State Courts

Handle the majority of cases in the United States
- There are differences in how states operate, some pick judges some elect them
- At the county level, ours is in Newark
Cases arise under state law
Judges may be elected or appointed
Trial courts handle the majority of cases and possesses original jurisdiction
May have special courts to handle family disputes, traffic violations, and small claims
More than half the states have appellate courts with appellate jurisdiction
Every state has a supreme court
Cases may proceed to the federal judiciary especially if they involve a question of constitutional rights

Federal Court System

Federal District Courts
- Act as trial courts and possesses original jurisdiction
- District court boundaries do not cross state lines
- Judges are appointed by president, confirmed by Senate and serve for life
Federal Courts of Appeals
- 13 courts of appeals
  - 11 circuits covering regions
  - 1 for the District of Columbia involves federal agencies
  - 1 for international trade and patent law
The Supreme Court
- Resolves differences between the states
- Resolves different interpretations of the law from lower courts
- Highest court of appeal in the United States
- Has original jurisdiction is cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party
- Since 1869, the court consists of 8 associate judges and 1 chief justice
  - Congress creates this number, constitution only requires 1 chief justice
- In session first Monday in October to late June when decisions are released
- Uniform interpretation of law for the country

Writ of Certiorari
- Refers to a court order (writ) from a higher court to a lower court, demanding it send up the records of a case to review, usually to correct errors or clarify important legal quesitons
- Supreme court grants these requests for about 1-2% of cases, rare
- The higher court chooses which cases to hear, often to resolve conflicts between lower courts (federal or state) or settle significant federal law issues, rather than reviewing every appeal.
- Rule of 4, if 4 justices agree, the court will hear the case
Precedent
- Judicial decision that acts as a basis for deciding similar cases in the future
Stare Decesisis
- Allowing a previous precedent to stand
- Horizontal: past decisions
- Vertical: higher courts

if certiorari is granted, the Supreme Court requests briefs from both sides laying out their full arguments
Amicus Curiae
- Amicus briefs can be submitted by interested non-parties to try to influence the precedential effect on the court’s ruling. Justices are aided by clerks in reviewing them.
Oral arguments before the justices are scheduled
- Each side gets a fixed amount of time to present, Justices often ask questions. Recorded but no cameras allowed
Judicial Conference
- Justices met alone and vote in secret
- Process can take months and justices can change their vote
Majority opinion
- As an appellate court, they may affirm, reverse or remand the case to a lower court, This decision is binding and serves as a guide to lower courts as to how to handle similar cases in the future. If the chief justice is in the majority, he/she chooses the author of the majority opinion. If there is no majority, a plurality opinion will be written to express the views of the largest number of justices
Concurring opinion
- An opinion that agrees with the majority decision but offers different or additional reasoning. Will not serve as precedent.
Dissenting opinion
- An opinion that disagrees with the majority opinion and does not serve as precedent and do not carry the weight of the court behind it/ It could be a useful record and analysis if the court revisits the precedent in the future.

Roe vs Wade overturn

Alitos majority opinion
- Constitution doesn’t mention abortion
- Federal government shouldn’t rule on it in the first place
Chief Justice Roberts opinion
- Doesn’t want to overrule the precedent
- Get rid of timing rule by modifying the law
Dissenting opinion
- Focuses on abortion as a topic, not just on the legal implications
- Individual rights
- Implication for other cases based on rights being suppressed
If you have a piece of legislation that is being reviewed if it involving a fundamental right it better survive the highest level of scrutiny (supreme court)
- Strict scrutiny, much higher standards
Supreme court is supposed to be body that judges and enforces law above poltiics
- Isn’t really above politics

trends in supreme court

look at number of presidents from nixon on, from 1969 republicans republicans then bill clinton is democrat then republican
A lot of republican presidents appoitned moderates that ended up becoming liberals over time on the court
Gerald Ford nominated John Paul Stevens
- Became a staunch liberal judge
- Same with reagan bush etc
Scalia was a staunch conservative

Judicial Restraint - a philosophy of constitutional interpretation that judges should be cautious in overturning laws
- Dangerous to go against majority rule
- Undemocratic for unelected justices to overturn the actions of elected representatives
Judicial activism - a philosophy of constitutional interpretation that justices should wield the power of judicial review, sometimes creating bold new policies
- The legislative and executive branches can make mistakes and or trample on individual rights and the rights of minorities
- The court’s independence provides them the opportunity to take on issues that the other branches are unwilling to

President nominates justices, senate confirms
Congress sets the size of the Supreme Court and establishes lower federal courts
Congress and the states can amend the Constitution
Congress may write legislation modifying the impact of a Supreme Court decision
Unable to enforce their decisions
- Jackson Worcester example
Public opinion on legitimacy