Transcript Document

All right, you people, now you
are in my area—the judicial
system. And we’re going to
learn about the American
System of Justice
That’s right, Judge Judy.
We’ll start by talking in
general about American
courts. So, generally
speaking, what does Article III
of the Constitution do?
Article III of the Constitution: “the judicial
power of the United States shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior
Courts as the Congress may . . . establish.”
This provision gives the federal courts
their jurisdiction—the authority to interpret
and administer the law.
It creates a federal judicial
branch, it creates the office
of Chief Justice of the
United States, it states that
judges shall serve life
terms (“during good
behavior”), it specifies the
categories of cases the
Court may or must hear,
and it grants Congress the
power to create additional
federal courts as needed.
Students, Alexander Hamilton,
here. What was my concept of
judicial review, stated in The
Federalist, Number 78?
The very purpose of constitutions is to place
limitations on the powers of government, and
it is only the Court that can ensure such limits
in the United States
The words of the Constitution are vague.
Chief Justice John Marshall provided details
regarding what the courts may
do with his ruling in the crucial
case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)
John Adams commissioned
William Marbury as DC Justice of
the Peace. Midnight appointment.
New Secretary of State Madison
refused to deliver; Marbury sued.
Marshall Court held: Madison had broken the
law but that that part of the Judiciary Act of
1789 was unconstitutional because it expanded
the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Court ruled that Marbury was entitled to his
commission (therefore, Madison had broken the
law.) But the Court said that it
could not compel Madison to
comply with the law because the
section of the Judiciary Act of 1789
that granted the Court the power to
issue writs of mandamus was
unconstitutional. It was
unconstitutional because it
expanded the original jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court as defined in Article III,
which could only be done by constitutional
amendment.
Marshall’s decision initiated
the Court’s power of Judicial
Review—interpreting what the
law is—in line with Hamilton’s
Arguments in Federalist 78
Even though the Marshall Court’s decision in
Marbury vs. Madison (1803) declared part of
the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional,
the structure of today’s federal court system
was established by another part of that law.
So, how has the Supreme Court’s
use of judicial review changed over
the years?
Not used again until the decision in
Dred Scott vs. Sanford in 1857
Used only 230 times between 1857
and 2007
The Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
used judicial review much
more, especially in cases
involving federalism and
the powers of Congress
under the commerce
clause—gave more power
to the states
What bases to state courts use
in adjudicating cases?
The state’s own constitution
State statutes
A state’s administrative rules
99% of court decisions at the state level
Figure 14.1 (p. 454)
U. S.
Supreme Court
U. S.
Claims
Court
U. S.
Tax
Court
U. S. Courts of Appeal
(13 Courts)
U. S. District Courts
(94 Courts)
Court of
International
Trade
Students, other than death or
resignation, what is the only
way to remove a federal judge
from office?
Impeachment; therefore deciding
who will be judges is a very
important process
Why does the Constitution state that
Congress cannot reduce the salaries
of judges once they are in office?
Maintain the independence of the judiciary by
protecting it from legislative intimidation
What types of cases are
solely the province of the
federal courts?
Cases involving:
The Constitution
Federal statutes and
treaties
Admiralty and maritime issues (high seas)
Controversies in which the U. S. government is
a party
Disputes between the states
Disputes between a state and a citizen of another
state
Disputes between a state and foreign states
Lower courts are divided into district courts
and courts of appeals
District courts: trial courts in the federal
court system; do not hear appeals
Grand juries bring indictments
District courts make decisions in
disputes based on the law and
facts presented in the case
Cases are tried before a district
court judge and a petit jury. Both
sides present evidence,
some of which is supplied by
witnesses. Prosecutors
represent the people; defense
council represent defendants
Lower federal courts have original jurisdiction:
the authority to hear a case’s initial trial. But
the limits on federal courts are that they may
only hear cases arising under the Constitution
and other federal laws, and other related
factors—governments, foreign diplomats, etc.
Students I also want you to
know about magistrate judges.
Appointed by judges of the district court
8-year renewable terms
Issue arrest warrants, hold hearings to determine,
whether arrested persons should be held for
action by the Grand Jury; if so, set bail; hear
motions subject to varying kinds of review;
preside over civil trials
Courts of appeals hear
appeals of cases that
have been adjudicated
by district courts
There are 12 U. S. courts of appeals, each of
which covers a jurisdiction called a circuit.
The one for Washington, D. C. is also charged
with hearing cases arising from rule-making
federal agencies. A 13th circuit, the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: patents
and government contracts
Each circuit court of appeals has 6-28 judges
No juries; usually only 3 judges hear a case;
however, at times the entire circuit court may
hear a case
Judges base their decisions on two inputs:
written legal briefs submitted by the attorneys
from both sides and from the written record
from the actual trial—no new evidence
Often, attorneys from both sides may also
orally argue the case before a 3-judge panel
The judges render an opinion, which can
reverse the lower court’s decision; affirm (or
uphold) the lower court’s decision; or send the
case back to the lower court for retrial. Usually,
a reversal will come if the appeals court finds
that the lower court did not properly apply a law.
First off, Judges do more than make
decisions based on laws; through
precedents, they actually make laws.
When judges announce specific
opinions, they also provide the
legal grounds for those decisions.
Those grounds serve as precedents:
guiding principles for determining
what is legal in future situations
that involve similar issues. Other
judges—and lawyers—use these
precedents in guiding their actions.
so, judges by making precedents,
actually make law, with no checks
or balances.
Having discussed precedent,
what is the rule of stare
decisis?
Judges are expected to uphold
precedents set by earlier
courts, the same level or
superior. Not a very restrictive
rule. The Supreme Court rarely
reverses the decision of an
earlier court, placing great
weight on stare decisis, but it
will do so if the ruling is one
they no longer wish to follow.
Now, it is important to
understand that the
decisions of the 12
geographic circuit courts
determine the meaning of
laws for the people who live
in the states covered by
each circuit (see the map on
p. 456.)
Hey, you know I love to see
people tested. And Simoncini
likes to throw in material from
charts in the book on his
tests. So make sure that you
review Figure 14.3 on p. 457
of your textbook, regarding
“How Cases Get to the
Supreme Court.”
Stephen Breyer (1994); Samuel Alito (2006);
Sonja Sotomayor (2009); Elena Kagan (2010)
Chief Justice: John Roberts (2005); Antonin
Scalia (1986); Anthony Kennedy (1988),
Clarence Thomas (1991); Ruth Bader Ginsburg
(1993);
Constitution does not set size; Congress sets
the size. The current number of 9 set 1869.
Hello, again, students. Chief
Justice John Marshall here. Why is
the Supreme Court considered
both a court of original jurisdiction
and an appellate court?
Disputes involving ambassadors/diplomatic
personnel and disputes between states must
originate in the Supreme Court. Mostly,
however, it is an appellate court.
Students, I am Justice
Sonja Sotomayor.
What qualifications
does the Constitution
set for people to serve
as federal judges or
justices?
No background requirements:
age, profession. But all have had
significant preparation
(Harvard/Yale) and by custom and tradition,
appointees to the federal bench must be lawyers,
but, until quite recently, they did not have to have
judicial experience.
So why has it become
important for nominees to
have had judicial experience?
As the federal courts have
become more important in
determining American public
policies, and as partisan and
ideological conflicts have
become more pronounced in the
country, having judicial
experience has become more
important in the nomination and
confirmation process. Why?
Senators want to know the judicial philosophies
and general ideological outlooks of the people
who will serve. One way to know this is to
examine the rulings and written opinions of
nominees who have been judges.
With whom do presidents normally
consult before forwarding
nominations for seats on the
Supreme Court and circuit courts to
the Senate?
Key senators, especially those on
the Judiciary
Committee
Pertaining to district court appointees, through
Senatorial Courtesy, presidents will give
senators from the state where a district court is
located an opportunity to review and approve
a nominee before her/his name is forwarded to
the Senate for consideration.
Ronald Reagan favored conservatives who
were committed to rolling back affirmative
action and other civil rights claims, abortion
rights, protections for criminal defendants,
and broad claims of standing in environmental
Cases.
The defeat of Judge Robert Bork was the
Product of deep ideological differences
Between a Republican president and a
Democratic controlled Senate. Some say
that the Senate has turned the confirmation
process into a political sideshow, traced
back to the demonization of Judge Bork.
While the Senate confirms the vast majority of
presidential nominees. . .there is considerable
political bargaining and behind-the-scenes
testiness. Political clashes induced by party
polarization and divided government have led
to a drawn-out confirmation process.
Example: 1991confirmation hearings for
Justice Clarence Thomas
Students, I am President Dwight
Eisenhower. Why was I
disappointed in my nominee to be
Chief Justice, Earl Warren?
Earl Warren led the Court in a
liberal direction by transforming
constitutional law regarding
civil rights and criminal procedure.
Richard Nixon was upset when his
nominee for Chief Justice, Warren
Burger, overrode Nixon’s claim of
executive privilege.
When is the Supreme Court
normally in session?
First Monday in October until late
June or early July
What are the three norms of
Supreme Court behavior?
Secrecy (meet alone; no clerks/secretaries)
Seniority (seating/order of speaking in
conference)
Precedent
The Court rarely departs from precedent and
when it does it is for significant reasons. For
example, we, the Warren Court, in 1954
overturned the 1896 ruling in Plessy v.
Ferguson when we ruled on Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas.
Students, what is a superprecedent?
Landmark rulings that have been reaffirmed by
the Court over the span of many years and
whose reasoning has become part of the
fabric of American law (Chapters 15-16)
Students, what are the three technical
rules that help keep down the number
of cases heard by the U. S. Supreme
Court each session?
Cases must be real and adverse
Disputants must have standing (Dr. Newdow)
Cases must be ripe: all other avenues of appeal
must have been exhausted, and the injury must
have already taken place
Also $300.00 filing fee, can be waived if the
Court approves an affidavit in forma pauperis
Most people who petition
the Supreme Court request
a writ of certiorari. If the
Court agrees to hear the
case, it grants a cert under
the Rule of Four—if 4
justices vote to hear the
case.
Lawyers who may argue before the Supreme
Court must be members of the Supreme
Court bar—having been a member of a state
bar for at least 3 years and known to be of
Good moral and professional character.
The Supreme Court is
mostly an appeals court,
reviewing cases from lower
federal courts. About 18% of
the cases we review come
from state courts.
Each year, the Supreme Court receives about
10,000 cases. It sets its own agenda by
choosing to hear about 80 cases on public
policy issues that it considers the most
pressing. Those cases are placed on the
court’s docket (or schedule).
The result: more influence than ever before is
being exercised by the 13 federal circuit courts
For cases we choose to hear,
lawyers for each side file written
briefs—summaries of their
arguments based on law, the
Constitution, and evidence.
If one of the sides in a case is the United States
Government, the Solicitor General of the
United States, an official of the Department of
Justice, files the brief.
Groups who are not the main parties but who
have great interest in a case may file amicus
curiae (friend of the court) briefs as well
After the Court has read the written
briefs, lawyers for both sides
present oral arguments before the
Court. Generally, each side has
30-minutes to present its case;
however, usually my colleagues
and I use most of that time by
asking them to respond to our (the
justices’) questions.
After hearing arguments on cases for about
three weeks, the members of the Court go into
consideration sessions—they discuss the cases,
in order of seniority, starting with the Chief
Justice, and decide how they will rule.
If we are not unanimous, the
senior person on each side of an
issue assigns opinion-writing
responsibilities.
The opinion of the Court—the views of the
Majority of the court in both the outcome of the
Case and on the Court’s grounds for deciding it.
Concurring opinions—a justice writes one of
these if he/she agrees with the majority outcome, but disagrees with all or part of the
grounds stated in the majority opinion.
A justice might write a dissenting
opinion if he or she disagrees with
the decision reached by the
majority. In this document, the
justice notes the grounds for his
or her dissent.
The Supreme Court rarely reverses the
decision of an earlier court, placing great
weight on stare decisis—or upholding
precedents set by earlier courts.
If the Chief Justice votes with
the majority in conference, he
assigns the writing of the
opinion of the Court. If the
Chief Justice is in the minority,
the opinion is assigned by the
most senior member of the
majority.
Opinion writing is often collaborative in nature:
opinions of other justices, points from amicus
curiae briefs; most written opinions are revised
several times before being submitted.
Once the opinion of the Court is completed, the
justices take a final vote in conference.
Students, why does the
U. S. Supreme Court attach
an opinion to each of its
decisions?
Opinions guide the actions of other courts,
litigants, and public officials. This methodology
is another demonstration that the Court
recognizes its policymaking role.
Here’s what happens after
the Court decides.
The Court remands, or sends, the case back to
a lower court with instructions to act in
accordance with its opinion. The lower court
often has considerable leeway in interpreting
the Court’s mandate as it disposes of the case.
Sometimes, Supreme court pronouncements
are simply ignored.
Students, what are the four
historical periods discussed in our
textbook under the heading,
“Structural Change and
Constitutional Interpretation?”
1. National Power and Property
rights (Marshall)
2. Government and the Economy
(using the 14th Amendment’s due process clause
to ensure laissez-faire in the national economy—
ended with the New Deal)
3. Individual Rights and Liberties (Warren Court’s
focus on civil liberties and civil rights)
4. Conservative Retrenchment (more power back
to the states)
So what’s the
difference between
judicial restraint
and judicial
activism?
Restraint: the philosophy proposing that
judges should interpret the Constitution to
reflect what the framers intended and what its
words literally say.
Activism: judicial philosophy proposing that
judges should interpret the Constitution to
reflect current conditions and values.
Here are 4 ways that
judicial activism is
expressed.
Reversing decisions of past Supreme Courts
Deciding political issues (Bush v. Gore (2000))
Remedies—actions that courts determine must
be taken to rectify a wrong done by government
Original Intent (another term for judicial
restraint)
What are the arguments for
and against original intent
and strict construction?
Opponents of original intent and strict
construction believe that the intentions of the
framers are not only impossible to determine
but also unduly constricting. They believe that
jurists must try to reconcile the fundamental
principles of the Constitution with changing
conditions.
What are test cases and class
action suits?
Test cases: cases brought to
force a ruling on the
constitutionality of some law or
executive action (Brown v.
Board of Education)
Class-action suits are brought on
behalf of a group of people who
are in a situation similar to that of
the plaintiffs.
Types of law utilized in the American legal
system include: common, statutory,
constitutional and administrative. They can
also be categorized as criminal or civil.
Evenin’ there, Columbians. I’m
Petri Hawkins Byrd, Judge
Judy’s bailiff. And we’re going
to briefly talk about various
types of law within the U. S.
legal system.
Common law, or judge-made law,
is a body of law based on judicial
rulings in earlier cases.
We discussed judge-made law in
our previous lecture.
That’s right Petri. In fact, most
of the laws used in civil cases,
like those Judges Wapner,
Brown and I hear on TV or in
real courts, are based on
common law. If you have ever
watched my show, for a judge
or jury to hold against a
defendant, that person must
have clearly acted negligently.
By relying on common law in such cases,
judges look to precedents set by other judges
in other rulings, as they interpret the law.
The second type of law used in
American courts is statutory
law—or laws made by Congress,
state legislatures, county boards
of supervisors, and city councils.
Sometimes, when a judge rules on a
statute, or law, he or she is performing
statutory interpretation—deciding the meaning
of certain laws.
The third type of law, constitutional law, of
course, has supreme standing over all other
types of law—when in doubt, the Constitution
takes precedence.
Equity law is used
whenever common law
remedies are inadequate.
If an injury done to property may do irreparable
harm for which money damages cannot provide
compensation, under equity a person may ask
the judge to issue an injunction ordering the
offending person not to take the threatened
action.
Hi students. Lawyer Elle here
along with my favorite client,
Bruiser. Administrative law
includes both regulations
made by departments in the
Executive Branch and the laws
that govern the actions of
those departments and
independent agencies. This
type of law is not very exciting;
so let’s get into criminal law,
the stuff that gets my blood
moving. Yeah!!!
There are two main types of
criminal law: felonies and
misdemeanors.
Felonies are serious crimes for which a
person, if convicted, can receive very heavy
sentences of prison, fines, probation, or, in
some cases, death. Examples include murder,
rape, burglary and several others.
Misdemeanors are less serious crimes such
as traffic violations or disorderly conduct.
Sentences can include fines or confinement in
the county jail for short periods.
Most felony and misdemeanor
laws are state laws and deal with
crimes against people or
property—assault and battery for
example. Some laws are federal
laws and are crimes against the
federal govern-ment—income tax
evasion, for example.
Crimes are considered offenses against society
in general, as well as against an individual
victim.
Civil law involves disputes
in which one private party
brings a lawsuit against
another for causing some
harm.
People who file the lawsuits—let’s say against
a person who hits his or her car—are called
plaintiffs. The party against whom the suit is
brought is known as the defendant.
There are major differences in
civil and criminal cases. In a
criminal law case, the people,
or the prosecutor, must prove
guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt, for example. But in a
civil suit the plaintiff does not
have to prove wrongdoing by
the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt.
That’s why I walked away acquitted
of murder in 1996, but in the civil
suit brought by Fred Goldman and
others I lost almost everything.