The Judiciary
Explain judicial review, precedent, federal courts, Supreme Court decision-making, judicial independence, and landmark cases.
A lesson of AP United States Government and Politics, in Branches and Bureaucracy, about 10 minutes.
The Federal Judiciary and Civil Liberties
By the end of this lesson, you will be able to describe the structure of the federal judicial system, explain the concept of judicial review, analyze landmark Supreme Court decisions, and evaluate the tension between civil liberties and government power.
The Federal Court System
Three levels:
1. District Courts (94 courts): the trial courts of the federal system; where cases begin; juries; witnesses; evidence.
2. Courts of Appeals (13 circuits): review district court decisions for legal errors; no new evidence; three-judge panels; precedent-setting for their circuit.
3. Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): the highest court; 9 Justices appointed for life; the final word on constitutional questions.
Original jurisdiction: cases that begin at the Supreme Court (disputes between states, cases involving ambassadors).
Appellate jurisdiction: the vast majority of SCOTUS cases; reviewing lower court decisions.
Certiorari ("cert"): the Supreme Court chooses which cases to hear; requires 4 of 9 justices to grant cert ("Rule of Four"). Of ~7,000-8,000 petitions received annually, SCOTUS hears ~60-80 cases.
Judicial Review: The Foundation of Judicial Power
Marbury v. Madison (1803): Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review — the power of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional.
The constitutional question: the Constitution does not explicitly grant this power. Marshall argued it is implied: the Constitution is supreme law; courts must interpret law; therefore courts must be able to say when a law violates the Constitution.
Significance: made the judiciary a co-equal branch. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." (Marshall)
Judicial Philosophy
Judicial activism: courts should strike down laws that violate constitutional principles, even if the violation is not textually explicit; the Constitution should be interpreted in light of contemporary values.
Judicial restraint: courts should defer to the elected branches; only strike down laws that clearly violate the text; the judiciary should not make policy.
Originalism: interpret the Constitution according to its original public meaning at the time of ratification. Associated with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett.
Living constitutionalism: the Constitution's meaning evolves with changing society. Associated with progressive justices.