Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Interpret the meaning of this image…
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS* Types of law.- Statutory Law: deals w/written statutes (laws).
- Common Law: judges make decisions based on unwritten law (precedents) - Judges rely upon the principle of stare decisis ("let the decision stand") - This is the basic system of law in Britain.
- Criminal Law: concerns violations of laws
- Civil Law: concerns disputes (torts) between two parties rather than violations against society.- Examples: breach of contract, slander, medical malpractice.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS* Judicial power is passive:- Courts cannot reach out and "take" cases Cases must come to them- There must be an actual case (“controversy”) for a court to make a ruling
* Only those with standing may challenge a law or govt. action:- i.e., only one who has sustained or is near sustaining an "injury" may bring a case to court- One cannot challenge a law simply because one does not happen to like it
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS* Judicial law-making:- Judges are not impartial referees who only carry out the law. - Judges interpret the law, and in so doing in fact make law. - It is necessary that they make law because: (1) Statutes are often broadly-worded, unclear, or contradictory (2) The Constitution is broadly-worded, needing interpretation
* Evidence of judicial law-making:- The Supreme Court has reversed itself >200 times since 1810 - Since the 1960's, increasingly seem willing to rule on political questions rather than solely on legislative or constitutional questions (e.g., Baker v. Carr, Shaw v. Reno, Bush v. Gore)
USA Judicial System Basics
The Nature of the Judicial SystemCriminal Law Participants:
- Defendant - the party being charged with a crime- Prosecution – the government—proves guilt of defendants- Grand Jury – decide if enough evidence enough evidence exists to formally accuse person of committing crime
Civil Law Participants:- Plaintiff - the party bringing the charge/complaint - Defendant – person being sued
Criminal & Civil Law Juries:
- Petit Jury - the people (normally 12) who often decide the outcome of a case
Map of a Typical Courtroom
Criminal Law: Due Process
(1) Investigation & Arrest
(2) Grand Jury —formally accuse of crime (indict)
* (3) Plea Bargain: Defendant pleads guilty to a lesser crime, but gets lighter punishment
(4) Criminal Trial
(5) a. Petit Jury’s Decision b. Judge’s sentence (punishment)
Criminal Law Steps
Prosecution: always the governmentDefendant: person accused of crimePetit Jury: 12 citizens who decide case
Actors Involved
Govt. charges someone with committing crimeDefinitionCriminal Law Timeline
(1) Hire a Lawyer
(2) File Complaint (legal document with charges)
(3) Pretrial Discovery
(4) Resolution without a trial—settlement or mediation/arbitration
(5) a. The Trialb. Award—If plaintiff wins, plaintiff gets money!
Civil Law Steps
Plaintiff—Person who seeks damages, the victimDefendant– Person accused of causing damagesSometimes a jury
Actors Involved
Deals with disputesDefinitionCivil Law Timeline
Comparing the Types of Burden of Proof
Meaning: The party that provides more convincing evidence than opponent wins
Meaning: To convict a defendant of a crime, the jury must have little or no doubt that the defendant is guilty
- Juror needs to be at least 90% sure of guilt to convict
Civil Conviction: Requires the jury to decide winner of lawsuit based upon the Preponderance of Evidence
Criminal Conviction: Requires the jury to find defendant guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Burden of Proof: the requirement of PROVING a disputed charge
The Nature of the Judicial System• Participants in the Judicial System
– Attorneys:• 6th Amendment & Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) only guarantees
legal counsel to defendant in criminal cases!• Access to quality lawyers is not equal
– How Groups can influence courts?• Class-Action Suit: lawsuit seeking damages for “all persons similarly
situated”– Users of particular products– Fight for civil rights
• Use the courts to try to change policies if other branches are too slow!– NAACP used courts in the 1950s & 1960s
• Amicus Curiae briefs are used to influence the courts
The Nature of the Judicial SystemPlea Bargain: Defendant pleads guilty to lesser crime—govt. doesn‘t prosecute the more serious crime- Prevents case from going to trial limits # of criminal cases that go to court- 90% of all criminal cases end in plea bargain
* Controversies of Plea Bargains: - defendant gives up many due process rights (specifically 5th Amendment rights)- guilty plea stays on your record—can lose many government benefits
Plea-Bargain Documentary: The Story of Erma Faye Stewart & Regina Kelly
1. Why were Erma Faye Stewart and Regina Kelly arrested?
2. Why did their court-appointed lawyers believe Stewart and Kelly should plead guilty?
3. Why did Stewart end up pleading guilty?
4. What happened to Stewart and Kelly after the confidential informant had lied to the prosecution?
5. Because Stewart took the plea bargain, can she apply for federal aid?
Article 3, Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold
their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which
shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
What are the main ideas from Article 3, Section 1?
Article 3, Section 2•The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
What are the main ideas from Article 3, Section 2?
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS* Jurisdiction: 4 types (1) Exclusive: sole authority of a federal court to
try a case (2) Concurrent: authority of both a federal and a
state court to try a case (3) Original: authority of a court to first try a case (4) Appellate: authority of a court to hear a
case’s appeal—review if lower court correctly applied law
* Jurisdiction of federal courts Federal courts may try a case if it involves:
A. The Constitution, a federal law, or a treatyB. Admiralty law (matters on high seas) or
maritime law (matters on land but relating to water)
C. Disputes between two or more statesD. The U.S. government as a partyE. Citizens of different statesF. Ambassadors or diplomats
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS* Dual system of courts: In our federal system, we have both federal and state courts
* Structure of the federal court system Two types of federal courts 1. Article I (legislative, or special) courts: - Created to carry out the enumerated powers of Congress - Judges in these hold fixed, not life, terms of office- Examples of these courts:a. Claims Court: hears lawsuits against the federal governmentb. Court of Military Appealsc. District of Columbia Courts
Our Dual Court SystemFederal Court System State Court System
US Supreme Court (hears 80-100 cases annually)
US Courts of Appeals
(13 courts 40,000 cases)
US District Courts(94 courts 290,000 cases)
Highest State Courts (50 courts 90,000 cases)
State Appellate Courts
(300,000 cases)
State Trial Courts(92 million filings )
Appellate Court Level
Trial Court Level
How Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Moved Through Court System…
1. (1958) Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court : Convicted of possessing pornographic materials—violating Ohio law, Police did not have warrant to search house
2. (1959) Ohio Court of Appeals, Eighth Judicial Circuit: Upheld the decision of the lower court
3. (1960) Supreme Court of Ohio: court recognizes that the search of her house was probably illegal, it allows her conviction to stand by stating that the evidence gained from an illegal search is not automatically inadmissible.
4. (1961) Supreme Court of the United States: The Court accepts Mapp's argument that the evidence gained during the illegal search of her house could not be used to convict her. Thus, the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to the states. Mapp's conviction is overturned.
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS2. Article III (constitutional) courts: - Article III of the Constitution deals with the judiciary, and creates a Supreme Court - Congress regulates the structure of the Federal court system - i.e.: power to create "inferior" (lower) courts - These three levels of courts form the main basis of our federal court system.- Judges in these courts hold life terms (Federalist #78)
* 3 Levels of Constitutional Courts:1. District Courts2. Appeals Courts3. Supreme Court
The Structure of the Federal Judicial SystemDistrict Court: hold Original Jurisdiction: hear the case first and determine the facts the trial court
- Cases are tried by a judge and jury.
- Use grand juries to issue indictments (orders that charge an individual with a crime. Does not mean that one is guilty; it merely means that one will be tried)
- A petit (trial) jury decides the outcome of a case
- Original Jurisdiction only
- May try civil, criminal, or constitutional cases
- Decisions may be appealed to Courts of Appeals
INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTSINTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL COURTS* Courts of Appeals (Circuit Courts):- 12 of these courts, spread out in 12 districts, or "circuits."-156 judges try > 18,000 cases a year.- Cases tried by a panel of 3 judges- Appellate Jurisdiction: hears appeals from District Courts and regulatory commissions- Decisions may be appealed to the Supreme Court.
* The Supreme Court- 9 justices: 1 Chief Justice, 8 Associate Justices- Original & Appellate jurisdiction:
- Supreme Court decides which appellate cases it will hear (only court that has this
power) - Rarely deals with original jurisdiction
cases, mostly deals with appellate jurisdiction cases- Most cases come from the federal courts- Most cases are civil cases
FEDERAL ATTORNEYS AND JUDGESFEDERAL ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES(1) Attorney General: - Appointed by President w/Senate consent. - Head of Justice Dept.
(2) Solicitor General: - Appointed by President w/Senate consent - Represents U.S. government in Supreme Court - Decides which cases the federal government will appeal to the Supreme Court - Decides the federal government's position in these cases -Sometimes called the “10th Justice” of the Supreme Court because of his influence there.
Solicitor General:
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.
FEDERAL ATTORNEYSFEDERAL ATTORNEYS(3) U.S. Attorneys: - At least one for each District Court, 94 in all
- Prosecutes federal criminal cases before the District Courts and Courts of Appeals, though most cases are settled by plea-bargaining
- Represents U.S. government in civil cases before these same courts
- Appointed by the President for 4-year terms (Key patronage positions)
- Senatorial courtesy applies in their appointments
FEDERAL JUDGESFEDERAL JUDGES(4) Federal Judges:- Appointed by President with “advice and consent” of Senate
- Article III states that they shall hold their offices "during good behavior," i.e., for life
- They can be impeached and removed by Congress (very rare -- only a handful of removals in >200 years).
- Compensation: Determined by Congress compensation cannot be lowered during judges' terms of office.
- 2009 salaries: - District Court: $169,300
- Courts of Appeals: $179,500- Supreme Court: $208,100 (Chief Justice: $217,400).
Selecting Federal Judges
The Basics of Becoming a Federal Judge 1. President Nominates federal judges:- Senatorial courtesy: When appointing District Court judges, the President usually consults with the two Senators from the state in which the judges are to be appointed Senators have the “courtesy” of consulting with the president- Court of Appeals & Supreme Court nominations rarely receive this “courtesy”
2.Senate Judiciary Committee:- Screens the nominees, and sends a recommendation to Senate floor for approval or rejection.- become more of a media circus (we will look at this later) - politics plays a big role in this step
3. Senate: Majority vote needed for confirmation- - Has refused to act upon or rejected, less than 20% of Supreme Court nominees in the 20th century
Choosing a Judge/Justice…•Nominee Factors:– Political Ideology plays an important role when president chooses justice– Generally of the same political party as the appointing president– “Litmus Test”– Judicial experience– Diversity? – Senate approval
The Politics of Judicial Selection: Litmus Test* Presidents and their advisors may
apply a "litmus test" to a potential nominee
- candidate chosen if their views are liberal or conservative on a single, divisive issue (abortion, gay marriage, privacy, etc.)
- IDEOLOGY = Crucial in determining nominee!
* Senators often use their own “litmus tests” to determine support
Senate Confirmation Process* Senate Judiciary Committee
asks tough questions- their vote decides if nominee will go to entire chamber
* Recent Examples:- Robert Bork (1987)- Clarence Thomas (1991)- John Roberts (2005) - our current Chief Justice- Samuel Alito (2005)- Sonia Sotomayor (2009)- Elena Kagan (2010)
The Politics of Judicial Selection
Justice Longevity
Backgrounds of Judges and Justices
How Cases reach the United States Supreme Court
* Last Resort for State Courts
* US Court of Appeal
* Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
* Legislative Courts
* Cases involvingforeign diplomats or ambassadors
* Cases involving a state:- between the US and a state- between 2 or more states- between a state and a foreign country
Option C.Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(State Route)
Option B.Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
(Federal Route)
Option A. Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court at Work– Granting petitions for review:• review is granted by a writ of certiorari, issued when a minimum of four
justices agree that the case should be heard by the Supreme Court AKA the “Rule of Four”
– Deciding cases - both parties in the case submit legal briefs and (usually) make oral arguments
– Decisions and opinions can be:• Affirmed, reversed, or remanded• Unanimous opinion• Majority opinion• Concurring opinion• Per Curiam (“by the court”)• Dissenting opinion
2010-11 Term
Figure 16.4
The Supreme Court Process1. Accepting Cases
– Use the “Rule of Four” to choose cases– Issues a writ of certiorari to call UP the case– Very few cases are actually accepted each year
The Supreme Court Process2. Hearing the Cases:
- open to the public (limited seating)- justices receive and review legal briefs before oral arguments- look over amicus curiae briefs
- each side only receives 30 minutes to present their case- justices bombard lawyers with questions
The Supreme Court Process3. Deciding the Cases:
– Justices meet privately to discuss cases– One justice will write the majority opinion (statement of legal reasoning
behind a judicial decision) on the case• Others have option to write a concurrent opinion• Minority Opinion too!
The Supreme Court Process4. Deciding the Case (continued)
- Majority Opinion: official opinion of the court—explains the view of the justices who agree with decision- Dissenting Opinion: written by justices who oppose the majority- Concurring Opinion: written in support of the majority’s conclusion but stress a different legal basis- Per Curiam Opinion: brief, unsigned opinion- Unanimous Decision: All justices agree—happens 40% of the time
* Purposes of opinions:
- Communicate the Court's reasoning to the public.- Establish precedents for future cases -- importance of stare decisis
- Drop "hints" that Congress, the states, or the President should take certain actions
A Dissent Becomes a Majority OpinionPlessy v. Ferguson (1896)- Justice Harlan's Dissent:
- “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens… "
- “ What can more certainly arouse race hate, what more certainly create and perpetuate a feeling of distrust between these races, than state enactments which, in fact, proceed on the ground that colored citizens are so inferior and degraded that they cannot be allowed to sit in public coaches occupied by white citizens?”
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
- Chief Justice Warren wrote for the Majority:
- “To separate them [children in grade and high schools] 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...”
The Supreme Court Process5. Implementing Court Decisions:
– Must rely on others to carry out decisions– US v. Virginia (1996)– Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
6. Power of Precedent:- case decisions become standards for later similar cases- only the Supreme Court can reverse precedents- Ex. Brown v Board of Ed. reversed Plessy v Ferguson
How the Supreme Court Makes Policy?
Judicial Review*Judicial Review: power of the courts to establish the
constitutionality of national, state, and local govt. acts- Est. by John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison [1803])
* 2 Debates: 1. Interpretation of the Constitution: strict constructionist
vs. loose constructionist
2. Role of Judges: Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
A Court’s Philosophy*Regarding Policymaking:
– Judicial restraint: judges should play a minimal policymaking role - leave policymaking to the legislative branch at L/S/N government’s– Judicial activism: judges should sometimes make bold policy decisions—sometimes charting new constitutional ground & overturning laws
* Regarding the Interpretation of the Constitution: - Strict Interpretation: judges should base decisions on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution- Loose Interpretation: judges should have considerable freedom in interpreting the Constitution
Famous Courts• Courts are named by the Chief Justice of the specific era
• A Historical Review– John Marshall
• Marbury v. Madison Judicial review– The Warren Court– The Burger Court– The Rehnquist Court– The Roberts Court - too early to generalize
The Modern Supreme Court* The Rehnquist Court:* Slight shift to the right Famous cases:- Texas v. Johnson (1989)- Gore v. Bush (2000)- Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) & Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)- Lawrence v Texas (2003)
* The Roberts Court: * Thus far, big shift to the right— Famous cases:- DC v. Heller (2008)- Citizens United v. FEC (2009) - McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Checks (and Balances) on the Courts
What Checks Our Courts?– Executive checks:
•Courts have no enforcement power; the president/bureaucracy must enforce decisions
- In rare cases a president refuses to implement a decision (Worcester v. Georgia (1832)“Trail of Tears”)
•Power of judicial appointments (short term check)
– Legislative checks:• Congress can create federal courts; change jurisdiction• Congress can impeach & remove judges• Senate confirms appointments of judges/justices• Rewriting laws Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)• Constitutional amendments can overrule court decisions - rare (need 2/3 of each chamber) & 3/4 of states to agree!
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009)
What Checks Our Courts? (cont.)* Public Opinion:
A. How is the Supreme Court Court affected?- appointment/confirmation process—must please president & senators- rely on other institutions to enforce decisions- new laws/amendments can overrule decisions- justices can be impeached (rare!!)- Congress can change appellate jurisdiction & # of justices on the court- Over many years, future courts can alter previous precedents Ex: Roe v. Wade (1973) was altered by Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992)
B. How is the Supreme Court insulated from politics? - justices serve life terms- don’t face reelections - create its own docket of cases to hear
