Key Legal Concepts

Question 1

Original jurisdiction

Answer 1

Cases that can be heard directly by the Supreme Court without going through lower courts (e.g., disputes between states).

Question 2

Appellate jurisdiction

Answer 2

*The Court hears appeals from lower courts (e.g., cases involving constitutional issues or federal law).
*Appellate courts determine if the law was applied correctly in the trial court. They do not investigate the facts of a case.
*The losing party at trial appeals to the appellate court to challenge the outcome.

Question 3

Federalism

Answer 3

• The division of power between the federal government and state governments, and how courts resolve conflicts between state and federal laws.
• still allowing each level to maintain its own authority

Question 4

Fundamental Rights

Answer 4

Rights that are basic and essential to freedom, often found in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment (e.g., freedom of speech, right to privacy, right to marry).

Question 5

Good Behaviour

Answer 5

Refers to the term of office for federal judges. Federal judges hold office “during good behavior,” meaning they serve for life unless impeached.

Question 6

Horizontal Separation of Powers

Answer 6

The separation of powers among the three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial, ensuring a system of checks and balances.

Question 7

Judicial activism

Answer 7

Judges interpret the Constitution broadly, sometimes creating new rights or striking down laws they view as unconstitutional.

Question 8

Judicial restraint

Answer 8

Judges limit their role, deferring to the elected branches of government and only striking down laws when absolutely necessary.

Question 9

Judicial Review

Answer 9

The power of courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to review the constitutionality of laws and government actions.

Question 10

Justiciability

Answer 10

Refers to the ability of a case to be adjudicated by the court

Question 11

Principles of justiability

Answer 11

1.) Ripeness
2.) Mootness
3.) Standing

Question 12

Ripeness

Answer 12

• A case is ready for decision; there is an actual controversy.
• The actual or imminent harm must occur for the court to adjudicate
• prevents courts from hearing immature disputes
  Case Example:
  Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner 1967

Question 13

Moot

Answer 13

• A case is no longer relevant because the issue has been resolved
• If the legal issues no longer have practical significance or the underlying controversy has been resolved, the case is moot
  Case Example:
  Arizonans for Official English v Arizona, 1996

Question 14

Standing

Answer 14

• The party bringing the case must have suffered harm and have a personal stake in the case.
• Courts cannot entertain cases where the litigant has no direct interest in the case or is merely seeking to challenge a law in the abstract.
  Case Example:
  United States v. Richardson, 1974

Question 15

Penumbra

Answer 15

Implied rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution but derived from its “penumbras” (e.g., the right to privacyfrom the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments).

Question 16

Sitting

Answer 16

When the Supreme Court is actively hearing cases.

Question 17

Recess

Answer 17

A period when the Court is not actively hearing cases but may still be working on decisions.

Question 18

Substance of law

Answer 18

The content of laws, focusing on what rights and duties the law grants or denies.

Question 19

Procedure of law

Answer 19

The methods or processes by which legal rights are enforced.

Question 20

Textualism/Originalism

Answer 20

Interpreting the Constitution based strictly on its text and the original intent of its framers.

Question 21

Extra textualism/Living Constitutio

Answer 21

Interpreting the Constitution as a living document that evolves over time to meet contemporary needs.

Question 22

The Rational Basis Test

Answer 22

• A standard of review used by courts to evaluate whether laws that affect non-fundamental rights are constitutional. The law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
• Does the government/state have a legitimate and rational interest In passing and enacting a given law?


Question 23

The Special Master

Answer 23

A court-appointed individual who assists in resolving specific aspects of a case, such as gathering facts or making recommendations.

Question 24

The Legislative Branch

Answer 24

• Made up of the Senate and the House of Representatives, which together form Congress.
• Makes Laws
• Declares War

Question 25

The Executive branch

Answer 25

• Responsible for enforcing the law
• Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress

Question 26

the judicial branch

Answer 26

*The judicial branch is the third branch of the U.S. government, and is responsible for interpreting and applying the law
* The judicial branch includes the Supreme Court and other federal courts, such as circuit courts, magistrate courts, and municipal courts.

Question 27

Methods for detecting judicial activism/judicial restraint

Answer 27

1. Precedent (Stare Decisis)
2. Existing Law or Statute
3. Interpreting the Constitution

Question 28

Precedent (Stare Decisis) for detecting judicial restraint

Answer 28

The Court adheres to precedent and does not overturn previous decisions unless absolutely necessary.
Case Example:
Morse v. Frederick (2007) applied the precedent from Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) (restraint).

Question 29

Precedent (Stare Decisis) for detecting judicial activism

Answer 29

The Court is willing to disregard or overturn precedent if they believe the prior decision was wrong or no longer applies.
Case Example:
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) was disregarded in Morse v. Frederick (2007), showing judicial activism.

Question 30

Existing Law or Statute for detecting judicial restraint

Answer 30

The Court respects the laws or statutes passed by the legislature and upholds them, even if they may be controversial.
Case Example:
Wickard v. Filburn (1942) upheld the federal law regulating wheat production (restraint).

Question 31

Existing Law or Statute for detecting judicial activism

Answer 31

The Court is willing to invalidate laws or statutes if they believe they conflict with constitutional principles.
Case Example:
Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law (activism).

Question 32

Interpreting the Constitution for detecting judical restraint

Answer 32

Judges interpret the Constitution strictly according to the text, maintaining its original meaning. Textualism/Originalism
Case Example:
National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (2012) interpreted the Commerce Clause narrowly and upheld the Affordable Care Act (restraint).

Question 33

Interpreting the Constitution for detecting judicial activism

Answer 33

Judges interpret the Constitution more broadly, considering its “living” nature and evolving standards. (extra textualism)
Case Example:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) interpreted the Constitution more expansively, finding a right to privacy despite no explicit mention of it (activism).

Question 34

Order Of Courts

Answer 34

Trial Courts -> Appellate Courts -> The Supreme Court