Transcript The U.S. Supreme Court - Mr. Rimmey's Classroom

The Supreme Court
of the United States
Inside The Supreme Court
Building
PART1:
POWER/JURISDICTION OF
THE COURT
• Article III of the Constitution establishes the
Supreme Court as the this co-equal branch of
the US government.
• In its early history the Court was not so
prestigious. John Jay retired from the Supreme
Court to run for governor of New York. He later
declined Adams’ appointment as Chief Justice
• The framers of the Constitution spent only two
days drafting and debating Article III
• When Pierre L’Enfant designed Washington DC
he forgot to plan for the Court building
• The Supreme Court didn’t have a permanent
home until 1935
The Scope of Judicial Power
• Judicial power is passive and reactive
• Hamilton called it “the least dangerous
branch.”
• Power only to decide judicial disputes
• Cases must be ripe
• Cases cannot be moot
• Cases cannot be political
Judicial Federalism: State & Federal Courts
• A Dual court system
– Two court systems, state and federal, exist
and operate at the same time in the same
geographic areas
• Chief Justice John
Marshall’s 35 year tenure
shaped the Court into
what it is today, a strong
check on power, and
protector of liberty.
• Marshall’s proFederalists decisions
strengthened both the
Court and the national
government
• Marbury v. Madison
established the precedent
of judicial review
Jurisdiction
• Original jurisdiction:
1) cases involving representatives of foreign
governments
2) certain cases between different states
• Appellate jurisdiction:
1) cases from the 12 US Courts of Appeals and
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
2) US Court of Military Appeals
3) cases from district courts regarding acts of
Congress
4) Appeals from state high courts on issues
of constitutional law. Example?
PART 2: THE JUSTICES
The Justices
• The court currently has 8 justices and 1 Chief
Justice
• The number of justices is determined by
Congress.
• Justices are appointed for life or good behavior.
They can be impeached for “treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
• No justice has ever been removed from the
bench due to an impeachment trial.
The Justices
• There are no Constitutional requirements to
serve as a court justice
• However, most have been attorneys, and
judges.
• In the 20th Century most justices have been
appointed from the ranks of the lower federal
courts.
• As a group, they represent an elite segment of
society.
• The only minorities (Thrugood Marshall,
Clarence Thomas) and the only women (Sandra
Day O’Conner, Ruth Bader Ginsberg) have
been appointed in the last 50 years.
Appointing Justices
• Justices are nominated by the president
and must be approved by the Senate.
• The Senate Judiciary Committee holds
hearings for the nominee
• Once the committee completes its
hearings it issues an report to the full
Senate with its recommendations.
• The full Senate then votes (by simple
majority) to confirm or reject the nominee.
• Senatorial courtesy does not apply to
Supreme Court nominees
Appointing Justices
• Politics has become increasingly critical in the
president’s selection
• The president will turn to staff, the attorney
general and key members of congress, and a
few interest groups to select nominees.
• The WhiteHouse will vet potential nominees,
that is to conduct a thorough background check,
including reading everything the nominee has
written, and every court decision/opinion with
which the nominee is involved
• The White House will often leak the names of
nominees to get public response before a formal
announcement.
Appointing Justices
• The American Bar Association’s (ABA)
•
•
•
•
Comm. on the Federal Judiciary ranks federal
court nominees professional qualifications
Rankings: well qualified, qualified, not qualified.
President’s will consult the ABA but are not
bound by its opinions
Other interest groups may speak out against
nominees whose opinions are threatening to
their views. Example?
Members of the Supreme Court often offer the
president suggestions for the bench. O’Conner
was recommended by Rehnquist
The Role of Politics in Selecting Judges
 There are no Constitutional
requirements
 The process of judicial selection is a
highly partisan and political process
 Because of the power wielded by
the Supreme Court, presidents take
a personal interest in selecting
appointees
Judge Samuel A. Alito prior to the start
of his second day of questioning before
the Senate Judiciary Committee
Judicial Tenure
 The Constitution stipulates that federal judges “shall
hold their Offices during good Behavior”
 Judges cannot be removed for any reason by a
President
 Congress cannot impeach judges because they don’t
like their decisions
The Politics of Selecting Judges
Previous Backgrounds
Number Job Experience
33
22
18
15
8
7
6
3
1
Federal Judges
Practicing Lawyers
State Court Judges
Other
Cabinet Members
Senators
Attorney Generals
Governors
President (POTUS)
Most Recent Example
Sonia Sotomayor (2009)
Lewis F. Powell (1971)
Sandra Day O’Connor (1981)
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General (2010)
Arthur Goldberg, Labor Sec. (1962)
Harold H. Burton, R-Oh (1945)
Tom Clark (1949)
Earl Warren, D-Ca (1953)
William Howard Taft (1921)
The Politics of Appointing Federal Judges
•Political Litmus Tests
•Senate: Advice and Consent
•The Role of Party, Race, Age, and Gender
•The Role of Ideology and Judicial Experience
•The Role of Judicial Philosophy and Law Degrees
Liberal
Breyer
Scalia
Thomas
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Roberts
Kennedy
Self-Restraint
Alito
Conservative
Activist
The Process of Judicial Selection



Submission of an appointee’s name to the
Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearings are held by the Senate Judiciary
Committee
Nomination goes to the full Senate, where there
is debate and, if no filibuster, a vote
Senate Confirmation
Filibustering Court Nominees


Constitution requires only a majority vote of the
senate to “advise and consent” to a presidential
nominee
60 votes required to end a filibuster
The Politics of Appointing Federal Judges
•Do Judges Make Law?
•Adherence to Precedent - Stare Decisis
The rule of precedent, whereby a rule or law contained in a judicial
decision is commonly viewed as binding on judges whenever the same
question is presented
•Judicial Longevity and Presidential Tenure
•Reform of the Selection Process
•Changing the Numbers
•Changing the Jurisdiction
Party Affiliation of District Judges and Courts of
Appeal Judges Appointed by Presidents
President
Roosevelt
Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
Johnson
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
G.H.W. Bush
Clinton
G.W. Bush
Party
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Democrat
Democrat
Republican
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Republican
Democrat
Republican
Appointees from Same Party
97%
92
95
92
96
93
81
90
94
89
88
93
First woman appointed to the
Supreme Court, by Ronald Reagan
Diversity in the Judiciary
One of the most significant changes affecting the
judiciary in recent decades has been the expansion of
opportunity for women and members of minority
groups to serve as judges
Female and Minority Appointments
to Federal Judgeships
The Supreme Court Justices
Back Row: Sonia Sotomayor , Stephen Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan,
Front Row: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John G. Roberts, Jr., Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Antonin Scalia
• Associate Justice
• Appointed by Ronald
Reagan.
• Took his seat on the High
Court on 9/26/86.
(longest current serving)
• Graduate of Georgetown
and Harvard Law.
• Born 3/11/36.
• RIGHT leaning….
Anthony Kennedy
• Associate Justice
• Appointed by Ronald
Reagan.
• Took his seat on the High
Court on 2/18/88.
• Graduated from Stanford
and Harvard Law.
• Born 7/23/36.
• Moderate….
Clarence Thomas
• Associate Justice
• Appointed by
George HW Bush.
• Took his seat on the
High Court on
10/23/91.
• Graduate of Holy
Cross and Yale Law
• Born 6/23/48.
• RIGHT leaning….
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
• Associate Justice
• Appointed by
William Clinton.
• Took her seat on the
High Court on
8/10/93.
• Graduate of Cornell
and Columbia Law.
• Born 3/15/33.
• LEFT leaning….
Stephen Breyer
• Associate Justice.
• Appointed by William
Clinton.
• Took his seat on the
High Court on 8/3/94
• Graduate of Stanford
and Harvard Law.
• Born 8/15/38.
• LEFT leaning….
John Roberts
• Chief Justice
• Appointed by George
W. Bush.
• Took his seat on High
Court on 9/25/05.
• Graduate of Harvard
and Harvard Law
• Born 1/27/55
• Right leaning….
Samuel Alito
• Associate Justice.
• Appointed By George
W. Bush.
• Took his seat on the
High Court on 1/31/06.
• Graduate of Princeton
and Yale Law.
• Born 4/1/50.
• Right leaning….
Sona Sotomayor
• Associate Justice.
• Appointed by Barack
Obama.
• Took her seat on the
High Court on 8/8/2009.
• Graduate of Princeton
and Yale Law.
• Born 6/25/54
• Left leaning….
Elena Kagan
• Associate Justice
• Appointed by
Barack Obama.
• Took her seat on the
High Court on
8/7/10.
• Graduate of
Princeton, Oxford,
and Harvard Law
School
• Born 9/17/39.
• Left leaning….
Duties
• Duties of the court have evolved over the
centuries. The primary task is to hear and rule
on cases.
• Three primary decisions made by justices:
1) which cases to hear
2) ruling on cases before the court
3) providing and explanation for ruling
(opinion)
• Ride the circuit
• The Chief Justice has the added responsibility of
presiding over the conference, and serve as
administrator of the federal court system
• Since 1882 clerks have assisted the justices
SECTION 3: THE COURT AT
WORK
Court Basics
• During a term, the Court sits for two weeks per
month
• During these sittings, the Court hears oral
arguments on cases.
• Arguments are heard on Mondays-Wednesdays
• Thursday and Friday are reserved for
conference. These are meetings held in private
chambers in which justices to decide cases
• After two weeks of hearing cases, Court
recesses. During the recess justices write
opinions and discuss what cases they will
consider in the future
• The Court hears only 5% of the cases appealed
How Cases Reach the Court
• The main road to the Supreme Court is by
a writ of certiorari
• A “cert” is an order from the Supreme
Court to a lower court to send records on a
case for review.
• Certs are granted when attorneys for the
case petition the Court on the grounds that
the case was mishandled by the lower
court or the case involves an important
Constitutional question.
How Cases Reach the Court
• 90% of all petitions for Certiorari are rejected
Why?
• The court may feel that the case has no real
Constitutional merit
• They may feel that another case pending will
address the issue more effectively
• They may not want to deal with a hot potato
• If the Court refuses to take the case, the lower
court decisions stands. Stare decisis – “let the
decision stand”.
How Cases are Selected
• Cases with merit are placed on a discuss list by
justices and their clerks, cases not making the
list a remanded to the lower courts
• Justices and their clerks review petitions for
certiorari while in recess.
• Friday afternoon justices discuss cases on the
list, if 4 of the 9 decide to take the case a writ of
certiorari will be issued (k.a. the Rule of Four)
• Lawyers in the case will be notified and send
briefs to the Court
How Cases are Selected
• In some cases the justices will decide a case
without hearing oral arguments.
• During the Friday discussion justices can accept
a case and issue a per curiam opinion
• A per curiam (by the court) opinion is a decision
made by the court without hearing arguments or
receiving new information.
• Even though a per curiam is unsigned all courts
are bound by the decision.
• Usually involves a case where there was a clear
procedural error by the lower court.
Steps in Deciding A Case:
Step 1: Submitting Briefs
• Once a case is accepted, lawyers must submit
briefs to the Court. A brief is a written
statement that outlines the legal arguments,
facts of the case, precedents that support their
case
• Amicus curiae briefs may be submitted by
parties not directly involved in the case but have
an interest in its outcome. Example?
• Amicus briefs are filed by interest groups,
government agencies, or private citizens
• Amicus briefs are ways of lobbying or influencing
the Court
Steps in Deciding A Case:
Step 2: Oral Arguments
• After briefs are received the case is placed on
the docket
• Lawyer for each side are given 30 minutes to
argue their case. During this time justices are
free to interrupt with questions (time is not
credited)
• A light on the podium notifies the attorney when
time’s up.
• Lawyers follow Court protocol, failure to do so
often means you can’t come back.
Steps in Deciding A Case:
Step 3: Conference
• Friday Conference. Justices debate cases for 6
to 8 hours. No notes of the discussions are kept.
• The Chief Justice serves as moderator.
• Justices discuss their opinions on the case in
order of seniority.
• Each case is given about 30 minutes. The
discussion on what cases to consider in the
future is often less than 5 minutes.
• Once discussion is closed, justices vote. 6
justices are required for a quorum. If a tie occurs
the lower court decision stands
Steps in Deciding A Case:
Step 4: The Opinion
• In major cases the Court issues at least one
opinion. The opinion states the facts of the
case, the Constitutional questions, announces
the Courts decisions and offers some
explanation.
• The opinion serves as the precedent for lower
courts to follow when deciding similar cases
• It also serves as a way for the Court to
communicate to Congress, the president, and
state governments
Steps in Deciding A Case:
Step 4: The Opinion
• Four types of opinions:
1) Unanimous- all justices vote the same way
2) Majority
3) Concurring- when one or more justices have
other reasons for decision other than those
mentioned in the majority
4) Dissenting- opinion of justices on the losing
side. May serve as the precedent for cases in
the future
The Supreme Court & How it Operates
•Opinions
a. Majority
b. Dissenting
c. Concurring
•Circulating Drafts
•Releasing Opinions to the Public
•After the Court Decides
• Sometimes remands the case
• Uncertain effect on individuals who are not
immediate parties to the suit
• Decisions are sometimes ignored
• Difficult to implement decisions requiring the
cooperation of large numbers of officials
Caseload of Federal Courts
Year
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
District Court Caseloads
91,005
87,421
125,423
196,757
264,409
386,200
642,500
1,109,000
Judges
224
245
401
516
575
940
1,510
2,530
Circuit Court Caseload
2,830
3,899
11,662
23,200
40,898
84,800
171,600
325,100
Judges
65
68
97
132
156
430
840
1,580
SOURCE: Committee on Long Range Planning, Judicial Conference of the United
States, Proposed Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts (Judicial Conference of
the United States, 1995), pp. 14-15
The Supreme Court’s Increasing Caseload
Caseload in Federal Court
How the Court Shapes Policy
Three tools:
• 1) Judicial review- Court’s power to examine the
laws and actions of the national, state, and
local governments
• 2) Interpretation of law- Courts authority to refine
and clarify the language of the law
• 3) Overturning previous decisions- Legal system
based on the principle of stare decisis. To
lend predictability to the law precedents serve
as the guide for subsequent decisions
Limits on Court Power
• Types of issues- The Court has little influence
in the area of foreign policy.
• Rules for accepting a case:
1) Court will only consider cases where a
decision will make a difference. It will not give
advisory opinions (ruling on a law that has not
been challenged)
2) Plaintiffs must have suffered some real harm
3) Case must have a substantial federal
question
4) Courts typically refuse to hear cases of a
political nature
Limits on Court Power
• Limited control on the agenda- Court can only
deal with cases within its jurisdiction and when
plaintiffs bring a case. As federal laws change
so does the Court’s authority.
• Lack of enforcement power- Court has no
mechanism by which to enforce its decisions.
Most decisions are obeyed, others…
• Checks and balances- The president appoints
justices, Senate confirms nominees. Congress
has the authority to create all federal courts
below the Supreme Court as well as determine
the number of justices
How the Court Shapes Policy
Three tools:
• 1) Judicial review- Court’s power to examine the
laws and actions of the national, state, and
local governments
• 2) Interpretation of law- Courts authority to refine
and clarify the language of the law
• 3) Overturning previous decisions- Legal system
based on the principle of stare decisis. To
lend predictability to the law precedents serve
as the guide for subsequent decisions