The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law

Chapter 14 The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law

Learning Objectives

Having read the chapter, the students should be able to do each of the following:

. Discuss the criteria underlying the Supreme Court’s selection of cases, and describe the procedures employed in case selection. . Describe the Supreme Court’s policymaking process, and discuss the effect of this process on the related issues of legitimacy and compliance. . Detail the structure of the federal court system, and describe the purpose and operating procedures of U.S. district courts, courts of appeals, and other special courts. . Distinguish between the federal and state court systems, indicating the conditions under which a case originating in a state court can be appealed to the federal courts; and differentiate further between trial and appellate courts. . Explain the process of appointments of judges and justices to federal courts, and detail the factors that can influence this process. . Discuss the role of partisan politics in the appointment of federal judges and justices, particularly at the Supreme Court level, and discuss the impact that appointments can have on long-term judicial policy. . Provide an account of the political factors both inside and outside the Court that influence the decision-making of the justices. . Describe the constraints on judicial decision-making and the role of legal precedents on judicial interpretation of the law. . Discuss the proper role of the judicial branch in a working democracy, including originalism theory and the living constitution theory. . Distinguish between the philosophies of judicial activism and restraint, and provide a critique of each doctrine, discussing their underlying assumptions relating to the proper role of the Court in the American political system.

Chapter Outline

I. The Federal Judicial System A. The Supreme Court of the United States 1. Selecting and Deciding Cases 2. Issuing Decisions and Opinions B. Other Federal Courts 1. U.S. District Courts 2. U.S. Courts of Appeals 3. Special U.S. Courts C. The State Courts

IM – 14 | 1 II. Federal Court Appointees A. Supreme Court Nominees B. Lower-Court Nominees C. Personal Backgrounds of Judicial Appointees III. The Nature of Judicial Decision Making A. Legal Influences on Judicial Decisions B. Political Influences on Judicial Decisions 1. Inside the Court: Judges’ Political Beliefs 2. Outside the Court: The Public, Groups, and Elected Officials IV. Judicial Power and Democratic Government A. Originalism Theory versus Living Constitution Theory B. Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism C. What Is the Judiciary’s Proper Role?

Focus and Main Points

This chapter describes the federal judiciary. Like the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary is an independent branch of the U.S. government, but unlike the other two branches, its top officials are not elected by the people. The judiciary is not a democratic institution, and its role is different from and, in some ways, more controversial than the roles of the executive and legislative branches. This chapter explores this issue in the process of discussing the following main points:

 The federal judiciary includes the Supreme Court of the United States, which functions mainly as an appellate court; courts of appeals, which hear appeals; and the district courts, which hold trials. Each state has a court system of its own, which for the most part is independent of supervision by the federal courts.

 Judicial decisions are constrained by applicable constitutional law, statutory and administrative law, and precedent. Nevertheless, political factors have a major influence on judicial appointments and decisions; judges are political officials as well as legal ones.

 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 philosophies of judicial restraint and judicial activism provide different answers to this question.

Chapter Summary

At the lowest level of the federal judicial system are the district courts, where most federal cases begin. Above them are the federal courts of appeals, which review cases appealed from the lower courts. The U.S. Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court. Each state has its own court system, consisting of trial courts at the bottom and one or two appellate levels at the top. Cases originating in state courts ordinarily cannot be appealed to the federal courts unless a federal issue is involved, and then the federal courts can choose to rule only on the federal aspects of the

IM – 14 | 2 case. Federal judges at all levels are nominated by the president, and if confirmed by the Senate, they are appointed by the president to the office. Once on the federal bench, they serve until they die, retire, or are removed by impeachment and conviction.

The Supreme Court is unquestionably the most important court in the country. The legal principles it establishes are binding on lower courts, and its capacity to define the law is enhanced by the control it exercises over the cases it hears. However, it is inaccurate to assume that lower courts are inconsequential (the upper-court myth). Lower courts have considerable discretion, and the great majority of their decisions are not reviewed by a higher court. It is also inaccurate to assume that federal courts are far more significant than state courts (the federal court myth).

The courts have less discretionary authority than elected institutions do. The judiciary’s positions are constrained by the facts of a case and by the laws as defined through the Constitution, legal precedent, and statutes (and government regulations derived from statutes). Yet existing legal guidelines are seldom so precise that judges have no choice in their decisions. As a result, political influences have a strong impact on the judiciary. It responds to national conditions, public opinion, interest groups, and elected officials, particularly the president and members of Congress. Another political influence on the judiciary is the personal beliefs of judges, who have individual preferences that affect how they decide issues that come before the courts. Not surprisingly, partisan politics plays a significant role in judicial appointments.

In recent decades, as the Supreme Court has crossed into areas traditionally left to lawmaking majorities, the issue of judicial power has become more pressing, which has prompted claims and counter-claims about the judiciary’s proper role. Advocates of originalism theory argue that judges should apply the law in terms of the words of the law as they were understood at the time of enactment. Advocates of the living constitution theory hold that the law should be interpreted in light of changing circumstances. Judicial restraint and activism are two additional theories of the judiciary’s proper role. Advocates of judicial restraint claim that the justices’ personal values are inadequate justification for exceeding the proper judicial role; they argue that the Constitution entrusts broad issues of the public good to elective institutions and that the courts should ordinarily defer to the judgment of elected officials. Judicial activists counter that the courts were established as an independent branch and should not hesitate to promote general principles when necessary, even if this action brings them into conflict with elected officials.

Major Concepts

jurisdiction (of a court) A given court’s authority to hear cases of a particular kind. Jurisdiction may be original or appellate.

original jurisdiction The authority of a given court to be the first court to hear a case.

IM – 14 | 3 appellate jurisdiction The authority of a given court to review cases that have already been tried in lower courts and are appealed to it by the losing party; such a court is called an appeals court or appellate court. judicial review The power of courts to decide whether a governmental institution has acted within its constitutional powers and, if not, to declare its action null and void. precedent A judicial decision that serves as a rule for settling subsequent cases of a similar nature. 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; when such a writ is requested of the U.S. Supreme Court, four of the Court’s nine justices must agree to accept the case before it is granted certiorari. brief A written statement by a party in a court case that details its argument. judicial conference A closed meeting of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to discuss and vote on the case before them; the justices are not supposed to discuss conference proceedings with outsiders. 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 (of a court) A court’s written explanation of its decision, which serves to inform others of the legal basis for the decision. Supreme Court opinions are expected to guide the decisions of lower courts. majority opinion A court opinion that results when a majority of the justices are in agreement on the legal basis of the decision. plurality opinion A court opinion that results when a majority of justices agree on a decision in a case but do not agree on the legal basis for the decision. In this instance, the legal position held by most of the justices on the winning side is called a plurality opinion. concurring opinion A separate opinion written by one or more Supreme Court justices who vote with the majority in the decision on a case but who disagree with its reasoning.

IM – 14 | 4 dissenting opinion The opinion of a justice in a Supreme Court case that explains his or her reasons for disagreeing with the majority’s decision.

senatorial courtesy The tradition that a U.S. senator from the state in which a federal judicial vacancy has arisen should have a say in the president’s nomination of the new judge if the senator is of the same party as the president.

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

originalism theory A method of interpreting the Constitution that emphasizes the meaning of its words at the time they were written.

living constitution theory A method of interpreting the Constitution that emphasizes the principles it embodies and their application to changing circumstances and needs.

judicial restraint The doctrine that the judiciary should closely follow the wording of the law, be highly respectful of precedent, and defer to the judgment of legislatures. The doctrine claims that the job of judges is to work within the confines of laws set down by tradition and lawmaking majorities.

judicial activism The doctrine that the courts should develop new legal principles when judges see a compelling need, even if this action places them in conflict with precedent or the policy decisions of elected officials.

Lecture Outline

This lecture outline closely follows the text in its organization. The instructor can use this outline as a lecture aid.

The author discusses the federal judiciary and the work of its judges and justices. The role and composition of the American judicial system are described, with a particular emphasis on the Supreme Court. The politics of federal court appointments is also analyzed. An important topic in this chapter focuses on judicial policymaking and describes how legal and political factors come together to influence the Court’s decisions. In addition, the author examines the controversy that surrounds the judiciary’s policy role in the American political system.

IM – 14 | 5 Through its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court opened the door to unrestricted corporate and union spending in federal election campaigns. A majority of the Supreme Court justices (in a 5 to 4 ruling) saw the issue differently than Congress had, concluding that the spending restriction infringed on the free speech rights of corporations and unions. The Court’s campaign finance ruling illustrates three key points about court decisions. First, the judiciary is an important policymaking body. Some of its rulings are as consequential as a law of Congress or an executive order of the president. Second, the judiciary has considerable discretion in its rulings. Third, the judiciary is a political as well as legal institution.

I. The Federal Judicial System

The Supreme Court, the nation’s highest court, is created by the Constitution and is given both original and appellate jurisdiction.

 Original jurisdiction is the authority to be the first court to hear a case, and is exercised by the Supreme Court in legal disputes involving two or more states or foreign diplomats.

 Appellate jurisdiction is the authority to review cases originating in lower courts and appealed by the losing party. The Supreme Court does most of its significant work through this jurisdiction.

The primary function of the Supreme Court is to establish legal precedents which then guide lower courts in future rulings.

 The Supreme Court’s ability to set legal precedent is strengthened by its discretionary authority to choose its cases, most of which reach the Court through a writ of certiorari.

 Judicial conferences after oral and written arguments are attended only by the nine justices, and these private discussions form an important part of the decision-making process.

 Supreme Court decisions indicate which party the Court sides with and by how large a margin—a majority or a plurality opinion.

 Supreme Court opinions are explanations of the reasons behind its decisions, and are meant to serve as precedent for lower-court decisions. Opinions are the most important part of a Supreme Court decision. In addition to the majority opinion there may be concurring and dissenting opinions.

Contrary to the upper-court myth, the lower courts do not dutifully follow the rulings handed down by the courts above them.

 U.S. district courts are trial courts that hear most federal cases and exercise considerable discretion in their judgments. Most of their decisions are not appealed to a higher court.

IM – 14 | 6  Cases are appealed from the district courts to the federal court of appeals. Courts of appeals offer the only real hope of reversal for many appellants, because the Supreme Court hears so few cases.

 The U.S. judicial system also contains a few specialty courts such as the U.S. Claims Court, the U.S. Court of International Trade, and the U.S. court of Military Appeals.

 As part of American separation of state and federal governments, each state has its own system of laws and courts which, contrary to the federal-court myth, possess considerable autonomy and authority. These judges are selected in a variety of ways. About 95 percent of court cases originate in state court systems and are resolved there.

 Some issues traditionally within the jurisdiction of the states can become federal issues through the rulings of federal courts.

II. Federal Court Appointees

Presidents have always sought to appoint federal judges who share their political and ideological beliefs.

 Because they serve for life until retirement, nomination of a Supreme Court justice is an opportunity for a president to influence judicial policy long after the presidential term is over.

 With some notable exceptions, most modern Supreme Court nominees have been confirmed by the Senate. Senatorial courtesy is a factor in lower-court nominations.

 Partisanship is a crucial test for potential appointees. Some observers argue merit should play a larger role in the selection process.

 Recent appointees, with the exception of Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general, have all come from the appellate courts.

III.The Nature of Judicial Decision Making

Judges serve in a legal institution and make their decisions in a legal context.

 The facts of a case are the relevant circumstances of a legal dispute or offense, determined by trial courts. The Supreme Court must respond to the facts of a dispute, relating them to legal provisions.

 The laws of a case are constitutional provisions, legislative statutes, or judicial precedents that apply to the particular dispute. The Supreme Court justices must base their decisions on interpretations of the relevant laws.

IM – 14 | 7  The large majority of cases that arise in courts involve issues of statutory and administrative law rather than constitutional law.

 The U.S. legal system developed from the English common-law tradition, which includes the principle that a court’s decision on a case should be consistent with previous judicial rulings—the concept of precedent.

The Court can exercise powers of judicial discretion in interpreting the laws, which is influenced by political factors, both outside and inside the Court.

 Judges’ political beliefs are a strong internal influence on judicial discretion inside the courts. Studies have shown that the Supreme Court justices tend to vote in line with their political attitudes.

 The vague wording of the Constitution and of some statutory law can require judges and justices to exercise discretion in their ruling on an issue.

 Public opinion is one of the outside influences, though the courts give it less importance than do other officials.

 Interest groups often exert pressure on the Court through amicus curiae (friend of court) briefs or lawsuits.

 Both the president and Congress have direct and indirect means of influencing the Supreme Court’s decisions. Congress can establish the Court’s size and appellate jurisdiction, while the executive branch plays a vital role in influencing the political and ideological membership of the Court.

The personal views of individual justices have a strong influence on the positions they take on issues and cases. Many scholars contend that the justices’ personal beliefs are the most significant influence on their legal opinions.

IV. Judicial Power and Democratic Government

Since the Supreme Court’s decisions inevitably reflect the political philosophy of its justices, they constitute a small political elite wielding significant power. This power is most dramatically evident when courts declare laws enacted by Congress to be unconstitutional. The judiciary has become more extensively involved in policymaking in part because social and economic changes have required government to play a larger role in society, which has generated more legal controversies.

 Originalism theory holds that the Constitution should be interpreted in the way that a reasonable person would have interpreted it at the time it was written.

 An opposing view, the living constitution theory, holds that the Constitution is a living document that should be interpreted in light of changing circumstances.

IM – 14 | 8  The dispute over judicial activism and judicial restraint is a dispute between majority rule and minority rights, reflecting competing values which cannot be resolved by appeal to dogma or fact.

 Critics of an activist Court point out that it has adopted the legislative role in enforcing broad social policies. This point of view supports the doctrine of judicial restraint, which holds that the judiciary should respect precedent and defer to the judgment of legislatures.

 Supporters of an activist Court claim that judicial activism is both necessary and proper. A dominant view of judicial activism holds that the Court is obligated to promote social justice by vigorously protecting and expanding the rights of individuals.

Complementary Lecture Topics

The following are suggestions for lectures or lecture topics that will complement the text. In general, these topics assume that students have read the chapter beforehand.

 Relatively few eminent jurists have presided over the Supreme Court. Should merit play a greater role in the selection process? Consider the allegation that mediocrity is the norm in the institutions of the presidency and Congress as well.

 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. said that the United States would survive if the Supreme Court did not have the power to declare an act of Congress or the president unconstitutional but not if the same was true of actions of the state governments. What did Justice Holmes mean by this statement? Is it a valid assertion?

 Precedent plays an important role in influencing judicial decision making. What importance does precedent hold for policymakers? What are some of its limitations?

 Analyze the force exerted by external factors such as public opinion and congressional pressure on the Supreme Court. How responsive should the Court be to such influences, and why?

 The Supreme Court has traditionally distinguished between political questions (within the authority of elected officials) and judicial questions (within the authority of judiciary). Has this distinction has been blurred in recent decades by judicial activism, as some have claimed? What is the appropriate position on this issue, and why?

 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. claimed that law is properly founded on the precept of reasonable expectations: people make choices on the assumption that the law will not change overnight. Should precedent be awarded such priority? Why or why not?

 Discuss the influence of partisanship and ideology on judicial decision making. How are personal beliefs translated into policy decisions? How can legal reasoning be used to

IM – 14 | 9 justify a decision based on personal ideology? What is the relationship between political bias (liberal or conservative) and judicial activism or restraint?

Class Discussion Topics

1. An important presumption is that the United States is a government of laws, not people. However, it is alleged that the Supreme Court is heavily influenced by the personal convictions of its justices. If justices do act from partisan positions, should this be permitted? If not, what recourse does the American public have to reduce partisanship on the Court?

2. Analyze the force exerted by external factors such as public opinion and congressional pressure on the Supreme Court. How responsive should the Court be to such influences, and why? Mention, for instance, court actions in the area of prayer in schools and termination of pregnancy.

3. The power relationship between the federal government and the state governments (federalism) became one of the more interesting facets of decisions made by the Rehnquist court. Outline the traditional conservative position of federal vs. state sovereignty. Using examples from the text (or other sources), discuss whether the decisions by the recent Court illustrate or confront the traditional conservative assumptions about federalism.

IM – 14 | 10