US: Supreme Court Flashcards
What role does the Supreme court serve?
Originally the weakest branch of the government, judicial review (awarded to them by Marbury and Madison 1803) now makes them possibly the strongest
What was Marbury and Madison about and what year?
Marbury and Madison 1803 was the first instance of the Supreme Court declaring legislation unconstitutional and set the precedent of judicial review
Kansas v. Marsh
Kansas v. Marsh 2006, where the court ruled that a Kansas death penalty was consistent with state’s rights (+ judicial restraint + state’s rights)
Baze v. Rees
Baze v. Rees 2008, which ruled the long-used lethal injection of Kentucky prison systems was not defined as a cruel and unusual punishment ( + state’s rights and judicial restraint)
Glossip v. Gross
Glossip v. Gross 2015, another example where the Roberts court upheld the use of lethal injection
What death penalty cases have the Roberts Supreme Court restrained themselves in?
- Kansas v. Marsh 2006
- Baze v. Rees 2008
- Glossip v. Gross 2015
(all use of death penalty found to not violate 8th amendment)
Masterpiece cake shop v Colorado civil rights division
Masterpiece cask shop v Colorado Civil Rights Division 2018, court ruled that the Christian cake company was within its right to refuse the order for a gay wedding cake
Burwell v Hobby Lobby
Burwell v Hobby Lobby 2014, the Christian company was within its rights to refuse to provide contraceptive insurance to its employees (Religious freedom restoration act 1993)
US v Windsor
US v Windsor 2013, granted same-sex couples the same financial rights as straight couples (right to skip inheritance tax from deceased partner)
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges 2015, granted the right to same-sex marriage based on Due process and Equal Protection clause
In which cases did the Roberts Supreme Court deal with LGBTQ+ rights? (restraint OR activism)
RESTRAINT:
1. Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Division 2018
ACTIVISM:
- US. v. Windsor 2013
- Obergefell v. Hodges 2015
Rumsfeld v Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights 2006, federal gov. was granted right to withhold federal funding to universities who did not allow military recruiters on campus
Supreme Court buzzwords
- Politicians in robes
- Judicial Activism
- Ruling from the bench
Arguments that the Supreme Court does not have too much power
- Nominated by president and approved by Congress, ensuring independence and checks by the branches (e.g. Merrick Garland)
- 13 colonies all had codified constitution before convention, therefore SC was necessary (so it isn’t explicitly granted these powers by the constitution, but it was necessary to fulfil its purpose)
- All cases must go through district courts first
- Not protected by constitution (e.g. Brown and Board decision non-binding until 1964 Civil Rights Act)
Hamilton said, “constitutional protection of liberty can only be acquired through the courts”
Arguments the Supreme Court has too much power
- No constitutional right to interpret and enforce the constitution (self-awarded)
- Only supreme court justice to ever be impeached was 1805, both Kavanaugh and Thomas on the Roberts court have allegations against them
- No limit on the areas the judges can rule over and often an extension of the president who appointed them’s power (Gorsuch, Coney-Barett and Kavanaugh all have pro-life sympathies for example)
-> indirectly elected, like HoL
Strengths of the appointment process
- Keeps judiciary independent as not all the power given to one branch
- Several opportunities to be withdrawn from the process
- Senate Judiciary Committee undertakes detailed scrutiny of the candidates
- Senate confirmation provides an important check on the power of the president – they must choose a candidate who will command sufficient support from senators
- Attempts by presidents to pick justices who share their political philosophy are not always successful e.g., Bush appointed Souter in 1990 but he was unexpectedly liberal
Weaknesses of the appointment process
- Presidents usually try to choose nominees who appear to support their own political philosophy
- SJC appears to be politicised – questioning from opposition party is often aggressive and doesn’t analyse judicial expertise
- Questioning from presidents party is generally much softer – carries out little scrutiny
- Voting by senate usually takes place on party lines – political
- Senates refusal to consider Merrick Garland in 2016 was a violation of president’s right to appoint a justice
- 2017 republicans removed the requirement for nominees to pass a 50-vote threshold – now need simple majority
- Politicisation of the process is increased by Interest Groups (+amicus brief, e.g. Obama in Fischer)
Thomas Jefferson quotes about the constitution
- “We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilised society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”
- “that the Constitution has been a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary
NFIB v Sebellius
NFIB v Sebellius 2012 was in response to the PPACA 2010. The forced expansion of Medicaid was deemed unconstitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause- however, the tax and spending clause meant where it was implemented Medicaid remained constitutional
Bostock v Clayton County
Bostock v Clayton county 2020, judges ruled that the Civil Rights Act 1964 protected the right not to be discriminated on on the basis of sexual orientation (discrimination of sex as if the person was opposite gender there would be no problem)
Lily Ledbetter v Goodyear
Lily Ledbetter v Goodyear 2007, rules that a female employee discriminated against loses her right to sue after 180 days of the employer’s pay decision.
Foster v Chatman
Foster v Chatman 2016, found that state officials had systematically discriminated against African Americans being placed in the jury and therefore the outcome of the ruling was non-binding (not a fair trial)
Roe v Wade
Roe v Wade 1973, court rules that the 14th amendment (right to not have liberty infringed) extends to a woman’s biological liberty on abortion
Gonzales v Carhart
Gonzales v Carhart 2007, upheld the partial birth abortion ban which was a ban on late-stage abortion chipping away at the roe v wade ruling
Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt 2016, the court rules that Texas’s harsh conditions for abortion clinics to be built were heavily restricting access to them and were therefore unconstitutional
D.C. v Heller
DC v Heller 2008, the courts ruled DC’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional, violating the 2nd amendment
Fisher v Texas
Fisher v Texas 2016, Abigail Fischer claims she was discriminated against by University of Texas on the basis of her race (due to affirmative action favouring students of colour). The court did not agree and Obama even gave an amicus brief against Fisher
Citizens United v FEC
Citizens United c FEC 2010, ruled that companies had the same 1st amendment rights as citizens and could therefore donate the same amount
McCuteon v FEC
McCuteon v FEC 2014, the court strikes down the 1970s limits on the amount corporations can donate to candidates and political committees
Hawaii v Trump
Hawaii v Trump 2017, court rules to uphold Trump’s EO banning travel to America from majority muslim countries
US v Castleman
US v Castleman 2014, upheld legislation banning anyone with a history of domestic violence from possessing a firearm
Griswold v Connecticut
Griswold v Connecticut 1965, court ruled that state restrictions on contraception infringed on the right to privacy within marriages
Which amendments were used to determine the right to marital privacy in the 1965 case Griswold v Connecticut?
First, Third, Fourth and Ninth amendments
Brown v Board of Education
Brown v Board of Education 1954, courts ruled that racial segregation in schools violates the 14th amendment
What is the 14th amendment?
The right to liberty, due process and equal protection
Arguments the Supreme court is too political
- It has ruled on cases which are inherently politics e.g., Roe v Wade and Bush v Gore – ruling of some, especially Roe v Wade, is dependent on own political beliefs
- Backgrounds and biases coming into force
- Can be argued to be ‘politicians in robes’ who ‘legislate from the bench’ in examples such as Obergefell v Hodges
- Appointment of SC judges seen as a political move now (Biden being told to pledge to appoint a black woman judge at a conference)
Arguments the Supreme Court is not political
- They can only hear cases that have submitted to them
- Judges only consider cases where their decision will make a real difference
- Judges make a distinction between their personal beliefs and what the law requires
- The judicial branch decides what laws mean but it’s the job of the executive branch to enforce them
- Checks and balances, on 2 occasions SC ruling have been overturned by amendments (11th and 16th amendment)
What is judicial activism and what are some examples
- A belief that judges should promote desirable social ends
- Activist court is one seen as leading the way in reforming American Society e.g., Warren Court of the 50s and 60s was said to be activist in the area of civil rights
- Activism also sees the court as the equal of the other branches
- Activism is sometimes used pejoratively about any decision to which someone is apposed
- Sometimes referred to as judges ‘legislating from the benches’ or acting as ‘politicians in robes’
What is judicial restraint and what are some examples
- A belief that judges should defer to the other two branches, and to precedent from other cases
- Occurs when a court is more inclined to accept the views of elected officials
- Abide by previous court decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis
- Precedent should only be overturned in exceptional circumstances
- Sometimes courts should restraint after a more activist decisions e.g., since NFIB v Sibelius, courts have chipped away at Obamacare though Burwell v Hobby Lobby
What is the 1st amendment
Right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly
What is the 2nd amendment
The right to bear arms
What is the 4th amendment
Right to not be searched without a warrant (relevant to course see BLM)
What is the 8th amendment
protection from cruel and unusual punishment (see death penalty cases)
what is the 10th amendment (and how does it interact with Article 6)
10th amendment states any powers not delegated by constitution are to be left to the states. Article 6 is the rule that anything passed by federal government takes precedence over state.
What do the 15th and 16th amendments protect
15th protects the right to vote regardless of race, 16th protects right to vote regardless of gender
What are two examples of the Supreme Court upholding civil rights despite outrage from the public
- Snyder v Phelps 2001, ruled the Westborough Baptist church has the right to protest at the funerals of dead soldiers under 1st amendment
- Elonis v US 2015, the rapper who threatened his ex-wife in rap lyrics was acquitted due to 1st amendment
Two examples of the Supreme Court challenging the government’s authority (military and police)
- Kyollo v US 2001, court ruled police must acqurie search warrant before using thermo-imaging technology on homes
- Boumediene v Bush 2008, court ruled that foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in US courts
ETVT Supreme court judges are politicians in robes
- Appointment process
- Judges are meant to be bipartisan, only caring about the law rather than personal beliefs
- Opposition party strongly scrutinises judges to ensure that they are qualified and votes should in theory be bipartisan as well
PIVOT: Opposition party often strongly opposes nominees due to political nature of the role (e.g. Merrick Garland vs Amy Coney Barrett ‘16/20) and votes for judges have been strongly partisan since 1994 Stephen Breyer (Kavanaugh 50-48)
- President’s party will not interrogate nominees harshly, trying to get them through to enforce their political philosophy (e.g. conservative presidents appoint conservative judges, Breyer’s resignation)
Lindsey Graham said to Coney-Barrett during Oct 2020 hearings, “You’re exactly who a Republican would be looking a and picking, Democrats, not so much” - Independence of the judiciary
- Only 9 judges permitted, prevents government packing courts, in the position for life and salaries are protected
- Not all judges act on their patrons wishes (e.g. Bush appointing “stealth justice” David Souter, Eisenhower appointing Earl Warren- both siding with liberal justices more often than conservatives)
PIVOT: Court nominees labelled according to their nominator (Trump’s all conservative, Obama’s all liberal)- rulings becoming more split by ideals
- It is possible for Congress to change the Supreme Court for political reasons (FDR 1930s tried to increase size to pass New Deal legislation but was opposed by Congress) - Contentious rulings
- Masterpiece Cakeshop 2018, 7-2 bipartisan ruling
- US v Castleman 2014 unanimous ruling
- 67% of 2021 Roberts court rulings near-unanimous
PIVOT: 47% unanimous in 2019, this shift is most likely due to the increase of conservative judges on the court (6-3 as of Coney-Barett)
- Many Supreme Court rulings have brought about huge social change, Brown v Board, Obergefell and Bush v Gore (ruling on the president of US!) due to the reach of the Supreme Court, rulings are undoubtedly political regardless of judge intention
ETVT the rights of citizens are better protected by interest groups than Congress
- i’m going to make myself a cup of tea before i write this stupid question god i hate politics so fucking much dude
Miranda v. Arizona
1966, police interrogation cannot be used as evidence in court unless it is proven people know their 5th amendment rights (Miranda Rights, “you have the right to remain silent”)
