SOL 10 The student will social science skills to understand the federal judiciary by
a) describing the organization, jurisdiction, and proceedings of federal courts;
The United States has a court system whose jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution of the United States and federal laws.
Article III of the Constitution of the United States and federal laws establish the jurisdictions of the federal court.
Congress created various federal courts beneath the United States Supreme Court.
Types of jurisdiction
Jurisdiction of regular federal courts
The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. It hears appeals from federal, state, and special courts.
a) describing the organization, jurisdiction, and proceedings of federal courts;
The United States has a court system whose jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution of the United States and federal laws.
Article III of the Constitution of the United States and federal laws establish the jurisdictions of the federal court.
Congress created various federal courts beneath the United States Supreme Court.
Types of jurisdiction
- Original jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear a case first
- Appellate jurisdiction: The authority of a court to review decisions of a trial court
- Exclusive jurisdiction: Refers to the power of a court to adjudicate a case to the exclusion of other courts solely based on the issue of the case
- Concurrent jurisdiction: Congress allows some cases to be tried in either federal or state courts (e.g., cases between citizens of different states)
Jurisdiction of regular federal courts
- United States Supreme Court: Appellate and limited original
- United States Court of Appeals: Appellate
- United States District Court: Original
The Supreme Court of the United States is the court of last resort. It hears appeals from federal, state, and special courts.
b) evaluating how the Marshall Court established the Supreme Court as an independent branch of government through its opinion in Marbury v. Madison;
The United States Supreme Court gained recognition as an equal branch of government as a result of John Marshall’s judicial strategy.
Prior to the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court had little power.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court for the first time declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the power of judicial review.
The United States Supreme Court gained recognition as an equal branch of government as a result of John Marshall’s judicial strategy.
Prior to the appointment of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Supreme Court had little power.
In Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall and the Supreme Court for the first time declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the power of judicial review.
c) describing how the Supreme Court decides cases;
The Supreme Court hears cases and makes decisions based on the opinions of the majority of the justices.
Steps in deciding cases
The Supreme Court hears cases and makes decisions based on the opinions of the majority of the justices.
Steps in deciding cases
- Request for hearing: Writs of certiorari are filed or on appeal.
- Acceptance of cases: The acceptance of cases is determined by the rule of four—four of the Supreme Court justices must agree to hear the case.
- Briefs: Both sides of the case and any interested parties submit written information summarizing their points of view.
- Oral arguments: Lawyers for each side present oral arguments. They are often questioned by the justices regarding their arguments.
- Conference: Following oral arguments, justices meet to discuss the merits of the case. The decision of the court is determined by a majority vote.
- Opinions: Justices are assigned to write the majority and minority opinions of the court. When all opinions have been written and the justices have determined which opinion they will support, the decision is announced in public. A justice who disagrees with that opinion may write a dissenting opinion.
d) comparing the philosophies of judicial activism and judicial restraint;
Supporters of the philosophies of judicial activism and judicial restraint disagree regarding the role of the federal judiciary.
Judicial activists believe federal courts should use the power of judicial review to resolve important societal issues. Since justices are not elected, they can make controversial decisions without fear of losing office (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education).
Those in favor of judicial restraint argue that the Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues whenever possible. When action is necessary, the Court should decide cases in as narrow a manner as possible (e.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson).
Supporters of the philosophies of judicial activism and judicial restraint disagree regarding the role of the federal judiciary.
Judicial activists believe federal courts should use the power of judicial review to resolve important societal issues. Since justices are not elected, they can make controversial decisions without fear of losing office (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education).
Those in favor of judicial restraint argue that the Supreme Court should avoid ruling on constitutional issues whenever possible. When action is necessary, the Court should decide cases in as narrow a manner as possible (e.g., Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson).
e) investigating and evaluating how the judiciary influences public policy by delineating the power of government and safeguarding the rights of the individual.
The government’s public policy goals are expressed in legislative acts and executive actions that are subject to interpretation and review by the federal judiciary.
The United States Supreme Court’s exercise of the power of judicial review can invalidate legislative acts and executive actions that exceed the scope of powers granted by the Constitution of the United States.
Federal courts, by interpreting and applying federal law to specific situations, provide meaning to legislative acts and executive actions.
The United States Supreme Court defines the limits of government power and protects individual rights from governmental abuse.
The government’s public policy goals are expressed in legislative acts and executive actions that are subject to interpretation and review by the federal judiciary.
The United States Supreme Court’s exercise of the power of judicial review can invalidate legislative acts and executive actions that exceed the scope of powers granted by the Constitution of the United States.
Federal courts, by interpreting and applying federal law to specific situations, provide meaning to legislative acts and executive actions.
The United States Supreme Court defines the limits of government power and protects individual rights from governmental abuse.