Unit 6 - Judicial Branch

Question 1

Reasons a court case might go to a federal court

Answer 1

1

Question 2

What are the requirements to reach federal court?

Answer 2

Case or controversy, actual injury
Standing, must have a substantial state
mootness

Question 3

State vs Federal Jurisdiction?

Answer 3

State - Control over issues of state law

Federal -

Question 4

Original vs Appellate Jurisdiction?

Answer 4

Original - Where a case originates, the court of origin and the states law that is in question.
Appellate - Power to hear legal disputes arising from courts or original jurisdiction

Question 5

What is SCOTUS?

Answer 5

Supreme Court Of The United States

Question 6

What is an Appeal?

Answer 6

the dispute of a legal decision of a lower court

First appeal court, State appellate court

Question 7

Federal Court Sequence

Answer 7

U.S District Courts
(Including special purpose courts)

United States Courts of appeals (Circuit Courts)

SCOTUS

Question 8

State Court Sequence

Answer 8

State Trial Courts (District Courts)

State Appellate Court

State Court of last result (Usually Supreme court)

SCOTUS

Question 9

Trial Courts/ District Courts

Answer 9

MN - 289 judges (Elected)
Every county has a Court
94 District courts in the US, MN has 1 ( Based on Pop)
Original jurisdiction

Question 10

Appellate Courts

Answer 10

MN court of appeals, 3 judge panels, 19 appellate judges

• Primarily consider legal arguments - Facts are established, looking for legal errors/issues. Usually no new information, just taking what we know and interpreting it to make a decision.
• Generally applying prior Precedent

Question 11

Supreme Court

Answer 11

MN supreme court

• 7 Justices
• Usually start as an governor’s appointment
• 3 justices to hear case
• Must hear all 1st degree murders
• Attorneys submit briefs outlining legal arguments
• Oral arguments, 35 min for appellant, 25 for respondent
• Justices deliberate in privat, one justice wrights court opinion, usually within 3-5 months.
• Opinions outline legal decision and set precedent.

U.S supreme court

• 9 justices
• Only the most important cases, around 1%
• Attorneys submit briefs

Question 12

Judicial Activism (Liberal)
Judges that believe in a Living Constitution

Answer 12

• Make bolder policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground with a particular decision.
• Emphasize that the courts may alleviate pressing needs- especially the needs of these who are politically or economically weak - left unmet by the majoritarian political process.

The constitution shifts and the meanings change as the world changes, it is important to interpret the meaning through a new lens when needed.

Question 13

Judicial Restraint (Conservative)

Answer 13

• Judges adhere closely to precedent and play minimal policy making roles, leaving policy decisions to the legislators.
• Advocates believe that federal courts composed of unelected judges, should be referees and should not “legislate from the bench”

Whatever is on the constitution is what it is and does not need to be interpreted, it means what it says.
Change it if you do not like it.

Question 14

John Roberts (Conservative)

Answer 14

Took office: 9/29/05
Nominated: George w. Bush 
Born in: New york
School: Harvard
Religion: Roman catholic
Age: 66 y/o

Question 15

Clarence thomas (Most Conservative)

Answer 15

Took office: 10/19/91 (started when 43)
Nominated: George H.W Bush 
Born in: Georgia
School: Holy Cross/Yale
Religion: Roman catholic
Age: 73 y/o

Question 16

Stephen Breyer (Liberal)

Answer 16

Took office: 8/3/94
Nominated: Bill Clinton
Born in: California
School: Stanford/ Oxford/ Harvard
Religion: Jewish
Age: 83 y/o

Question 17

Sonia Sotomayor (Liberal)

Answer 17

Took office: 8/6/09
Nominated: Barack Obama 
Born in: New York
School: Princeton/ Yale
Religion: Roman catholic 
Age: 67 y/o

Question 18

Elana Kagan (Liberal)

Answer 18

Took office: 8/7/10
Nominated: Barack Obama 
Born in: New York 
School: Princeton 
Religion: 
Age:

Question 19

Neal Gorsuch

Answer 19

Took office: 4/10/2017
Nominated: 
Born in: Colorado 
School: Columbia/ Harvard/ Oxford
Religion: Roman catholic 
Age: 54 y/o

Question 20

Neal Gorsuch (Conservative)

Answer 20

Took office: 4/10/2017
Nominated: Donald Trump 
Born in: Colorado 
School: Columbia/ Harvard/ Oxford
Religion: Roman catholic 
Age: 54 y/o

Question 21

Brett Kavanaugh (Conservative)

Answer 21

Took office: 10/6/2018
Nominated: Donald Trump 
Born in: 
School: Yale 
Religion: 
Age:

Question 22

Amy Coney Barrett (Conservative)

Answer 22

Took office: 10/27/2020
Nominated: Donald Trump 
Born in: Louisiana
School: Rhodes/ Notre Dame
Religion: Roman Catholic 
Age: 49 y/o

Question 23

Qualifications?

Answer 23

No qualifications to be on the supreme court

Question 24

Trends of Justices (MQ sharts)

Answer 24

• Lots of law school
• Generally Ivy league School
• Age - Generally over 50
• Experience and jobs in politics

Question 25

Ideal Justice

Answer 25

Age
Young = Young, stays in court longer. Long term justice with their Liberal/Conservative views
Old = more experience

Gender
Depends on issues, perfect world no ideals

Ethnicity
Better for diversity, some situations understood better

Legal Experience
Lots of school and experiences

Life experience
Better for understanding different situations of people

Question 26

Steps to become a justice

Answer 26

• Nominated by president
• Approved by senate
• Appointed by president

Question 27

President appoints…?

Answer 27

all court justices

Question 28

How long do Senators get to question supreme court nominees?

Answer 28

Senators on the judiciary committee are given 30 minutes to question supreme court nominees and 24 minutes for a follow up question.

Question 29

precedent

Answer 29

“A court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues.”

Question 30

How Do Court Cases Affect Law?

Answer 30

Though the judicial branch doesn’t directly make laws, the courts interpret laws through the cases brought before them. The American legal system is a Common Law system, which means that judges base their decisions on previous court rulings in similar cases.Therefore, previous decisions by a higher court are binding, and become part of the law.

Question 31

What is a Landmark Case?

Answer 31

A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance. The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.

Question 32

Landmark Case:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Answer 32

This case explores the legal concepts of federalism, judicial review, and separation of powers/checks and balances.

At the end of President John Adams’ term, his secretary of state failed to deliver documents commissioning William Marbury as justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. Once President Thomas Jefferson was sworn in, he told James Madison, his secretary of state, not to deliver the documents to Marbury and others in order to keep members of the opposing political party from taking office. Marbury sued James Madison asking the Supreme Court to issue a writ requiring him to deliver the documents necessary to officially make Marbury justice of the peace. The Supreme Court chose not to answer Marbury’s question, but rather whether they had the jurisdiction to issue the writ. The Marbury v. Madison decision resulted in the establishment of the concept of judicial review.

Question 33

Landmark Case:

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Answer 33

This case explores the legal concept of due process.

In 1834, Dred Scott, an enslaved person, was purchased in Missouri and then brought to Illinois, a free (non-slave) state. He later moved with his enslaver to present-day Minnesota, where slavery had been recently prohibited, and then back to Missouri. When his enslaver died, Scott sued the widow to whom he was left, claiming he was no longer an enslaved person because he had become free after living in a free state. At a time when the country was in deep conflict over slavery, the Supreme Court decided that Dred Scott was not a “citizen of the state” so it had no jurisdiction in the matter, but the majority opinion also stated that Dred Scott was not a free man.

Question 34

Landmark Case:

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Answer 34

This case explores the legal concept of equal protection.

In 1890, Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act declaring that all rail companies carrying passengers in Louisiana must provide separate but equal accommodations for White and non-White passengers. The penalty for sitting in the wrong car was a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail. A group of Black citizens joined forces with the East Louisiana Railroad Company to fight the Act. In 1892, Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth Black, purchased a first-class ticket and sat in the White-designated railroad car. Plessy was arrested for violating the Separate Car Act and argued in court that the act violated the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. After losing twice in the lower courts, Plessy took his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld the previous decisions that racial segregation is constitutional under the “separate but equal” doctrine.

Question 35

Landmark Case:

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Answer 35

This case explores the legal concept of equal protection.

After Pearl Harbor was bombed in December 1941, the military feared a Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland. The U.S. government was worried that Americans of Japanese descent might aid the enemy. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed an executive order forcing many people of Japanese descent living on the West Coast to leave their homes and businesses and live in internment camps for the duration of the war. Fred Korematsu, an American citizen of Japanese descent, was arrested and convicted of violating the executive order. Korematsu did not believe his arrest was fair. He challenged his conviction in the courts saying that Congress, the president, and the military authorities did not have the power to issue the relocation orders, and that he was being discriminated against based on his race. The government argued that the evacuation was necessary to protect national security. The federal Appeals Court agreed with the government. Korematsu appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed with government and stated that the need to protect the country was a greater priority than the individual rights of the people of Japanese descent forced into internment camps.

Question 36

Landmark Case:

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Answer 36

This case explores the legal concept of equal protection.

In Topeka, Kansas, in the 1950s, schools were segregated by race. Each day, Linda Brown and her sister had to walk through a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop for the ride to their all-Black elementary school. There was a school closer to the Brown’s house, but it was only for White students. Linda Brown and her family believed that the segregated school system violated the 14th Amendment and took their case to court. The federal District Court decided that segregation in public education was harmful to Black children, but the segregation was legal because all-Black schools and all-White schools had similar buildings, transportation, curricula, and teachers. The Browns appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that even if the facilities were similar, segregated schools could never be equal. The Court decided that state laws requiring separate but equal schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Question 37

Landmark Case:

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Answer 37

This case explores the legal concept of freedom of speech.

John and Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt of Des Moines, Iowa, wore black armbands to their public school as a symbol of protest against American involvement in the Vietnam War. School authorities asked the students to remove their armbands, and they were subsequently suspended. The Supreme Court decided that the students had the right to wear the armbands because they did not disrupt the educational mission of the school. Justice Abe Fortas stated that no one expects students to “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Question 38

Landmark Case:

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Answer 38

This case explores the legal concept of right to privacy.

Jane Roe was a pregnant Texas resident in 1970. Texas law made it a felony to abort a fetus unless “on medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother.” Roe filed suit against Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County. She argued that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the guarantee of personal liberty and the right to privacy implicitly guaranteed in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and 14th Amendments. In deciding for Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated all state laws that prohibited first trimester abortions.

Question 39

Landmark Case:

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Answer 39

This case explores the legal concepts of executive privilege, federalism, and separation of powers/checks and balances.

A congressional hearing about President Nixon’s Watergate break-in scandal revealed that he had installed a tape-recording device in the Oval Office. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted access to these taped discussions to help prove that President Nixon and his aides had abused their power and broken the law. President Nixon claimed executive privilege and refused to hand over the tapes. President Nixon’s incomplete compliance with the special prosecutor’s demands was challenged and eventually taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court decided that executive privilege is not limitless, and the tapes were released.

Question 40

Landmark Case:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Answer 40

This case explores the legal concept of search and seizure.

A New Jersey high school student was accused of violating school rules by smoking in the restroom, leading an assistant principal to search her purse for cigarettes. The vice principal discovered marijuana and other items that implicated the student in dealing marijuana which was illegal. The student tried to have the evidence from her purse suppressed because the search was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She contended that the mere possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did not justify the search. The Supreme Court decided that the search did not violate the Constitution and established more lenient standards for reasonableness in school searches.

Question 41

Landmark Case:

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Answer 41

This case explores the legal concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of press.

Hazelwood East High School Principal Robert Reynolds reviewed Spectrum, the school’s student-written newspaper, before publication. In May 1983, he decided to have certain pages pulled because of the sensitive content in two of the articles and acted quickly to remove them in order to meet the paper’s publication deadline. The journalism students felt that this censorship was a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court decided that Principal Reynolds had the right to such editorial decisions, as he had “legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

Question 42

Landmark Case:

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Answer 42

This case explores the legal concepts of equal protection and federalism.

Federalism divides power between state government and the national government. Marriage is an area that has historically been left to the states resulting in a variety of state marriage laws developed over the 19th and 20th centuries. While the Supreme Court generally did not hear cases arising from disputes regarding marriage law, they did strike down laws that prohibited interracial marriage as unconstitutional in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia). Starting in the 1970s, a handful of states defined marriage as between one man and one woman. In the late 20th century, LGBTQ rights advocates began to challenge these laws and push for marriage equality.