Chapter 14 The Federal Judicial System: Applying The Law

Bush v. Gore 2000

Through its ruling in Bush v. Gore, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively ended the 2000 presidential election giving the presidency

to Bush. At issue was whether the “undervotes” in Florida – ballots on which

counting machines had detected no vote for president – would be tabulated by hand.

Florida’s top court had ordered a statewide manual recount, but the U.S. Supreme Court by a narrow 5 – 4 margin and issued a rare

emergency order halting the action.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice John Paul Stevens:

“Preventing the recount from being

completed will inevitably cast a doubt upon the

legitimacy of the election.”

3 Key Points about the Bush v. Gore Decision

1. The judiciary is an extremely important policy making body. Some of its rulings are as important as a law passed by Congress or an Executive Order.

2. The judiciary has considerable discretion in rulings. The justices invoked their individual interpretations of the law.

3. The judiciary is a political as well as legal institution. The Bush v. Gore case was a product of contending political forces, was developed through a political process, had political content, and was decided by political appointees.

Chapter 14 Main Points

1. The federal judiciary includes the Supreme Court of the U.S., which functions mainly as an appellate court; courts of appeal, which hear appeals; and district courts, which hold trials.

2. Judicial decisions are constrained by applicable constitutional law, statutory and administrative law, and precedent.

3. The judiciary has become an increasingly powerful policymaking body in recent decades, raising the question of the judiciary’s proper role in a democracy.

The Federal Judicial SystemThe Federal Judicial System The framers of the Constitution established the The framers of the Constitution established the

judiciary as a separate and independent branch of the judiciary as a separate and independent branch of the federal government, but granted Congress the power to federal government, but granted Congress the power to decide the size and structure of the lower federal decide the size and structure of the lower federal courts.courts.

Unlike the situation for the offices of president, senator, Unlike the situation for the offices of president, senator, and representative, the Constitution places no age, and representative, the Constitution places no age, residency, or citizenship qualifications on federal residency, or citizenship qualifications on federal judicial office. Nor does the Constitution require a judicial office. Nor does the Constitution require a judge to have legal training. Tradition alone dictates judge to have legal training. Tradition alone dictates that federal judges have an education or professional that federal judges have an education or professional background in the law.background in the law.

The Supreme Court of the The Supreme Court of the United StatesUnited States..

The Supreme Court of the The Supreme Court of the United States is the nation’s United States is the nation’s

highest court. The chief highest court. The chief justice presides over the justice presides over the

court. All justices are court. All justices are nominated by the president nominated by the president

and confirmed by the and confirmed by the Senate.Senate.

The Constitution gave the Supreme The Constitution gave the Supreme Court both original and appellate Court both original and appellate jurisdiction:jurisdiction:

Original JurisdictionOriginal Jurisdiction – The authority of a – The authority of a given given court to be the first court to court to be the first court to hear a case.hear a case.

Appellate JurisdictionAppellate Jurisdiction – The authority of a – The authority of a given given court to review cases that have court to review cases that have already already been tried in lower courts been tried in lower courts and are appealed and are appealed to it by the losing to it by the losing party; party; such a court is such a court is called an called an appeal court or appellate court.appeal court or appellate court.

It is important to note that appellate It is important to note that appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, do courts, including the Supreme Court, do not retry cases; rather, they determine not retry cases; rather, they determine whether a trial court acted in accord whether a trial court acted in accord with applicable law.with applicable law.

Selecting and Deciding Cases

• The primary function of the judiciary is to interpret the law in such a way that rules made in the past can be consistently applied in the present. This function gives the courts a policy-making role.

• Precedent – A judicial decision that serves as a rule for settling subsequent cases of a similar nature.

• Lower courts are expected to follow precedent –that is, to resolve cases of a like nature in ways consistent with upper-court rulings. (They do not always do this.)

Selecting and Deciding Cases• The Supreme Court’s ability to set legal precedent is

strengthened by its nearly complete discretion in choosing the cases it will hear. The largest portion of cases that reach the Supreme Court do so through a Writ of Certiorari – Permission granted by a higher court to allow a losing party in a legal case to bring the case before it for a ruling. Each year roughly seven thousand parties apply for certiorari, but the Court only accepts about a hundred cases for a full hearing and signed ruling.

• The Court seldom accepts a routine case, even if the justices believe the lower court has erred. The Supreme Court’s job is not to correct every mistake of other courts but to resolve broad legal questions.

• In recent years, about three-fourths of the Supreme Court’s decisions have reversed lower court judgments.

Issuing Decisions and OpinionsThe decision indicates which party the court

supports and by how large a margin. The opinion explains the reasons behind the decisions.

Decision – A vote of the Supreme Court in a particular case that indicates which party the justices side with and by how large a margin.

Opinion – A court’s written explanation of its decision, which serves to inform others of the legal basis for the decision.

Issuing Decisions and OpinionsWhen a majority of the justices agree on the legal basis of

a decision, the result is a majority decision. In some cases there is no majority opinion because a majority of

the justices agree on the decision but cannot agree on the legal basis for it. The result in these cases is a plurality

opinion, which presents the view held by most of the justices who side with the winning party. Another type of opinion is a concurring opinion, which is a separate view

written by a justice who votes with the majority but disagrees with its reasoning.

Justices on the losing side can write a dissenting opinion to explain their reasons for disagreeing with the majority

position.

Other Federal Courts

There are more than 100 federal courts but only one Supreme Court, and its position at the top of the country’s

judicial system give the Supreme Court unparalleled importance. The U.S. has federal and state courts because of the framers of the constitution’s belief in

federalism.

U.S. District Courts

The lowest federal courts are the district courts. There are more than 90 federal district courts.

There are more than 800 district court judges who are appointed by the President with the consent of

the Senate. Federal cases usually originate in district courts, which are trial courts where the parties argue their sides. District courts are the only courts in the federal system in which juries hear testimony. Most federal cases end with the

district court’s decision; the losing party does not appeal the decision to a higher court.

U.S. Courts of Appeals

The federal judiciary includes a few specialty courts as well. Among them are the U.S. Court of

International Trade, which handles cases involving appeals of U.S. Customs Office rulings; and the

U.S. Court of Military Appeals, which hears appeals of military courts-martial.

State CourtsState Courts • The 10th Amendment protects each state in its The 10th Amendment protects each state in its

sovereignty, and each state has its own court sovereignty, and each state has its own court system. Like the federal courts, state court system. Like the federal courts, state court systems have trial courts at the bottom level systems have trial courts at the bottom level and appellate courts at the top.and appellate courts at the top.

• Each state decides for itself the structure of its Each state decides for itself the structure of its courts and the method of judicial appointment. courts and the method of judicial appointment. In some states judges are appointed by the In some states judges are appointed by the government, but in most states judgeships are government, but in most states judgeships are elective offices.elective offices.

• Missouri PlanMissouri Plan – The governor selects a judge – The governor selects a judge from a short list of acceptable candidates from a short list of acceptable candidates provided by a judicial selection committee. To provided by a judicial selection committee. To stay on the bench, the judge selected must stay on the bench, the judge selected must periodically receive the voters’ support in a periodically receive the voters’ support in a “yes” or “no” election.“yes” or “no” election.

• More than 95% of the nation’s legal cases are More than 95% of the nation’s legal cases are decided in state courts.decided in state courts.

Federal Court Appointees

Federal Judges and Justices are political officials who exercise the authority of a separate and

powerful branch of government. All federal jurists bring their political views with them to the

courtroom and have regular opportunities to promote their political beliefs through the cases

they decide. Not surprisingly, the process by which federal judges are appointed is a partisan

one.

Supreme Court Supreme Court NomineesNominees • The formal mechanism for The formal mechanism for

appointments to the Supreme Court appointments to the Supreme Court and the lower courts is the same: the and the lower courts is the same: the president nominates, and the Senate president nominates, and the Senate confirms or rejects.confirms or rejects.

• Because most justices retain their Because most justices retain their positions for many years, presidents positions for many years, presidents can influence judicial policy through can influence judicial policy through their appointments long after they have their appointments long after they have left office. Nearly 20% of presidential left office. Nearly 20% of presidential nominees to the Supreme Court have nominees to the Supreme Court have been rejected by the Senate on grounds been rejected by the Senate on grounds of judicial qualification, political views, of judicial qualification, political views, personal ethics, or partisanship. (Most personal ethics, or partisanship. (Most of these before 1900)of these before 1900)

Lower Court NomineesLower Court Nominees

The president normally delegates to the The president normally delegates to the deputy deputy Attorney GeneralAttorney General the task of the task of

screening potential nominees for screening potential nominees for lower-court judgeships. lower-court judgeships. Senatorial Senatorial CourtesyCourtesy is also a consideration in is also a consideration in these appointments; this tradition these appointments; this tradition

holds that a senator from the state in holds that a senator from the state in which a vacancy has arisen should be which a vacancy has arisen should be given a say in the nomination if the given a say in the nomination if the senator is of the same party as the senator is of the same party as the

president.president.

The Nature of Judicial Decision Making

Oliver Wendell Holmes:

“My job is not to do justice, my job is to

play the game according to the

rules.”

The Nature of Judicial Decision Making

The Constraints of Facts

Facts – The relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense as determined by a trial court. The facts of the case are crucial because they help determine which law or laws are applicable in the case.

The Constraints of Law

Laws – The constitutional provisions, legislative statutes, or judicial precedents that apply to a court case.

The Constraints of LawThe Constraints of Law

There are three sources of law that constrain the There are three sources of law that constrain the courts: courts: the Constitutionthe Constitution, , StatutesStatutes, and , and PrecedentsPrecedents..

1. 1. The ConstitutionThe Constitution: :

The Constitution of the United States is the The Constitution of the United States is the nation’s highest law, and judges and justices nation’s highest law, and judges and justices are sworn to uphold it. When a case raises a are sworn to uphold it. When a case raises a constitutional issue, a court has the duty to constitutional issue, a court has the duty to apply the Constitution to the case.apply the Constitution to the case.

The Constraints of LawThe Constraints of Law

2.2. StatutesStatutes: : Most Most criminal lawcriminal law cases (where an individual cases (where an individual is charged with engaging in an illegal act such is charged with engaging in an illegal act such as theft or murder) and as theft or murder) and civil lawcivil law cases (where cases (where the parties are engaged in a non-criminal the parties are engaged in a non-criminal disputes such as divorce proceedings or disputes such as divorce proceedings or conflicting property claims) are covered by conflicting property claims) are covered by laws or statutes created by legislative action laws or statutes created by legislative action or by administrative regulations that have or by administrative regulations that have been developed by government agencies on been developed by government agencies on the basis of statutory law.the basis of statutory law.

The Constraints of LawThe Constraints of Law3. 3. Legal PrecedentsLegal Precedents::

Precedent holds that principles of law, Precedent holds that principles of law, once established, should be accepted as once established, should be accepted as authoritative in subsequent similar authoritative in subsequent similar cases. cases. PrecedentPrecedent is one of the means is one of the means by which greater consistency in the by which greater consistency in the application of the law can be achieved. application of the law can be achieved. It is the most important function of the It is the most important function of the Supreme Court.Supreme Court.

Political Influences on Judicial Decisions

Judges do have some leeway in their decisions. As a consequence, their rulings reflect not only legal influences but political ones, which can come from both outside and inside the judicial system.

Outside InfluencesOutside Influences Judges are responsive to public opinion. The Supreme Judges are responsive to public opinion. The Supreme

Court typically has stayed close enough to public Court typically has stayed close enough to public opinion to avoid seriously eroding public support for its opinion to avoid seriously eroding public support for its decisions. (Ex. – Brown Decision)decisions. (Ex. – Brown Decision)

Congress and the President both have powerful means of Congress and the President both have powerful means of influencing the federal judiciary. Congress is influencing the federal judiciary. Congress is constitutionally empowered to establish the Supreme constitutionally empowered to establish the Supreme Court’s size and appellate jurisdiction, and Congress Court’s size and appellate jurisdiction, and Congress can rewrite legislation that it feels the judiciary has can rewrite legislation that it feels the judiciary has misinterpreted. misinterpreted.

The President is responsible for enforcing court The President is responsible for enforcing court decisions and has some control over the types of cases decisions and has some control over the types of cases that come before the courts. Judicial appointments also that come before the courts. Judicial appointments also provide the president with judicial influence.provide the president with judicial influence.

Inside InfluencesInside Influences

Judicial beliefs are affected by the political beliefs Judicial beliefs are affected by the political beliefs of the men and women who sit on the court. of the men and women who sit on the court. Partisanship was never more evident than in the Partisanship was never more evident than in the Supreme Court’s Supreme Court’s Bush v. GoreBush v. Gore (2000) decision. (2000) decision. The five justices in the majority are considered The five justices in the majority are considered the more conservative judges.the more conservative judges.

Major shifts in the Supreme Court’s positions Major shifts in the Supreme Court’s positions usually occur when its membership changes. usually occur when its membership changes. Such shifts are related to political shifts.Such shifts are related to political shifts.

Judicial Power and Democratic Government

The judiciary’s power is most evident when it declares executive or legislative action to be unconstitutional. The power of the courts to make such determinations, called judicial review, was first asserted in the landmark Marbury v. Madison (1803). Without judicial review, the federal courts would be unable to restrain an elected official or institution that has gone out of control.

The Debate over the Proper Role of the Judiciary

The question of judicial power centers on the basic issue of legitimacy: the proper authority of the judiciary in a political system based in part on the principle of majority rule.

??? How far should the judiciary go in asserting its authority when that authority collides with or goes beyond the action of elected institutions?

Two Schools of Thought: Judicial Restraint / Judicial Activism

Judicial RestraintJudicial Restraint

The doctrine that the judiciary should be highly The doctrine that the judiciary should be highly respectful of precedent and should defer to respectful of precedent and should defer to the judgment of the legislatures. Claims that the judgment of the legislatures. Claims that the job of the judges is to work within the the job of the judges is to work within the confines of laws set down by tradition and confines of laws set down by tradition and lawmaking majorities.lawmaking majorities.

Advocates of judicial restraint contend that Advocates of judicial restraint contend that when the judiciary assumes policy functions when the judiciary assumes policy functions that traditionally belong to elected that traditionally belong to elected institutions, it undermines the premise of institutions, it undermines the premise of self-government: the right of the majority to self-government: the right of the majority to choose society’s policies.choose society’s policies.

Judicial ActivismJudicial Activism The doctrine that the courts should develop The doctrine that the courts should develop

new legal principles when judges see a new legal principles when judges see a compelling need, even if this action places compelling need, even if this action places them in conflict with the policy decisions of them in conflict with the policy decisions of elected officials.elected officials.

The doctrine of judicial activism is espoused The doctrine of judicial activism is espoused by by liberal activistliberal activist who promote protection of who promote protection of individual rights. Proponents of judicial individual rights. Proponents of judicial activism believe for example that same-sex activism believe for example that same-sex marriages should have many of the same marriages should have many of the same rights as opposite-sex couples. They would rights as opposite-sex couples. They would applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in applaud the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. TexasLawrence v. Texas which which struck down laws struck down laws making it a crime for adults of the same sex making it a crime for adults of the same sex to engage in consensual sexual relations.to engage in consensual sexual relations.

The Judiciary’s Proper Role:The Judiciary’s Proper Role: A Question of Competing Values A Question of Competing Values

The United States is a constitutional The United States is a constitutional democracy that recognizes both the democracy that recognizes both the power of the majority to rule and the power of the majority to rule and the

claim of the minority to protection of its claim of the minority to protection of its rights. The constitutional question of rights. The constitutional question of

how far the courts should be allowed to how far the courts should be allowed to go in substituting their judgment for go in substituting their judgment for

that of elected institutions and that of elected institutions and established law is open to question.established law is open to question.