Judicial Branch Notes

The Judicial Branch of The United States Government

-The Judicial branch of the United States government is comprised of every court in the nation from the lowest Justice of the Peace and magistrate’s offices to the Supreme Court.

-There are two basic levels of courts in the United States:
*Federal Courts: These courts derive their powers directly from the US Constitution and from federal laws.

*State Courts: These courts derive their powers from State Constitutions and State laws

-This two level system that we employ in the US is often called the dual court system.

-Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a case.

-In our dual court system, State courts have the authority to hear cases that involve State laws or a state’s constitution. The vast majority of court cases in the US are in the jurisdiction of State courts.

-Federal courts have jurisdiction in cases that involve Federal law, treaties with foreign nations, interpretations of the US Constitution, ambassadors and other representatives of foreign governments, two or more state governments, the United States Government, a state and a citizen of another state, and a state or its citizens and a foreign nation or its citizens.

-It is possible for State courts and Federal courts to both have jurisdiction in a case at the same time, this is called concurrent jurisdiction.

-Original Jurisdiction: This type of jurisdiction belongs to the court that hears a case first, usually a trial court.

-Appellate Jurisdiction: When someone loses a case in a trial court they have the right to appeal the verdict to a higher court. The court that hears the appeal has what is called Appellate Jurisdiction.

Federal Court Jurisdiction
*Federal courts deal with three types of law: civil law, criminal law, and constitutional law.

-Civil Law: Settles disputes between two or more individuals or between individuals and the government. (In law, the term individual refers to not only an individual person, but also to businesses and other organizations.)
-Plaintiff: the individual who brings charges in a civil suit.
-Defendant: the individual whom the suit is brought against
in a civil case.

-In civil cases individuals sue for two purposes, to try to collect monetary damages, or to prevent harmful action from taking place.

-Cases that try to prevent harmful action from taking place are cases that deal with what is called equity law. Equity law is a system of rules by which disputes are resolved on the grounds of fairness.

-In equity law cases plaintiffs ask the court to issue orders that forbid defendants from taking or continuing certain actions. These orders are called injunctions.

-Criminal Law: In a federal criminal law case the US Government charges an individual with breaking a federal law. The individual who is charged with the crime in a criminal law case is called a defendant; the federal government is the prosecutor. The most common federal crimes that are committed are bank robbery, tax evasion, mail fraud, kidnapping, and drug dealing.

-Constitutional Law: Federal courts hear cases that relate to the meaning and application of the United States Constitution. Constitutional law cases can deal with either civil law or criminal law cases. Whereas civil law cases and criminal law cases can be heard in either State or Federal courts depending on the jurisdiction, Constitutional law cases can only be heard in federal courts.
___________________________________________________

Legal System Principles
-There are 4 basic principles that underlie the Judicial Branch of our government. These principles are equal justice under the law, due process of law, the adversary system, and presumption of innocence.

-Equal Justice Under the Law: Refers to the goal of the American legal system to treat all people alike regardless of race, wealth, social status, gender, or age. The 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 14th Amendments guarantee equal justice under the law.

-Due Process of Law: This means that all laws must be applied equally to all people. Due process of law is defined and guaranteed in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

-The Adversary System: Our legal system is set up in a way that basically turns court cases into competitions between lawyers for the defense and lawyers for the plaintiff or prosecution with a judge basically acting as a referee.

-Presumption of Innocence: All defendants in court cases in the United States must be viewed as being innocent of the crimes that they are charged with until they are found guilty in court of the crimes. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the defendant guilty. If the prosecution can not prove a defendant guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt, regardless of how much evidence they may have against the defendant, the defendant must be found innocent.
___________________________________________________

Lower Federal Courts
Congress has the Constitutional power to establish federal courts in the United States. Congress has established federal courts on all levels. The most numerous federal courts that have been established are called District Courts; these are the lowest level federal courts in the United States.

-Federal District Courts: These are the basic trial courts in federal court system for both criminal and civil cases. The United States is currently divided into 91judicial districts. Each state must have at least one federal judicial district; some of the larger states such as California, New York, and Texas have up to 4 federal judicial districts. There are currently close to 600 federal district court judges working in the federal court system today. Each of these judges are appointed for life by the President.

-District Courts use 2 types of juries in criminal cases; Grand Juries, and Petit Juries.

-Grand Jury: Made up of 16-23 people. These people
decide whether there is enough evidence against a person
accused of a crime to hold that person over for trial. If
they decide there is enough evidence they issue an
indictment which is a formal accusation charging a person
with a crime.

-Petit Jury: Made up of 6, 9, or 12 people. This is a trial
jury in civil and criminal cases. Their job is to weigh the
evidence in a case and render a verdict. In criminal cases
a jury will rule either guilty or innocent. In a civil case a
jury will rule either in favor of the plaintiff or the
defendant.

Federal Officers of the Court
In addition to district judges, the federal judicial districts have other officers that help the courts run.

-United States Attorney: Each district has a US Attorney’s office. The job of the US Attorney’s office is to represent the US government in all civil cases involving the federal government, and to prosecute the accused in all federal criminal cases. Each districts US Attorney is appointed by the President.

-United States Magistrate: Issues federal arrest warrants, search warrants, and helps decide whether an arrested person should be held for a grand jury hearing. The US Magistrate is appointed by the President.

-United States Marshall: The US Marshall’s office executes warrants, makes federal arrests, secures jurors for federal cases, and insures order is kept in federal courtrooms. The US Marshall is appointed by the President.

Other Federal Courts
Besides the District Courts, the United States Judicial Branch employs other courts for different reasons.

-Federal Circuit Court of Appeals: The United States is divided into 12 federal judicial circuits with one court of appeals for each circuit. There is a 13th court that has national jurisdiction and that usually handles very serious cases. The job of these courts is simply to hear appeals cases of other federal courts. A panel of at least three judges hears and decides all federal appeals. The appeals court has the power to make one of three decisions: reverse the original decision, uphold the original decision, or order the case to be sent back to lower court for a re-trial. All together there are 13 Federal Courts of Appeals. The decisions made by all 13 of these courts are final decisions unless they are appealed to, and accepted by the US Supreme Court, making these courts the second highest courts in the United States.

-US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: This is a special court of appeals with national jurisdiction. This court is set up to hear appeals brought to it by the US Claims Court, the Court of International Trade, the US Patent Office, and several federal agencies.

-The Court of International Trade: This court has original jurisdiction over cases that deal with international tariffs. The US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears all appeals from this court.

-United States Claims Court: This court has original jurisdiction over cases that deal with lawsuits against the Federal government. US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hears all appeals from this court.

-United States Tax Court: This court has original jurisdiction over all cases that deal with federal taxes. One of the 12 US Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from this court.

-US Bankruptcy Court: Each federal judicial district has a special court set up to hear and decide bankruptcy cases. One of the 12 US Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from this court.

-The Court of Military Appeals: This court hears appeals cases involving members of the US Armed Forces convicted of a crime. The US Supreme Court hears appeals from this court.

-Territorial Courts: These courts hear federal civil and criminal cases in the US Territories of The Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. One of the 12 US Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from this court.

-Courts of the District of Columbia: Since Washington DC is a federal district; all local courts in that city are part of the federal judicial system. One of the 12 US Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from these courts.


The Supreme Court Of The United States of America

-The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. It has final authority in any case involving the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties with other nations.

-Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts making the Supreme Court mostly an appellate court. The decisions of the Supreme Court are binding on all lower courts.

-The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving representatives of foreign governments, and in certain cases where one of the States is a party (usually in lawsuits where one state is suing another state.)

-Many cases are appealed to the Supreme Court, too many for the Court to actually hear. The Supreme Court has the luxury of choosing which cases it will hear. The court chooses what cases it will hear based primarily on the case’s importance to the Constitution of the United States.

-The decisions of the Supreme Court are final and cannot be overturned by any other court, Congress, or the President. There are only two ways to change a Supreme Court decision.

-Supreme Court decisions can be overturned by other Supreme Court decisions.

-An amendment to the Constitution can overturn a Supreme Court Decision.

-In order to be a Supreme Court Justice one must be a citizen of the United States, be appointed by the President, and have the appointment confirmed by the US Senate.

-The Supreme Court is made up of a Chief Justice, and eight Associate Justices for a total of 9 justices.

-Currently the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is John Roberts. In addition to the normal duties of a Supreme Court Justice the Chief Justice also presides over the Supreme Court, and acts as the chief administrator of the nations court system

-The current Associate Justices of the Supreme Court are Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Stephen Bryer, and John Paul Stevens. The duties of Supreme Court Justices include deciding which cases to hear each session, making decisions on the cases the court hears, and each Justice is assigned one of the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeal to preside over (3 Justices preside over 2 Circuits.)

-Whenever a decision is made by the Supreme Court, one or more of the Justices writes what is called an opinion. There are two types of opinions.
-Majority Opinion: This is an explanation of why the
Court voted the way that it did in a case. The Majority
Opinion is written by one of the justices that voted with
the majority. If the Chief Justice is in the majority he
will either write the opinion himself or assign the opinion
to one of the Associate Justices; if the Chief Justice is not
in the majority the longest serving Associate Justice in
the majority will determine who writes it.

-Dissenting Opinion: This is an explanation of why the
members of the Court who voted against the decision
voted that way. The Dissenting Opinion is written by
one of the justices that voted against the decision. If the
Chief Justice is one of the dissenters he will either write
the opinion himself or assign the opinion to one of the
Associate Justices; if the Chief Justice is not a dissenter the longest serving Associate Justice who dissents will determine who writes it.


MARBURY v. MADISON (1803)
In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court asserted its power to review acts of Congress and invalidate those that conflict with the Constitution.

During the first two administrations, President George Washington and President John Adams appointed only Federalist Party members to administration and judiciary positions. When Thomas Jefferson won the 1800 election, President Adams, a Federalist, proceeded to rapidly fill the judiciary bench with members of his own party, who would serve for life during "good behavior." In response, Jeffersonian Republicans repealed the Judiciary Act of 1800, which had created several new judgeships and circuit courts with Federalist judges, and threatened impeachment if the Supreme Court overturned the repeal statute.

Although President Adams attempted to fill the vacancies prior to the end of his term, he had not delivered a number of commissions. Thus, when Jefferson became President, he refused to honor the last-minute appointments of President John Adams. As a result, William Marbury, one of those appointees, sued James Madison, the new Secretary of State, and asked the Supreme Court to order the delivery of his commission as a justice of the peace.

The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus (i.e., an order to force Madison to deliver the commission), the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law. Instead, Marshall found a common ground where the Court could chastise the Jeffersonians for their actions while enhancing the Supreme Court's power. His decision in this case has often been hailed as a judicial tour de force.

Basically, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury; however, he ruled that the Court lacked the power to issue writs of mandamus. While a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granted the Court the power to issue writs of mandamus, the Court ruled that this exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution and was therefore null and void. So, while the case limited the court's power in one sense, it greatly enhanced it in another by ultimately establishing the court's power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional. Just as important, it emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the arbiter and final authority of the Constitution. As a result of this court ruling, the Supreme Court became an equal partner in the government.

DRED SCOTT v. SANFORD (1857):
Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner, Sanford, into northern federal territory. Scott felt that he was free because of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which excluded slavery from specified portions of United States territories. When he came back to Missouri, Scott sued his owner for his freedom. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that slaves were property, not citizens and, therefore, Dred Scott was not entitled to use the courts. The Court also said that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in the territory and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional.

PLESSY v. FERGUSON (1896):
Plessy purchased a first class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway. Plessy, who was racially mixed (one-eighth black and seven-eighths Caucasian), was a United States citizen and a resident of the state of Louisiana. He took a seat in the coach where only whites were permitted to sit. He was told by the conductor to leave the coach and to find another seat on the train where non-whites were permitted to sit. Plessy did not move and was ejected by force from the train. Plessy was sent to jail for violating the Louisiana Act of 1890, which required railway companies to provide “separate but equal” accommodations for white and black races. Plessy argued that this law was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Louisiana Act, which stated that “all railway companies were to provide equal but separate accommodations for white and black races” did not violate the Constitution. The law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, which gave all blacks citizenship, and forbade states from passing any laws which would deprive blacks of their constitutional rights. The Court believed that “separate but equal” was the most reasonable approach considering the social prejudices which prevailed at the time.

BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (1954)
On May 17, 1954, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision on segregation in public elementary schools. That case, which consolidated a number of matters on appeal from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia and Delaware, was titled Brown v. Board of Education. Like in Sweatt and McLaurin, the Court here considered criteria beyond the physical facilities and other tangible assets of black and white schools. So, even if the black schools and white schools had substantially equal buildings, curricula, classroom materials, teacher qualifications and salaries, the separate schools still possibly did not offer equal educational opportunities. Turning to the effect of segregation on school children, the Court noted that to separate black children from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone.
In the field of public education the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.
This sense of inferiority affects their motivation to learn and, thus, has a tendency to retard their educational and mental development and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system. The Court then held that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and rejected any language in Plessy that ran contrary to this. So, in this century of change, people once enslaved were unshackled and set free. People once isolated were integrated into society. People once looked down upon returned to lead. And, these leaders guided not just themselves but the entire nation to a better place. A place where people have never been freer. A place where justice has never been fairer. And, a place where the promise of America has never been finer.


ROE v. WADE (1973)
Facts:
A Texas woman sought to terminate her pregnancy. However, a Texas law made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when the mother’s life would be in danger if she remained pregnant. Ms. Roe challenged the Texas law on the grounds that the law violated her right of personal liberty given in the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to privacy protected by the Bill of Rights.
Issue:
Whether state law which bans or regulates abortion violates a woman’s right to privacy or personal choice in matters of family decisions or marriage.
Opinion:
The Supreme Court of the United States decided that states could regulate abortions only in certain circumstances but otherwise women did have a right to privacy and reproductive autonomy. The Court divided a woman’s pregnancy into three time periods: 1) during the first trimester (the first three months of pregnancy), states may not interfere with a woman’s decision to have an abortion; 2) during the second trimester, states could regulate abortions, but only if such regulation was reasonably related to the mother’s health; and, 3) during the third trimester, which occurs after the fetus (unborn child) reaches viability (the stage at which it can survive outside the mother’s body), states may regulate absolutely and ban abortions altogether in order to protect the unborn child. The woman’s right to privacy was held to be a fundamental right which could only be denied if a compelling state interest existed. Once the fetus reaches a “viable” stage of development, such a compelling point is reached because the unborn child is now given constitutional protection.


Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Facts:
Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in 1961, and charged with breaking and entering a pool hall with intent to commit petty larceny (a felony). He did not have enough money for a lawyer and asked that one be appointed to defend him. The judge denied the request, saying that under Florida state law, counsel can be appointed only in a capital offense. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison. He then filed a writ of certiorari (petition of appeal) to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking for a case review. The Court granted Gideon’s request and appointed Abe Fortas to represent him.
Issue:
Whether the state of Florida violated Gideon’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel, made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, by not providing him with the assistance of counsel for his criminal defense.
Opinion:
The Court ruled unanimously in Gideon’s favor, and held that the Fourteenth Amendment included state as well as federal defendants. The Court said that all states must provide an attorney in all felony and capital cases for people who cannot afford one themselves. Through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of the right to counsel applies to the states. [Gideon was retried in Florida and found not guilty.]

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Facts:
Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping. His conviction was based in part on incriminating statements he made to the police while they interrogated him. At no time during the questioning did the police inform Miranda that he did not have to talk to them or that he had the right to a lawyer when being questioned by police.
Issue"
Whether the state of Arizona violated the constitutional rights of Miranda under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when they interrogated him without advising him of his constitutional right to remain silent.
Opinion:
The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the police were in error. The Court held that the police must inform suspects that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel before the police may begin to question those held in custody.
[Miranda established the “Miranda Warning” which police now use prior to interrogation of persons arrested.]

Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Facts:
William Henry Furman, a 26 year old African American, attempted to burglarize a home in Georgia. When the homeowner awoke and attempted to stop him, Mr. Furman tried to escape. He tripped and dropped his gun, which went off, killing the homeowner. At the trial, Mr. Furman was found guilty of murder, despite a claim of mental incompetence. Under Georgia statute, the jury had the option of recommending the death penalty or life imprisonment. Mr. Furman was sentenced to death. His lawyer argued the Georgian death penalty law was excessively cruel and: (1) made rehabilitation impossible; (2) imprisonment was an available alternative; and (3) the death penalty was imposed almost exclusively on poor people and black persons.
Issue:
Whether Mr. Furman’s death sentence was a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Opinion:
In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court of the United States struck down all existing state death penalty laws. The justices reasoned these death penalty laws left almost unlimited discretion to the judges or juries in deciding the sentence. The majority of the justices agreed that almost all those convicted in capital trials were black or poor or both, which they found “capriciously selective.” The Court did not declare capital punishment a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” clause. Instead, it declared the existing death penalty laws violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.