uphold the decision
Senior judges
semi-retired judges who hear certain cases to help out with the overall federal court system workload
Supreme Court
“court of last resort” for cases coming from both state and federal courts
What is the difference between lower/intermediate and higher court rulings?
a district court or appeals court ruling is applicable only within the specific region of that court, whereas Supreme Court rulings apply to the entire country
The Supreme Court is the most important interpreter of Constitution, but the president and Congress also interpret the Constitution regularly, so the Supreme Court does not always have the final say. In what cases does Congress have the final word?
statutory interpretation: if the Court strikes down a federal law for being overly vague, Congress can rewrite the law to clarify the offending passage
constitutional interpretation: Congress can fight back by passing a constitutional amendment (but is time-consuming and difficult)
How are judges selected in state courts?
a “dizzying assortment of methods”; varies across/within states
How are judges selected in federal courts?
no required qualifications for serving on federal courts in Constitution
president appoints federal judges with “advice and consent” of the Senate, so Senate must approve nominees with a majority vote
What is the biggest difference between state and federal courts in the judge selection process?
39 states elect at least some of their judges, whereas all federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate
Role of the president in judge selection
presidents have broad discretion over whom to nominate (given Constitution’s silence on qualifications)
have always tried to pick people who share their views, but it’s not always possible to predict judges’ behavior once they are on the bench
Role of the Senate in judge selection
Senate almost always rejects nominees for political reasons, not because of their qualifications
Senatorial courtesy
a norm in the nomination of district court judges in which the president consults with their party’s senators from the relevant state in choosing the nominee
Blue slip process
home-state senators record their support or opposition to nominees on blue slips of paper
How does the blue slip process relate to senatorial courtesy?
it allows senators to influence judicial appointments in their state, and guarantees that even senators of the opposition party receive at least a consultative role regarding appointments of federal district and appeals court judges
Nuclear option
change to the filibuster rules enacted in 2013 that prevents the filibustering of nominees for positions in the executive branch and the federal courts (but not Supreme Court)
What did Republicans do after the detonation of the nuclear option to approve Trump’s nominations?
Senate Republicans eliminated the filibuster on Supreme Court nominations. also limited Senate floor debate on nominations from 30 hours to 2 hours
Summary decisions
cases that do not receive a full hearing but on which the Court issues a decision anyway
Four paths that a case may take to get to the Supreme Court
- Article III of the Constitution
-says the Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving a foreign ambassador or foreign countries or cases in which a state is a party
-usually shares jurisdiction with lower courts on these issues in practice. Court only invoked original jurisdiction in cases involving disputes between two or more states
-VERY RARE
Other three routes are all on appeal:
2. as a matter of right (called “on appeal”)
3. through certification (SUPER RARE)
4. through a writ of certiorari (MOST COMMON)
Writ of certiorari (Latin for “to be informed”)
most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court, in which at least 4 of the 9 justices agree to hear a case that has reached them via an appeal from the losing party in a lower court’s ruling
True or false: although several criteria generally must be met before the Court will hear a case, justices still have leeway in defining the boundaries of these conditions
True
How does the Court decide which cases to hear?
constitutional guidelines, which are sparse
- can only hear actual “cases and controversies,” not hypotheticals
collusion, standing, and mootness
-included in “actual controversy”
Collusion
Litigants (people involved in a case) cannot want the same outcome and cannot be testing the law without an actual dispute between the two parties
Standing
the party bringing the case must have a personal stake in the outcome. Court has discretion in defining this (can make exceptions to the rule)
True or false: the Court often avoids hearing a controversial case based on a “threshold” issue like standing and then does not have to decide on the merits of the case
True
Mootness
occurs when a case is irrelevant by the time it is brought before a federal court, causing the Supreme Court to decline to hear the case. judges can also make exceptions to the rule
Thousands of cases every year meet the basic criteria to be heard by the Court, but one simple guideline eliminates the largest amount of them. What is it?
if a case does not involve a “substantial federal question,” it will not be heard
essentially means the Court doesn’t have to hear a case if the justices don’t think its important enough. and if a case is governed by state law rather than federal law, the Court will decline to hear it unless there are constitutional implications
Political question doctrine
another basis for which the Court may decline to hear a case. are cases that the Court thinks are better handled by the elected branches of government
Rule 10 in the Supreme Court rules
narrows down cases to final list. of the criteria listed in Rule 10, conflict between appeals court decisions is most likely to produce a Supreme Court hearing
Cert pool
a system initiated in the Supreme Court in the 1970s in which law clerks screen cases that come to the Supreme Court and recommend to the justices which cases should be heard
What is the only firm rule of the Court for deciding which cases to hear?
4 justices have to agree to hear a case to put it on the docket
What happens when a case is submitted?
the clerk of the Court assigns it a number and places it on the docket, which is the schedule of cases
Chief justice
the presiding judge of the Court; decides the “discuss list” for a given day
True or false: the decision to not discuss certain cases is often justified because of the high proportion of frivolous suits submitted to the Court
True
Solicitor general
a presidential appointee who works in the Justice Department and supervises the litigation of the executive branch. heavily influences which cases the Court hears. can represent government in court when the federal government is a party
How many days per term does the Court actually spend hearing cases?
a surprisingly small 37 days
True or false: the Supreme Court hears only appeals (except in cases of original jurisdiction)
True
The Court does not call witnesses or gather new evidence. What does it do instead?
in structured briefs of no more than 50 pages, the parties present their arguments about why they either support the lower-court decision or believe the case was improperly decided
Amicus curiae
Latin for “friend of the court,” referring to an interest group or person who shares relevant information about a case to influence the Court’s decision
very common, sometimes filed by fed gov
Impact of amicus briefs on outcome of a case
-those filed early increase chances of case being heard
-interest group involvement signals importance
-briefs from solicitor general impact outcome
Oral arguments
spoken presentations made in person by lawyers of each party to a judge or appellate court outlining the legal reasons their side should prevail. happens after briefs are filed/reviewed
Conference
after oral arguments, justices meet in conference to discuss then vote on cases. orderly, structured, sometimes heated
Who assigns opinion writing after the justices indicate how they will likely vote on a case?
if chief justice is in the majority (which is most of the time), they decide who will write majority opinion. otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion
What factors are used to determine who writes the opinion?
-equalizing workload across 9 justices
-justices’ individual areas of expertise
-Court’s external relations (how ppl will react to decision since it relies on other gov branches to enforce it)
-Court’s internal relations (strategically voting to be in majority)
-personal policy goals of opinion assigner (chief justice assigns to themselves or close ideological allies)
Majority opinion
core decision of the Court that must be agreed upon by at least 5 justices. presents legal reasoning for Court’s decision
Concurring opinion
written by a justice(s) who agrees with the outcome of the case but not with part of the legal reasoning
Plurality opinion
occurs when a majority cannot agree on the legal reasoning in a case
Dissent
submitted by a justice(s) who disagrees with the outcome of a case
allow minority view to be expressed and often lays groundwork for future shift in Court opinions
Per curiam (Latin for “by the court” opinion”)
an unsigned opinion of the Court or a decision written by the entire Court. usually short and on noncontroversial issues
Shadow docket
alternative path to the Supreme Court that involves emergency appeals of lower-court decisions. the cases do NOT involve a full briefing and oral arguments and often are unsigned opinions
raises questions about independence and political nature of Court
Judicial decision-making is influenced by many different factors, but the two main categories are…
- legal
-precedents of earlier cases
-norm that justices must follow the language of the Constitution - political
-justices’ preferences/ideologies
-justices’ view of Court’s proper role in respect to elected branches
-external factors (public opinion, interest involvement)
True or false: precedent does not determine the outcome of any given case, because every case has a range of precedents that can serve to justify a justice’s decision
True
Strict construction (textualist perspective)
a way of interpreting the Constitution based on its language alone; literalist view
Critiques of strict construction
-Constitution is silent on many important issues and could not have anticipated recent changes in technology
-some important words in Constitution are open-ended and vague
Original intent (originalist perspective)
justices should consider the Founders’ intentions when the Constitution’s language is unclear
Critiques of original intent
-subjective
-“arrogance cloaked in humility” to presume to know what the framers intended
Living Constitution perspective
way of interpreting the Constitution that takes into account evolving national attitudes and circumstances rather than the text alone
Attitudinalist approach
way of understanding decisions of the Supreme Court based on the political ideologies of the justices
FACT: this is present on some level whether we like it or not
Strategic model
judges take into account preferences and likely actions of other relevant actors (colleagues, president, Congress). is fairly common (since judges can and do switch their votes)
Which justice has an especially influential role in the strategic model? Why?
the median voter on the Court (the one in the middle when the justices are arrayed from the most liberal to the most conservative)
because other justices want to attract their vote
Judicial restraint
idea that judges should defer to the elected branches rather than contradicting existing laws
Judicial activism
idea that Court should assert its interpretation of the law even if it overrules the actions of elected branches
Why are amicus briefs the only avenue of influence open to interest groups?
lobbying and fundraising have no effect since justices are not elected
Direct and indirect influences of public opinion on Court decisions
Indirect:
-the public elects president and Senate, who nominate/confirm justices, so the Court sooner or later reflects the public’s views
Direct:
-when the public has a clear position on an issue (“public mood”), the Court tends to agree with them
True or false: sometimes the Court may shift its views to reflect international opinion
True!
ex. banning death penalty for 16 & 17 year olds
To gain compliance with its decisions, the Court can rely only on what?
its reputation and the actions of Congress and the president to back it up
if the other branches don’t support the Court, there isn’t much it can do
In most cases that involve a broad policy, the Court depends on who for enforcement?
the president. president foot-dragging can have a big impact on how the law is enforced
The Court’s lack of enforcement power is especially evident when a ruling applies broadly to millions of people who care deeply about the issue. Give an example
hundreds of public schools still practice school prayer despite being ruled unconstitutional nearly 60 years ago. is difficult to enforce ban unless someone complains and files a lawsuit
When does the Court decide to use activism or restraint?
varies when considered in light of specific lines of cases (may favor activist decisions for things they like and oppose activist decisions for those they don’t)
Are liberal justices more activist than conservative judges?
NO. the Court is quite conservative, but is also activist
Are there instances in which restraint reflects more than ideology and preferences?
YES; sometimes judges take restrained positions despite their personal views against the policy
How can we define activism and restraint in terms of the Court’s role in our nation’s system of separated powers?
Does the Court check the elected branches by overturning their decisions through judicial review? If so, the Court has taken an activist position
True or false: president fighting back against the Court (such as openly criticizing a Court decision) is often seen as inappropriate
True
How can the president attempt to limit the Court’s power?
- open conflict with the Court
- failing to enforce a decision vigorously
How can Congress attempt to control the Court?
rarely used except for threats:
1. blocking appointments it disagrees with (but is often a disagreement with the president more than the Court)
2. limiting the jurisdiction of the federal courts
3. changing the size of the Court
most common:
4. passing legislation that overturns the decision (if the case concerns the interpretation of a law)
Self-imposed restraint
Court often refuses to act on “political questions”—issues that are outside the judicial domain and should be decided by elected officials (like internal congressional disputes)
BUT Court reserves the right to decide what a political question is, so it’s technically not much of a limit on judicial power at all
True or false: in general, the Court avoids stepping on the toes of the other branches unless absolutely necessary
True
