Understanding the U.S
. Court System: Structure and Judge
School
Texas Tech University**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
POLS MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 11, 2024
Pages
9
Uploaded by BrigadierStarGoldfinch30
Comparing CourtsHow are the Judges selected for the Federal Court System?For the Federal Court System, judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serving for life unless removed through impeachment for misbehavior.How are the Judges selected for the State Court System?In the State Court System, judges are selected in various ways, including elections, appointments for a set term, life appointments, or a combination of these methods.Name two types of cases heard at the Federal Courts.1. Those that deal with the constitutionality of laws2. Bankruptcy CasesName two types of cases heard at the State Courts.1. Criminal Cases2. Probate CasesFederal Court Role and StructureDistrict CourtThere are Blank U.S. District Courts. In the United States.District courts resolve by determining the facts and applying legal principles to decide who is right. They are trial courts.Trial courts include the district that tries the case and a court that decides the case.There is at least a district court in each state and the District of Columbia.Court of AppealsThere are appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals.The Court of Appeal’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court.Appeals courts consist of multiple judges and do NOT use a jury.Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. Article IIIl of the U.S. Constitution created the Supreme Court and authorized it to pass laws establishing a system of lower courts. In other words, this is the only court set up in the Constitution.
The Surpreme CourtIn 3-4 sentences, explain Judiciary Act of 1789. (Why was it established?) (What did the act do?)In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was created to establish an operational judicial system. It established lower courts, like as district and circuit courts, beneath the Supreme judicial, therefore organizing the federal judicial system. The act created the Attorney General's office and specified the composition, authority, and jurisdiction of these courts. It sought to guarantee a uniform legal system for interpreting the law and resolving conflicts throughout the nation.The Supreme Court first assembled on what date and where?February 2, 1790, in New York CityThe number of Justices has changed times before settings at the present total of 9 in 1869.9 timesHow many Chief Justices have we had since the creation of the court?17How many Associate Justices? 102The average length a justice serves for is 16 years.On average, a new justice joins the court almost every 2 years.For questions 15-16, Use the https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspxWho is the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?John RobertsList the 8 Associate JusticesSamuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett M. Kavanaugh, Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence ThomasPick one Justice to read about. In 3 -4 sentences summarize their experience and achievements.Let's concentrate on Ketanji Brown Jackson, the justice. She became the first Black woman to serve as a justice after being confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2022 after being nominated by President Joe Biden. She had a stellar legal career prior to her nomination, which included time as a federal judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. Jackson has a distinct viewpoint on the criminal justice system because she was also a public defender. She is renowned for her lucid legal reasoning and attention to constitutional interpretation, and her verdicts highlight the significance of human rights and equitable treatment.https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx
In addition to the 9 justices, there are other roles people can serve in the Supreme Court’s courtroom. Explain the responsibility of each of these participants below:Clerk: Clerks are law school graduates who assist the justices with research, drafting opinions, and other clerical work. They play a critical role in managing the flow of cases, summarizing briefs, and helping the justices prepare for hearings. Clerks often help draft memoranda that outline the arguments and the relevant legal issues in each case. Each justice typically has a team of clerks, and many justices rely on their clerks' input when forming decisions.Marshal: The Marshal of the Supreme Court is the chief law enforcement officer of the Court. The Marshal’s duties include maintaining order in the Courtroom, overseeing the security of the justices and staff, and managing the logistics of the Court’s operations. The Marshal is also responsible for escorting the justices to and from the bench and enforcing the decorum of the Court.Marshal’s Aides: These aides assist the Marshal in their various duties, especially in managing the Supreme Court’s security and the public. They help maintain order during hearings and ensure that only authorized individuals are allowed in restricted areas of the Court. Aides may also assist in managing ceremonial duties, such as arranging the logistics for special occasions at the Court.Attorneys: Attorneys represent the parties involved in the case being heard by the Supreme Court. They present oral arguments, submit written briefs, and respond to questions from the justices. Attorneys must be admitted to the Supreme Court bar before they can argue cases in front of the justices. They also serve a vital role in explaining legal principles and presenting the facts in ways that assist the Court in making its decision. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/traditions.aspxIn the courtroom, what is the seating arrangement for the Justices?In the Supreme Court courtroom, the Justices' seating arrangement is based on seniority. The Chief Justice sits in the middle seat at the center of the bench, with the Associate Justices seated in order of seniority on either side. The most senior Justice is placed to the right of the Chief Justice, and the least senior to the left As you read the selection. In 2-3 sentences summarize one tradition you found interesting.An interesting tradition in the Court is the "Oyez" announcement, where the Marshal calls out "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" to signal the beginning of the session. This phrase, meaning "Hear ye!" from Anglo-Norman law, is a ceremonial reminder that the Court is about to begin its work, linking the Court’s modern proceedings to its historical roots https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtatwork.aspxEvery year the Supreme Court receives 7000-8000 petitions (requests) to hear cases. They only choose about 100 (1%) of those to actually hear and decide upon.
Supreme Court Justices FAQsGeneral Information FAQsVisiting the Court FAQs- While there are no constitutional qualifications for becoming a Justice, all Justices have been trained in law. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many studied law under a mentor due to the limited availability of law schools - The only Justice to ever be impeached was Samuel Chase in 1805, although he was acquitted by the Senate - The number of Justices on the Court is determined by Congress. While it has fluctuated from six to ten over the years, the number was fixed at nine in 1869- Justices hold their positions "during good Behavior," meaning they serve for life unless impeached- The Court is open Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and visitor programs are free and available on a first-come, first-served basis - Photography is allowed in public areas of the building, but no photography is permitted inside the courtroom
CaseYearSummary of Relevant FactsConstitutional question or issueArgumentsEngel v Vitale1962-Declared school-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional, as it violated the -Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.Marked a shift toward strict separation of church and state.-Highlighted the role of public institutions in maintaining religious neutrality.Does the recitation of a prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?The plaintiffs argued that the recitation of a government-composed prayer in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by promoting religion and breaching the separation of church and state.Schenck v United States1919-Established the "clear and present danger" test for speech limitations under the First Amendment.-Schenck's anti-draft pamphlets were deemed unprotected speech during wartime.-Set boundaries for free speech when it incites harm or unlawful actions.Does the conviction of Schenck under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets violate free speech under the First Amendment?The government argued that Schenck's anti-draft leaflets created a "clear and present danger" to the United States during wartime, thus justifying limitations on free speech under the First Amendment.Texas v Johnson1989-Affirmed that flag burning is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment.-Struck down laws prohibiting desecration of the U.S. flag as unconstitutional.-Sparked debates about patriotism and free expression.Does burning the American flag as a form of protest fall under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech?Johnson argued that burning the American flag as a political protest was symbolic speech protected under the First Amendment, while the state of Texas argued it was a form of public disturbance that could be regulated.Miranda v Arizona1966-Established the Miranda rights, requiring police to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and have legal counsel.-Strengthened Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.-Standardized procedures for lawful interrogations.Are individuals entitled to warnings about their rights before interrogation, under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination?The defense argued that Miranda's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination were violated because he was not informed of his rights before being interrogated by police.
Gideon v Wainwright1963-Guaranteed the right to legal counsel for defendants in criminal cases, even if they can't afford it.-Applied the Sixth Amendment to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.-Ensured fair trials regardless of financial status.Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee the right to legal counsel for a defendant who cannot afford an attorney?Gideon argued that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when he was denied an attorney because he could not afford one, challenging the state's obligation to provide legal representation to indigent defendants.Mapp v Ohio1961-Established the exclusionary rule, barring illegally obtained evidence in state courts.-Strengthened Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.-Expanded individual privacy rights.Does the exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches, apply to state courts under the Fourth Amendment?Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated when evidence obtained through an illegal search was used to convict her, challenging the admissibility of such evidence in state courts.Roe v Wade1973-Legalized abortion nationwide, citing a right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment.-Established a trimester framework for balancing women's rights and state interests.-Became a cornerstone of debates on reproductive rights.Does the right to privacy implied by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extend to a woman’s decision to have an abortion?Roe argued that laws banning abortion violated her right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the state of Texas argued that it had a legitimate interest in protecting prenatal life.Hernandez v Texas1954-Held that Mexican Americans and other racial groups are protected under the -Fourteenth Amendment.Struck down Texas's exclusion of Mexican Americans from juries.-Expanded civil rights protections to groups beyond Black and white populations.Does the exclusion of Mexican Americans from a jury violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?Hernandez argued that the exclusion of Mexican Americans from jury service violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it demonstrated systemic racial discrimination.Grutter v Bollinger2003-The University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy considered race as one factor among many to achieve a "critical mass" of Does the use of race as a factor in university admissions decisions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Grutter argued that the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race in admissions violated the Equal
minority students, aiming to enhance diversity and educational benefits.- The Court upheld the policy in a 5-4 decision, affirming that the use of race in admissions processes is permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as long as it is narrowly tailored and does not constitute a quota system.-This case confirmed that diversity is a compelling state interest and emphasized the importance of holistic evaluations in admissions while reaffirming limits on affirmative action policies.or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the university argued that its policy furthered diversity, a compelling state interest.
Arguments FOR Judicial Activism1. Protecting Constitutional Rights- Evidence: Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned racial segregation laws, protecting the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.- Response to Counterpoint: Although some contend that this went beyond the judiciary's authority, systemic injustices might have continued for decades in the absence of this action. When legislative authorities did not take action, judicial activism was crucial to bringing about change.2. Adapting to Modern Society- Evidence: Roe v. Wade (1973) acknowledged the evolving societal understanding of privacy rights under the Due Process Clause.- Response to Counterpoint: Reproductive rights and other contemporary issues cannot be foreseen by originalist readings of the Constitution. This divide is filled by judicial activism.3. Correcting Lesgislative Failures- Evidence: Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage, stepping in where legislative bodies were gridlocked on LGBTQ+ rights.- Response to Counterpoint: Courts must act when the majority’s will infringes on minority rights, upholding justice and equality as core constitutional principles.Arguments AGAINST Judicial Activism1. Threat to Judicial Impartiality- Evidence: Critics of Roe v. Wade argue that the Court effectively created new laws by extending privacy rights to abortion.- Response to Counterpoint:Although judicial activism can seem political, this disregards the courts' responsibility to uphold liberty and resolve constitutional problems.2. Undermining Democatic Process- Evidence: In Citizens United v. FEC (2010), critics claim the Court bypassed Congress by redefining corporate spending as free speech.- Response to Counterpoint: Courts should refrain from making laws from their benches; allowing for public discussion guarantees that laws represent democratic ideals.3. Risk fo Judicial Overreach- Evidence: The 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld slavery under the pretense of judicial interpretation, is an illustration of judicial activism gone wrong.- Response to Counterpoint: If judges enforce their personal beliefs rather than upholding constitutional principles, judicial activism runs the risk of creating harmful precedents.For Activism Refutation:Advocates assert that courts need to update the Constitution to reflect contemporary society. Nonetheless, statutory procedures are in place for this reason. The separation of powers is compromised, and public confidence in the court is damaged, when judges are permitted to misinterpret the law.Example: Opponents claim that Obergefell v. Hodges invaded the powers of states.Against Activism Refutation:Advocates of restraint contend that activism transgresses constitutional limits. However, injustices frequently go ignored when legislative change is delayed. When basic rights are under jeopardy, the judiciary has an obligation to take action.
Example: in Brown v. Board of Education, judicial activism was necessary to overturn long-standing racial segregation.How can judicial activism help Americans? How can it hurt?Help: When the legislative or executive branches are unable to take action, judicial activism can assist Americans by addressing injustices. The judiciary's power to defend oppressed groups and guarantee the upholding of constitutional rights is exemplified by instances such as Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation and improved civil rights. The judiciary can apply constitutional ideas to contemporary problems thanks to activism.Hurt: By going beyond the judiciary's authority and eroding democratic procedures, judicial activism can cause harm to Americans. Critics contend that when courts take on the role of legislators, as was the case in Citizens United v. FEC, they circumvent public discussion and enforce rulings that might not reflect the majority's preferences, undermining public confidence in the legal system.What is an example of a time when judicial restraint should be exercised? Why?Example: In Dred Scott v. Sandford, judicial restraint ought to have been used. This case exacerbated national differences as the Court went beyond interpreting the Constitution to uphold slavery. Judges should defer to legislative processes rather than making broad decisions based on their personal or political views, particularly when it comes to divisive social issues that are still up for dispute.Reason: By ensuring that judges uphold the separation of powers and refrain from superseding elected officials' decisions, judicial restraint helps to preserve the constitutionally intended balance of power.What is your opinion about whether federal judges should display judicial activism or judicial restraint?Opinion: When constitutional rights are at risk and legislative inactivity harms people, as was the case in Brown v. Board of Education, federal judges should adopt a balanced strategy that leans toward judicial activism. However, when the Constitution offers unambiguous guidance or when public discussion and legislative action are more appropriate, they ought to exercise judicial restraint. Progress requires activism, but unbridled involvement jeopardizes democratic governance and runs the risk of judicial overreach.