The Federal Court System

Foundation for Powers:

• Article III establishes the Supreme Court and provides Congress the power to establish lower courts.

• Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases involving federal law, treaties, and the interpretation of the Constitution.

• Judicial compensation cannot be lowered during tenure.

• Federalist No. 78, written by Hamilton, discusses the scope of power of the judicial branch. It asserts that the judiciary is the weakest of the three branches as they have no influence over funding or the military. Judges have life tenure to ensure independence from outside forces. The judiciary is created to protect the Constitution, maintain the separation of powers and checks and balances, and hints at the power of judicial review.

• Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review, giving the courts the ability to declare acts of the legislature or executive unconstitutional.

Jurisdiction:

• Jurisdiction is the authority of the courts to hear certain cases.

• Federal courts have original jurisdiction in district courts and the Supreme Court (in limited cases), where trials are conducted, evidence is presented, and juries determine the outcome of the case.

• Federal courts have appellate jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which review or hear appeals of decisions from the lower courts.

• Concurrent jurisdiction allows certain types of cases to be tried in either the federal or state courts.

Structure of the Judicial System

• The federal judicial system has two types of courts: constitutional courts and legislative courts.

• Constitutional courts were created by Congress under Article III of the Constitution and include the Supreme Court, district courts, Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Court of International Trade.

• Legislative courts, such as Territorial Courts, U.S. Tax Court, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, were created by Congress under Article I and have a narrower range of authority than constitutional courts.

District Courts:

• The district courts were created by Congress under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to serve as trial courts at the federal level.

• There are currently 94 districts, with every state having at least one district court.

• They have original jurisdiction and decide civil and criminal cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws or treaties.

Courts of Appeals:

• The Courts of Appeals were created by Congress in 1891 to help lessen the workload of the Supreme Court.

• They have appellate jurisdiction and decide appeals from U.S. district courts and review decisions of federal administrative agencies.

• There are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, divided into circuits or geographic judicial districts.

Supreme Court:

• The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judicial system and the only court directly created by the Constitution.

• It has both original and appellate jurisdiction and is the final authority in dealing with all questions arising from the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties.

• The Supreme Court consists of nine judges nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

• The decisions of the Supreme Court can have a strong impact on society and the size of the Supreme Court can be changed by Congress.

Judicial Selection

• The process of judicial selection in the United States is a complex and multi-layered process that involves various stakeholders at different levels of government.

• Federal judges are appointed by the President with confirmation by the Senate, and they serve "during good behavior," which usually means for life.

• This lifetime appointment is meant to allow judges to be free from political pressure when deciding cases.

• However, federal judges can be removed from office through impeachment and conviction.

Lower court:

• Lower court appointments are typically handled by the Department of Justice and White House staff, and the practice of Senatorial Courtesy is traditionally used to make appointments to the district courts.

• Senatorial courtesy allows individual senators who represent the state where the district is located to approve or disapprove potential nominees.

• However, since the circuits for the Courts of Appeals cover several states, individual senators have less influence, and senatorial courtesy does not play a role in the nomination process.

• The Senate tends to scrutinize appeals court judges more closely since they are more likely to interpret the law and set precedent.

Supreme Court:

• The process for selecting Supreme Court justices is more rigorous and demanding.

• Presidents only make appointments to the Supreme Court if a vacancy occurs during their term of office.

• When making appointments, presidents consider party affiliation, judicial philosophy, race, gender, religion, region, judicial experience, litmus test, and acceptability.

• The American Bar Association, the largest national organization of attorneys, is often consulted by presidents and rates nominees' qualifications.

• Interest groups may support or oppose a nominee based on his or her position on issues of importance to the interest group and use lobbyists to pressure senators. Endorsements from members of the Supreme Court may also help a nominee.

Background of Judges:

• The vast majority of federal judges have legal training and have worked in government or law firms.

• Historically, there were very few minority and female judges appointed to lower federal courts, but Thurgood Marshall was the first African American appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson, and Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan.

The Court at Work

• The term of the Supreme Court begins on the first Monday in October and generally lasts until June or July of the following year.

• Thousands of cases are appealed to the Supreme Court yearly, but only a few hundred cases are heard.

• Cases may be denied if the justices either agree with the lower court decision or believe that the case does not involve a significant point of law.

• Cases that are accepted for review must pass the rule of four, where four of the nine justices must agree to hear the case.

• Cases presented to the Supreme Court for possible review may be appealed through writ of certiorari or certificate.

• Once a case reaches the Supreme Court, lawyers for each party to the case file a written brief.

• Interested parties may also be invited to submit amicus curiae briefs, supporting or rejecting arguments of the case.

• Oral arguments allow both sides to present their positions to the justices during a 30-minute period.

• Justices may interrupt the lawyers during this time, raising questions or challenging points of law.

• Justices use law clerks to research the information presented in oral arguments and briefs.

• Throughout the term, the justices meet in private conferences to consider cases heard in oral argument, with the chief justice presiding over the conferences.

• Each justice may speak about the cases under discussion. An informal poll determines how each justice is leaning in the case.

• Once the Supreme Court has made a decision in a case, the decision is explained in a written statement called an opinion.

• If voting with the majority, the chief justice selects who will write the opinion; if voting with the minority, the most senior associate justice of the majority selects who will write the opinion.

• Opinions of the Supreme Court are as important as the decisions they explain.

• Majority opinions become precedents, standards, or guides to be followed in deciding similar cases in the future.

• Stare decisis is the doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions (precedents).

Courts as Policymakers

• The Supreme Court has been involved in making policy decisions throughout history.

• During the New Deal era, Congress passed laws to end the Depression, but the conservative Court ruled these laws unconstitutional.

  - In response, President Franklin Roosevelt proposed a court-packing plan to increase the number of justices and appoint supportive justices. The plan was not passed, but two justices began voting in favor of New Deal legislation.

• The Warren Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, was especially active in civil rights and civil liberties. The Court declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, expanded the rights of criminal defendants, and heard other landmark cases.

• The Burger Court, under Chief Justice Warren Burger, returned the Court to a more conservative ideology with regard to defendants' rights, but upheld the legality of affirmative action.

• The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts, under Chief Justices William Rehnquist and John Roberts, respectively, continued the conservative ideology of limiting decisions made by earlier liberal courts in areas such as defendants' rights, abortion, and affirmative action.

• New justices have been appointed during recent administrations, and their impact on the Court is yet to be determined.

Judicial Philosophy

• Judicial philosophy refers to the approach a judge takes when interpreting the law.

• There are two main judicial philosophies: activism and restraint.

• Judicial activism is the belief that the court should take an active role in interpreting the Constitution and making decisions on social and political issues.

• Judicial restraint, on the other hand, is the belief that the court should limit its power and defer to the other branches of government.

• It's important to note that judicial philosophy is not the same as political philosophy.

• A justice can be an activist or a restraint judge, regardless of whether they are liberal or conservative.

• For example, the Marshall Court was activist in establishing judicial review but conservative in protecting property rights.

Judicial Activism:

• Judicial activism can take different forms, such as overturning laws as unconstitutional, overruling judicial precedent, or ruling contrary to a previously issued constitutional interpretation.

• An example of judicial activism is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, in which the Supreme Court overruled the prior ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson and declared segregation in schools to be unconstitutional.

Judicial Restraint:

• Judicial restraint involves limiting the use of judicial powers and deferring to the executive and legislative branches.

• Examples of judicial restraint include the Dred Scott v. Sandford case and Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld the constitutionality of "separate but equal."

Checks on the Supreme Court:

• Although the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the power of judicial review, it is also subject to limitations under the system of checks and balances.

• For instance, the president nominates and the Senate approves Supreme Court justices, which can impact the court's ideological makeup and affect its rulings.

• Additionally, Congress can write new legislation, propose constitutional amendments, establish inferior courts, alter the size of the Supreme Court, and impeach federal judges.

• Finally, the Supreme Court cannot initiate judicial review of legislation and must wait for a party who has been directly and significantly injured by the legislation to challenge its constitutionality