inferior courts
Also called lower courts, inferior courts include all US federal courts below the Supreme Court, including courts of appeals, district courts, and federal tribunals. Congress retains the power to establish inferior courts and to determine how they operate.
John Marshall
An early, influential Chief Justice of the United States who led the Supreme Court from 1801-1835. Marshall wrote several foundational Court decisions, including Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland, which enhanced the power of the judicial branch and affirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law.
judicial independence
Factors that prevent members of the legislative and executive branches from influencing Supreme Court justices, including lifetime appointments for justices and a ban on salary decreases for sitting justices.
judicial review
The Supreme Court’s power to review whether acts of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and state governments are consistent with the Constitution, and to strike down acts it finds unconstitutional.
Supreme Court
The highest federal court of the United States, established by Article III of the US Constitution, with nine sitting justices today. Unlike inferior courts, the Supreme Court is shielded from the influence of Congress, which cannot change its jurisdiction or the salaries of sitting justices.
judicial review
The power of the judicial branch to nullify an act of Congress, executive action, or state law if it violates the Constitution.
life tenure
Holding a position for life as Supreme Court justices do, unless they resign or are impeached.
judicial activism
The belief that the role of a justice is to defend individual rights and liberties, even those not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
judicial restraint
The belief that the role of a justice is to defer decisions (and thus policymaking) to the elected branches of government and stay focused on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
jurisdiction
The extent of the power a court has to make legal judgments and decisions.
Documents and cases to know
Federalist no. 78 (1788) - “The Judiciary Department,” written by Alexander Hamilton. In this essay advocating for the ratification of the US Constitution, Hamilton describes the proposed form for the new government’s judicial branch. He argues that judges should serve for life pending good behavior to ensure judicial independence, and that the judicial branch will be the “least dangerous” branch of government since it can neither wage war nor collect taxes. Hamilton also provides an early argument for the power of judicial review, stating that the courts’ duty is “to declare all acts contrary to . . . the Constitution void.”
Article III - Article III of the US Constitution establishes the judicial branch of US government. It explicitly creates one Supreme Court, but gives Congress the power to create all other inferior courts. Article III guarantees judicial independence by granting lifetime appointments for justices and preventing Congress from lowering the salaries of sitting justices.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) — An early Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s power of judicial review by striking down a law made by Congress as unconstitutional. In his written opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
Key takeaways
Constitutionalism - The federal courts use judicial review to determine whether the acts of Congress, the executive branch, and state governments comply with the Constitution. This exemplifies the principle of checks and balances by ensuring that the other branches of government cannot act outside the bounds of the Constitution without consequence.
The judicial branch also demonstrates the importance of separation of powers, as lifetime appointments for justices and bans on salary decreases for sitting justices ensure the judicial branch’s independence from the interference of the other two branches.
Judicial activism and judicial restraint — The debate over judicial activism and judicial restraint is a key issue in discussions around the power of the Supreme Court. Some justices favor a policy of judicial restraint, viewing their role as strict interpreters of precedent and the Constitution, and deferring decisions that impact policymaking to the other, elected branches of government.
But other justices believe in judicial activism: that the Court should be bolder in upholding rights that may not be explicitly stated in the Constitution, and in striking down legislation that infringes those rights.
Challenging and limiting the Court’s power — In the wake of a controversial ruling by the Court, the other branches may challenge its legitimacy and power, questioning either the Court’s right to exercise judicial review or the appropriateness of its justices’ life tenures. Both the legislative and executive branches can also employ checks that can limit the Court’s power, for example via the nomination and confirmation of justices.
In the event of a vacancy, the president is likely to nominate a justice with whom they are at least somewhat ideologically aligned, which may in turn alter the ideological balance of the Court and decrease the likelihood of future majority opinions that conflict with the views of the president’s party. Because federal judges serve life terms, these appointments can have long-lasting impacts after a president has left office.
Congress can pass legislation to attempt to limit the Court’s power: by changing the Court’s jurisdiction; by modifying the impact of a Court decision after it has been made; or by amending the Constitution in relation to the Court. The president (and the states) may also choose to evade or ignore a Court decision; while not very common, this approach has been used in the past following some unpopular rulings.
Also called lower courts, inferior courts include all US federal courts below the Supreme Court, including courts of appeals, district courts, and federal tribunals. Congress retains the power to establish inferior courts and to determine how they operate.
John Marshall
An early, influential Chief Justice of the United States who led the Supreme Court from 1801-1835. Marshall wrote several foundational Court decisions, including Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland, which enhanced the power of the judicial branch and affirmed the supremacy of federal law over state law.
judicial independence
Factors that prevent members of the legislative and executive branches from influencing Supreme Court justices, including lifetime appointments for justices and a ban on salary decreases for sitting justices.
judicial review
The Supreme Court’s power to review whether acts of the legislative branch, the executive branch, and state governments are consistent with the Constitution, and to strike down acts it finds unconstitutional.
Supreme Court
The highest federal court of the United States, established by Article III of the US Constitution, with nine sitting justices today. Unlike inferior courts, the Supreme Court is shielded from the influence of Congress, which cannot change its jurisdiction or the salaries of sitting justices.
judicial review
The power of the judicial branch to nullify an act of Congress, executive action, or state law if it violates the Constitution.
life tenure
Holding a position for life as Supreme Court justices do, unless they resign or are impeached.
judicial activism
The belief that the role of a justice is to defend individual rights and liberties, even those not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
judicial restraint
The belief that the role of a justice is to defer decisions (and thus policymaking) to the elected branches of government and stay focused on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights.
jurisdiction
The extent of the power a court has to make legal judgments and decisions.
Documents and cases to know
Federalist no. 78 (1788) - “The Judiciary Department,” written by Alexander Hamilton. In this essay advocating for the ratification of the US Constitution, Hamilton describes the proposed form for the new government’s judicial branch. He argues that judges should serve for life pending good behavior to ensure judicial independence, and that the judicial branch will be the “least dangerous” branch of government since it can neither wage war nor collect taxes. Hamilton also provides an early argument for the power of judicial review, stating that the courts’ duty is “to declare all acts contrary to . . . the Constitution void.”
Article III - Article III of the US Constitution establishes the judicial branch of US government. It explicitly creates one Supreme Court, but gives Congress the power to create all other inferior courts. Article III guarantees judicial independence by granting lifetime appointments for justices and preventing Congress from lowering the salaries of sitting justices.
Marbury v. Madison (1803) — An early Supreme Court case that affirmed the Court’s power of judicial review by striking down a law made by Congress as unconstitutional. In his written opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that “an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
Key takeaways
Constitutionalism - The federal courts use judicial review to determine whether the acts of Congress, the executive branch, and state governments comply with the Constitution. This exemplifies the principle of checks and balances by ensuring that the other branches of government cannot act outside the bounds of the Constitution without consequence.
The judicial branch also demonstrates the importance of separation of powers, as lifetime appointments for justices and bans on salary decreases for sitting justices ensure the judicial branch’s independence from the interference of the other two branches.
Judicial activism and judicial restraint — The debate over judicial activism and judicial restraint is a key issue in discussions around the power of the Supreme Court. Some justices favor a policy of judicial restraint, viewing their role as strict interpreters of precedent and the Constitution, and deferring decisions that impact policymaking to the other, elected branches of government.
But other justices believe in judicial activism: that the Court should be bolder in upholding rights that may not be explicitly stated in the Constitution, and in striking down legislation that infringes those rights.
Challenging and limiting the Court’s power — In the wake of a controversial ruling by the Court, the other branches may challenge its legitimacy and power, questioning either the Court’s right to exercise judicial review or the appropriateness of its justices’ life tenures. Both the legislative and executive branches can also employ checks that can limit the Court’s power, for example via the nomination and confirmation of justices.
In the event of a vacancy, the president is likely to nominate a justice with whom they are at least somewhat ideologically aligned, which may in turn alter the ideological balance of the Court and decrease the likelihood of future majority opinions that conflict with the views of the president’s party. Because federal judges serve life terms, these appointments can have long-lasting impacts after a president has left office.
Congress can pass legislation to attempt to limit the Court’s power: by changing the Court’s jurisdiction; by modifying the impact of a Court decision after it has been made; or by amending the Constitution in relation to the Court. The president (and the states) may also choose to evade or ignore a Court decision; while not very common, this approach has been used in the past following some unpopular rulings.