Supreme Court - American

Question 1

Texas vs Johnson

Answer 1

It was a decision made by the SC (5-4) that invalidated the prohibitions of desecrating the American flag which was enforced in 48 out of 50 states. It was claimed that a fine and imprisonment violated the right to free speech under the First Amendment

Question 2

Texas vs Lawrence (2003)

Answer 2

It struck down the sodomy law in Texas with a 6-3 majority but by extension it also invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states which made same sex sexual activity legal in every US State and territory.

The court ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was a liberty protected by substantive due process under the 14th amendment

Question 3

Bush vs Gore (2000)

Answer 3

This case resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 Presidential election. It claimed that any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the deadline of December 12th were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Florida SC reversed and remanded.

Question 4

Grutter vs Bollinger (2003)

Answer 4

It was a 5-4 majority and the SC upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School.

They ruled in favour due to the admissions process favouring underrepresented minority groups but it also took into account many other factors which were evaluated on an individual basis - that was not claimed to be unconstitutional

Question 5

United States vs Windsor (2013)

Answer 5

It was a 5-4 majority and it ruled that Section 3 of the Defence of Marriage Act - which federally defined marriage as a union between one man and one women - is unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause’s guarantee of equal protection.

It stated that the federal government must recognise same sex marriages that have been approved by the states.

Question 6

Gonzales vs Oregon (2006)

Answer 6

It was a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court.

It said that the US Attorney General cannot enforce the federal controlled substances act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients , seeking to end their lives.

It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Case under the first Chief Justice

Question 7

Miranda vs Arizona (1966)

Answer 7

It was a 5-4 majority.

FIFTH AMENDMENT : ‘Pleading the Fifth’ that allows witnesses to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them.

The Fifth Amendment right against self - incrimination requires a law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his or her rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney.

Arizona Court reversed and remanded

Question 8

Boumediene vs Bush (2008)

Answer 8

Foreign terrorism suspects held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have constitutional rights to challenge their detention in US Courts.

Question 9

Clinton vs City of New York - line item veto (1998)

Answer 9

It was a 6-3 majority.

The Court ruled that the line item veto of the line item veto act 1996 violated the presentment clause of the US Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the US the power to unilaterally amend or repeal parts of statutes that had been dually passed by the US Congress.

Question 10

Reno vs American Civil Liberties Union (1997)

Answer 10

It was a 7-2 majority.

The court ruled that anti - indecency provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act (CDA) violated first amendments guarantee of freedom of speech.

Question 11

Santa Fe Independent School District vs Doe (2000)

Answer 11

It was a 6-3 majority.

It ruled that a policy permitting student led, student initiated prayer at high school football games violates the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Question 12

DC vs Heller (2008)

Answer 12

It was a 5-4 majority .

The second amendment protects an individuals right to possess a fire arm unconnected with service in the military for traditionally lawful services such as self Defense within the home and that Washington DC’s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shot guns be kept unloaded or disassembled or bound by a trigger lock - violated this guarantee.

Question 13

Shelby County vs Holder (2013)

Answer 13

It was a 5-4 majority.

Section 5 : requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices

Section 4(b) : contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories

The section 4(b) formula was based on data from over 40 years ago and was unconstitutional

The court did not strike down section 5, but without section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula

Question 14

Burwell vs Hobby Lobby

Answer 14

Hobby Lobby won the case which said that the company did not have to offer its employees the contraceptive pill as part of its policy as it went against their religion.

Question 15

Obergefell vs Hodges (2015)

Answer 15

It was a 5-4 majority

Thanks to the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it now requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognise a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out a state.

Question 16

Judicial Review

Answer 16

The court can declare actions as unconstitutional if they are judged to be incompatible with a higher authority, usually a codified constitution

Question 17

Justices on the Court

Answer 17

SWING JUSTICE : Anthony Kennedy who was appointed by Ronald Reagan. In the US vs Windsor (2013), Kennedy voted in favour of same-sex marriage , hence opposing DOMA.

Clarence Thomas was appointed by George H. W Bush and is the most conservative member . For the US vs Windsor (2013), voted for DOMA

Neil Gorsuch was appointed by Donald Trump and is a conservative member of the court (not voted on an important matter yet)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was appointed by Bill Clinton and was a left-wing liberal. In Burwell vs Hobby Lobby she voted for it (companies did not have to offer contraceptive pill)

Stephen Breyer was appointed by Bill Clinton and was a left-wing liberal.

Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by George W Bush and is ‘centre of the right’. In Shelby County vs Holder he voted to get rid of the act

Samuel Alito was appointed by George W. Bush and is relatively conservative. In Harris vs Quinn he voted that the first amendment prohibits the collection of agency fee from Rehabilitation Programme PA’s who did not want to join or support the union

Sonia Sotomayor was appointed by Barack Obama is more liberal/left - leaning . In Schuette vs BAMN she voted in favour of affirmative action and against conservative independents

Elena Kagan was appointed by Barack Obama and is liberal/left - leaning. She voted to KEEP the act in Shelby County vs Holder

Question 18

Factors that President will consider when choosing Supreme Court nominees

Answer 18

Ideological leaning : someone who corresponds as closely as possible to his own judicial outlook. In the recent past it has been more obviously ideological by Republican Presidents than those put forward by Democratic President

Judicial Credentials : often they will have served as a judge and if they have not , they will have to have a certain level of judicial credibility

Composition of the Senate : consider the reaction of the senate - especially controlled by an opposing party e.g. BORK

Representation of different groups : Supreme Court more diverse and more representative of the people - Obama and Kagan and Sotomayor

Age : keen to appoint someone who will serve for a long time on the court and thus preserved the legacy of the President

Question 19

Judicial Independence

Answer 19

Impartial from external pressures and other factors

Question 20

How is judicial independence protected ?

Answer 20

The separation of powers means that the judicial function is vested solely in the court , and it is consequently free from political interference in its decision making process

Justices are appointed rather than elected - the do not feel as though they have to represent and act in behalf of the people that elected them ; furthermore there is no accountability of their actions

The salaries of the justices cannot be reduced during their period of office , therefore they won’t be forced into making decisions due to the threat of losing money , they can be independent

Justices also have a lifetime tenure and can only be removed by impeachment

The two stage appointment process of nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate reduces the possibility of overtly political appointments

Impeachment is the responsibility of both houses, making politically motivated impeachment less likely to succeed

Question 21

Arguments in favour of originalism/strict constructionism

Answer 21

The amendment process is available if societies values change. It shouldn’t be left to the judges to interpret what the ‘will’ of the people might be or represent changes in what society deems acceptable

The constitution is law : every other law is dead and doesn’t change its meaning over time ; if anything, as a statement of fundamental principles , there is more reason to keep the constitution unchanged

It makes the courts judgements more predictable and stable. This will mean that the public has greater understanding of their rights and freedoms and institutions will have a better understanding of the framework they must operate in

Justices will not be able to find rights within the constitution furthermore if they found ideas and ruled laws on this interpretation basis, they would appear as imperialistic because it was ‘found and interpreted’ rather than stated

Question 22

Arguments against originalism/ strict constructionism

Answer 22

Society’s values do change and no one would want the framers view of e.g. ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ to be applied today

Originalism as currently practiced is not consistent e.g. no originalist Justice is critical of the decision in Brown vs Board of Education , when there is every indication that the framers of the 14th amendment regarded it as consistent with segregated schools

The constitution was written in broad terms as the framers themselves envisaged the need for it to evolve. Originalism does not allow for this process to take place as justices must narrowly stick to the original meaning of the text

The framers misjudged the Amendment process to the constitution ; the requirement of 2/3’s majorities in Congress, and approval by 3/4 of the state legislatures is too demanding , so that it becomes the responsibility of the court to bring it up (why be in a prison of the past)

Question 23

Arguments in favour of judicial activism/ loose constructionism

Answer 23

The courts own decisions are not immune from error and must be reversed if necessary, therefore justices must be active to ensure that incorrect decisions are overturned and not be too deferential to precedent

The principles of the constitution are clear, and it is the role of the court to protect them from delusion or erosion by other branches of government. This means that justices should be active in confronting other branches when they violate the constitution

Legislators are often risk- averse, and slow to act for fear of offending one group or another ; consequently , important social change can only be achieved by the court taking the lead and striking down archaic legislation

The constitution is a living document that must be interpreted to reflect the values of the society in which we live. The founders wrote in broad and vague terms so future generations could adapt and change the meaning of the text (2nd Amendment)

Question 24

Arguments against judicial activism/ loose constructionism

Answer 24

If the court reversed its own decisions, especially within a relatively short space of time, again there is a danger that its authority is undermined

As the court lacks the legitimacy of the elected branches , it should strike down legislation only if it is in flagrant breach of the constitution. It should not seek to find rights or provisions in the constitution that merely serve to further their own political preference

Judges are not expert in social policy and if they attempt to substitute their judgement for legislators , it is unlikely to produce successful policy. Legal experts should leave the work of public policy to those with greater knowledge

If justices are seen to use judicial review to advance their own policy preferences , they risk eroding the standing and authority of court

The constitution is vague in many places and its provisions subject to interpretation ; consequently , no one can claim a definitive knowledge of its meaning, and as an unelected body , the court should defer to the judgement of the other branches

Question 25

Judicial Activism

Answer 25

An approach to judicial decision making which holds that a judge should use his or her position to promote desirable social ends

Question 26

Judicial restraint

Answer 26

Holds that a judge should defer to the legislative and executive branches which are politically accountable to the voters and should put great stress on the precedent established in previous court decisions w

Question 27

The Supreme Court is very powerful

Answer 27

Judges are not representative of the population widely and therefore when they exercise power it can be seen to be illegitimate and over reaching their role

Judicial review means that the constitution means what the court says it means almost no area of public policy is immune to constitutional challenge

The increased willingness of justices to strike down state and federal legislation means that they have become arbiters over a wide range of policy, most famously desegregation and abortion

Many conservatives would argue that some of the rights which the court has established in recent years have only tenuous basis in the constitution

Once appointed justices have security of tenure and may vote on the court in ways at odds with the impression they created during their confirmation hearings

Question 28

The Supreme Court is not powerful

Answer 28

It’s lack of enforcement power

The reluctance of the court to become involved in some areas such as foreign policy

It has no power of initiation and must wait for cases to be brought to it - isn’t a strong point as there are thousands of cases introduced and SC can take these up

The courts decisions may be reversed by constitutional amendment -1913 (16th Amendment + income tax)

Many liberals would argue that the court must intervene to strike down legislation sometimes if basic rights are to be maintained

Congress has the power to impeach justices and vary the size of the court - the threat of the latter was sufficient to prompt the court to change course in 1937. THE NUMBER OF JUSTICES IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION. However the number of justices is difficult to change , the threat is normally enough e.g. Abe Forgus

The need for justices to give at least some regard to public opinion and the political context of the legitimacy of the court is to be maintained - perhaps this influence Roberts in the Sebelius decision

Question 29

Supreme Court is a political institution

Answer 29

Clear ideological blocks can be seen and this reflects the political views of the justices and Presidents who have nominated them

Judicial interpretation can’t be value free and this means through activism, there will be an element of bias within the judgements

The court is used for political ends e.g. interest groups bring test cases and lobby the court through the amicus curiae brief

Judgements are not arrived at in a judicial vacuum because judges are aware of public opinion and the likely impact of their decision on the general public - gives their decision a political impact as they can declare actions as unconstitutional

Scarcely any political question arises in the US that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question - they are the most authoritative interpreter of the Constitution

The court itself possess substantial autonomy as they are appointed for life and therefore can only be removed by impeachment - so Presidents have no strong control over whom is on the court

They are crucial to preserving the limited government as they are an anti- majoritarian force and they protect liberal values against the majority abuse

Some Supreme Court rulings exert powerful and profound effects such as brown vs board of education and Bush vs gore

Requires advice and consent of the US Senate and whilst the Presidents will try to appoint someone of similar ideological meaning - this may not be successful such as Robert Bork in 1987 by Ronald Reagan

Question 30

Supreme Court is not a political institution

Answer 30

Judges are constrained by precedent from previous cases especially those regarding abortion (roe vs Wade) and gun rights (DC vs Heller)

Very few of the cases are actually overly political and this is because most decisions (even controversial ones) are ruled in a unanimous manner e.g. Snyder vs Phelps 8-1

Justices claim to be ‘neutral umpires’ and that it is possible to apply the constitution to the cases they consider in a ‘restrained’ and ‘non political way’

The court (Roberts) is not political because its actions are unpredictable furthermore the conservative and liberal blocs do not vote together on every matter and in landmark cases on gay marriage and Obamacare, the court has passed liberal decisions

Judges will regularly rule against their own preference e.g. Sibelius and this highlights their lack of political prejudice - Roberts did not agree with Obamacare but retained it because it was constitutional and the court should not look ‘too powerful’