How the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts Operate

American Government: Judicial Branch

1. In order for a court to hear a case, it must have jurisdiction. What is jurisdiction? Distinguish between original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction.

The term “jurisdiction” is used to refer to the legal authority or power of a court, government, or administrative body to administer justice, make decisions, and enforce laws within a defined geographic or specific subject matter area. The term also subsumes the scope and degree of authority that is assigned by operation of law to govern and regulate people and their actions. According to the editors of American Government (hereinafter “the text”), original jurisdiction is constitutionally reserved to the Supreme Court. In this regard, the text states, “In cases of original jurisdiction the courts cannot decide — the U.S. Constitution mandates that the U.S. Supreme Court must hear cases of original jurisdiction” (chap. 13).

Therefore, all cases besides those involving disputes between the several states or those involving foreign powers are relegated to appellate courts. This also means that original jurisdiction refers to cases that are heard for the first time by the Supreme Court, whereas appellate jurisdiction involves courts hearing cases on appeal from lower courts and potentially changing their decisions. The responsibility for developing the judicial system and creating the lower courts was delegated to Congress, leaving the Supreme Court primarily focused on its appellate role (chap 13).

2. How does a case come to be heard by the Supreme Court? Describe how cases are selected.

Despite the plethora of cases that the Supreme Court has heard on an urgent basis in recent months, the decision to agree to accept a case, termed “a writ of certiorari” (“cert”) is rare. In this regard, the text advises that the Supreme Court “typically accepts fewer than 2 percent of the as many as ten thousand cases it is asked to review every year” (chap. 13.4). The Court selects cases following requests by petitioners for cert based on the decision of at least four of the justices (a practice termed “the Rule of Four”) (chap. 13.4). Although this decision varies depending on the prevailing Overton window and the individual views of the justices, the text reports that the decision to grant cert is most likely in cases include: (1) conflicting decisions made by different appellate courts of concerning the same issue; (2) cases that involve decisions by appellate courts that conflict with stare decisis; and (3) decisions by state court decisions that conflict with federal precedent (chap. 13.4).

3. After a case has been decided, the Court issues its ruling. Distinguish between the terms decision and opinion. Then, define the following terms: majority opinion, concurring opinion, dissenting opinion. Who writes the opinions?

Following a decision in a case, the Court issues a ruling that consists of the decision itself together with relevant opinions. In this context, the Court’s decision represents the final outcome of the case which stipulates which party prevails in the case while opinions provide the legal rationale in support of the Court's decision (chap. 13.4). The Court has a great deal of flexibility with respect to who writes the majority opinion (this represents the opinions of a majority of the justices) and any concurring opinions (which agree with the decision but for different reasons) or dissenting opinions (which are written by justices who disagree with the decision).

4. Briefly describe U.S. district courts and U.S. courts of appeals and discuss the importance of state courts.

The U.S. district court system is comprised of both trial and appellate courts while the U.S. courts of appeal provide the framework for the resolution of decisions that are made by lower courts, including state courts. The importance of state courts is the fact that the criminal justice system would grind to a halt without them. For instance, the text emphasizes that, “State courts really are the core of the U.S. judicial system, and they are responsible for a huge area of law” (chap. 13.2). Indeed, the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are decided by state courts, but they also adjudicate s majority of civil disputes (chap. 13.2).

5. Justices are nominated to the federal court system by the president and confirmed (or rejected) by the Senate. What considerations go into a president’s choice of Supreme Court nominees?

As recent events in Supreme Court nominations have clearly demonstrated, U.S. presidents enjoy the authority to nominate anyone they want based on personal, professional, political or essentially any other reasons. In most cases, however, presidents select justices for nomination based on a list provided by the American Bar Association (chap. 13.3).

6. Besides the Constitution, consider the statutory and administrative influences on the Court and its decisions. How does the Court shape public policy?

The Supreme Court wields enormous power in influencing public policy both in terms of the types of cases it agrees to hear as well as its decisions on those cases. For example, according to the text, “Policy changes can come as a result of court actions or opinions, such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), which formally ended school segregation in the United States” (chap. 16.1).

7. Distinguish between criminal law and civil law cases. Give examples.

8. Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the case most closely associated with judicial review. Define judicial review. What impact can that power have on the other two branches of government in particular and on American society in general? Is the power specified in the Constitution?

Chief Justice Marshall not only thought outside the constitutional box on Marbury v. Madison, he burned it to the ground and built a new one. Instead of merely deciding this case based on its obvious merits, Marshall determined that the law requiring a write of mandamus was unconstitutional, thereby creating the principle of judicial review which is not specified in the Constitution but its reasoning and importance are implied. In this regard, the text notes that, “In 1803, the Supreme Court declared for itself the power of judicial review, a power to which Hamilton had referred but that is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution” (chap. 13.1). The Marbury decision had significant implications for the executive and legislative branches since it established the system of checks and balances that is intended to keep each branch of government and the several states aligned with the Constitution. As the text concludes, “Judicial review lies at the core of the court’s ability to check the other branches of government—and the states” (chap. 13.1).

9. Judicial restraint and judicial activism are the terms that describe the degree to which justices defer to precedent and elected officials. Define these two terms. Which practice considers the Constitution a living document or a static document, and why?

Proponents of judicial restraint can be regarded as originalists who consider the Constitution inviolate as it was written and reject efforts to apply judicial activism to its provisions. Conversely, judicial activists regard that Constitution as a living document that must adapt to changes in the real world that affect American citizens.

10. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) produced a landmark decision that dramatically changed American society. Using this case or another landmark case as an example, discuss how Supreme Court decisions can affect everyday American life.

While the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court has the authority to interpret its provisions, even when a majority of Americans disagree with their decisions. It is reasonable to suggest that many Americans disagreed with the Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education, but it was firmly based on constitutional grounds that shredded the logic behind the separate but equal approach to racial segregation. Decades of violence followed this decision and while all American children have the right to attend nonsegregated schools, the harsh reality for far too many students is the fact that their schools are still largely segregated whether by virtue of zoning laws or socioeconomic factors.

Notwithstanding the comparative lack of a violent backlash in response to a recent decision by the Supreme Court, the abolishment of Roe v. Wade stands out as being an especially poorly reasoned decision that lacks any real basis in constitutional law. Although the right to privacy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, this right has been recognized and inferred from various provisions and amendments. For instance, the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures are frequently cited in relation to the right to privacy which is inherent in this fundamental protection against government intrusion into personal spaces and belongings. Likewise, the Fifth Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination and guarantees due process of law which has also been interpreted to include the right to personal autonomy and privacy.

Perhaps the most specific constitutional provision relating to the right of privacy is contained in the Ninth Amendment which stipulates that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other rights that are reserved for and retained by the American people. This provision has also been interpreted to recognize unenumerated rights, including the right to privacy. Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the due process of law, a provision that has also been interpreted to include substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights which are integral to personal autonomy and privacy.

In fact, the Court drew on these specific constitutional provisions and interpretations to acknowledger various aspects of the right to privacy in specific cases, including most especially Roe v. Wade (1973) which established women's right to privacy when making decisions whether to have an abortion or not. In June 2022, though, the Court made a significant decision in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In this high-profile case, the Court overturned the landmark ruling of Roe v. Wade and declared that there is no constitutional right to abortion for women in the United States.

The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson has profound implications as it overturns almost 50 years of established precedent and represents the first time in history that the Supreme Court has revoked a fundamental right. For example, the U.S. Center for Reproductive Rights (2023) emphasizes that, “In June 2022, in a devastating decision that will reverberate for generations, the U.S. Supreme Court has abandoned its duty to protect fundamental rights and overturned Roe v. Wade, ruling there is no constitutional right to abortion” (Roe v. Wade, para. 3). The Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization clearly has far-reaching implications that will be felt for generations of American in the future.

The decision also represents a departure from the Court's essential role in safeguarding fundamental rights, an eventuality that raises concerns about the future of reproductive rights and access to abortion for women in the United States. In this regard, the Center for Reproductive Rights points out that, “The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abandons nearly 50 years of precedent and marks the first time in history that the Supreme Court has taken away a fundamental right” (Roe v. Wade, 2023, para. 3).