The Federal Court System Flashcards
characteristics of court system
- adversarial
- passive
- jurisdiction
- complex dual court system
adversarial
- court provides an arena for two parties to bring their conflicts before an impartial arbiter, or judge
- plaintiff: brings a charge
- defendant: one being charged
passive
- judges are restrained by Constitution to deciding actual disputes or cases rather than hypothetical ones
- judiciary branch = passive that depends on others taking initiative
jurisdiction
court’s authority to hear a case
original jurisdiction
courts in which a case is first heard
appellate jurisdiction
courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from a lower court
exclusive jurisdiction
cases that can be heard only in certain courts
concurrent jurisdiction
cases that can be heard in either a federal or a state court
complex dual system
- two separate court system (state and federal)
- state = criminal; judiciary = whole country
SC in the Constitution
only court mentioned; Congress has power to create all others federal courts
Judiciary Act of 1789
- established basic three-tiered structure of federal courts that still exists
- set size at 6 justices but then increased to nine
district court
- state has at least one (94 total)
- most end in plea bargain negotiated by the defense and prosecution
court of appeals
court of appeals
- appellate courts authorized to review all district court decisions
- empowered to rule on decisions of federal regulatory agencies such as Federal Trade Commission
- do not hold trials or hear testimony
Supreme Court
- “court of last resort”
- reviews cases from US courts of appeals and state supreme courts
- final arbiter of Constitution
- establish precedents binding on entire nation
Marbury v. Madison
- established power of judicial review
- power of SC to declare federal legislation invalid if the legislation violated the Constitution
nomination criteria
- competence - impressive credentials (prior experience)
- ideology and policy preferences - share preferences with president (ex- FDR and New Deal)
- race, ethnicity, and gender (2 African Americans, 3 females, and 1 Hispanic)
confirmation process
k
confirmation process
1) names of possible nominees are sent to the FBI for thorough background check
2) names sent to American Bar Association for a professional rating
3) interest groups: protests, appearances in media, ads, editorials, and emails to senators
4) Senate Judiciary Committee holds public hearings on each SC nominee
5) recommendation to entire Senate
When does the SC exercise original jurisdiction?
- two or more states
- US and state govt
- US and foreign ambassadors/diplomats
writs of certiorari
- an order by the Court directing a lower court to send up the record in a given case for its review (how they get the rest of their cases through appellate jurisdiction)
- enables SC to control caseload but must involve constitutional issue or interpretation of federal statute, action, or treaty
Rule of Four
- clerks screen 9,000 petitions that come to SC
- justices conduct weekly conference meetings where they discuss petitions prepared by their clerks
- for a case to be heard on appeal, at least four our of nine justices must agree to hear case
solicitor general
- fourth-ranking member of Department of Justice
- responsible for handling all appeals on behalf of the US govt to the SC
- important role in which cases they hear
filing briefs
- each party required to do this
- detailed written statement, arguing one side of a case
- cite relevant facts, legal principles, and precedents that support their arguments
role of amicus curiae briefs
- interest groups use these to lobby court
- controversial topics draw many
oral arguments
- open to the public
- attorneys have 30 min to present case
discussion and voting
- discuss each case in closed meeting held on Friday
- presided over by Chief Justice
formal opinions
present the issues, establish precedents, and set guidelines for lower courts
majority opinion
-“the opinion of the Court”; the law of the land
concurring opinion
supports the majority opinion but stresses different constitutional or legal reasons for reaching the judgement
minority or dissenting opinion
k
minority or dissenting opinion
expresses a point of view that disagrees with the majority opinion; no legal standing
stare decisis
- Latin phrase meaning “let the decision stand”
- vast majority of SC decisions based on precedents made in earlier cases
- other decisions more uniform, predictable, and efficient
examples of precedents
- Marbury v. Madison: established judicial review and then in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, Court extended power to overrule state courts
- Baker v. Carr: established one person, one vote and then in Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court applied principle to congressional districts
exceptions of precedents
- Plessy v. Ferguson: permitted segregation if the facilities were “separate but equal”
- revoked this in Brown v. Board of Education: “segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws”
judicial restraint
- advocates of judicial restraint argue that SC should use precedent and the Framers’ original intent to decide cases
- SC should defer to the elected institutions of govt
judicial activism
- federal courts must correct injustices when other branches of govt or states refuse to do so
- point back to Brown v. Board of Education
How does the Constitution insulate justices from direct political pressure?
- Justices appointed to serve life terms subject only to good behavior
- salaries of justices cannot be reduced
- certiorari process enables SC to set own agenda
- public limited access to Court proceedings
How is the SC still aware of public opinion?
- appointment and confirmation processes keep SC from deviating from public opinion
- Congress and state legislatures can amend Constitution
- Congress can change the SC’s appellate jurisdiction
- Congress has the power to change the number of justices on the Court
- Justices can be impeached
