The Federal Courts
Activity # GV231
Activity Introduction
Hey, how’s it goin’? I’m (name), and I’ll be your tour guide for today’s lesson on the
judicial branch of the United States government.
You see, all three branches work together to drive the engine of our nation’s laws.
The legislative branch is like the car’s engine. It MAKES the laws. The executive branch
is like the car’s tires. It EXECUTES the laws. And the judicial branch is like the
speedometer. It INTERPRETS the laws.
Why did the framers of the constitution make it so complicated? Well, they didn’t want
one branch to have too much power, so they gave each branch a different job to do.
Video 1 – Introduction
And, like I said, the main job of the Judicial Branch is to “Interpret the Law.”
To help divvy up the load, the Judicial Branch is made up of a hierarchy of courts. You
may have heard of the highest court in the land: the Supreme Court.
So, like, what does it mean to “interpret the law”? Check out this video to find out what
that phrase means.
Video 1
The Articles of Confederation posed a problem, because no federal judiciary was set up
under them. The solution under the Constitution was to set up a judicial branch to
interpret and apply the law, but what does it mean to interpret and apply the law? In the
simplest sense, to interpret the law means to decide what the law is really saying. As
Chief Justice John Marshall put it, Marbury v. Madison in 1803, it is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.
Those who apply the rule to particular cases must have necessity, expound and
interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the
operation of each. Laws often include vague, general wording, and deciding what the
wording means in practice is a function of the judicial system. Occassionally, laws are
so vague that they don’t allow citizens to determine whether they’ve broken them.
Courts require laws to be specific, so that the government is not given free reign to act
however it pleases.
Sometimes interpreting a law requires deciding how it can be applied in very specific
circumstances. An example of this is the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens
against unreasonable searches and seizures, but under what conditions is a search
unreasonable? The Supreme Court has repeatedly struggled with this problem, setting
the boundaries of reasonable and unreasonable searches for a variety of situations. A
specific instance of this occurred when the court ruled that passengers on a bus have a
reasonable expectation of privacy regarding their carry on luggage, and so searches of
that luggage required a search warrant. In Bond v. United States in 2000, the court
went so far as to rule that exploratory squeezing of soft sided luggage is an
unconstitutional search.
Sometimes laws are blatantly unconstitutional and the Supreme Court does not hesitate
in declaring them so. For example, in Coates v. Cincinnati in 1971, the court ruled on a
challenge to an anti-loitering ordinance or a rule that prohibited people from hanging
around without a good purpose. The law made it a crime for three or more persons to
assemble on any of the sidewalks and conduct themselves in a manner annoying to
persons passing by. The court struck down the law for two reasons and in very direct
language. The law was unconstitutionally vague or not specific, but more importantly,
the ordinance made a crime out of something that is not a crime under the constitution.
In fact, this kind of activity is protected by the Constitution.
These examples of laws struck down for vagueness for very technical reasons and for
outright unconstitutionality give some idea of the range of legal interpretations that
courts are called on to make. So try to imagine what it would be like if there weren’t any
federal courts. That was exactly the situation under the Articles of Confederation. Each
state interpreted the federal laws as it wanted to. States ignored one another’s laws. In
cases involving suits between persons from different states, there was no way to
enforce judgements. Court decisions in one state were ignored by the other states.
As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist 22, a circumstance, which crowns the defects
of the Confederation is the want of a judiciary power. Laws are a dead letter without
courts to expound and to find their true meaning and operation. Hamilton was right.
The courts are often our truest protection against chaos.
Video 1 – Recap
The Judicial Branch of the United States government interprets the law. In other words,
the courts help people understand the law by defining what the law is really saying.
The courts also apply the law, or decide how the written word transforms into actions.
If the federal government or any state makes a law that seems unfair, it is the job of the
courts to determine if that law meets the requirements laid out by the constitution.
If you had to wrap all of this up in a single sentence, you could say this: The courts
make sure that laws are constitutional as they are written and as they are applied.
Reading Passage 1- Introduction
I mean, think about this:
There are fifty states and each state makes laws. It’s possible that some of those laws
might go against the constitution.
Also, people have disagreements every day that can only be settled by having someone
interpret the law in question.
And, people sometimes break the laws, but are innocent until proven guilty.
If there was only one court in the whole country to help all these people, there would be
a really, really long line.
So check out this reading to familiarize yourself with the courts of our justice system.
Reading Passage 1- Outro
So, with that material in mind…
Reading Passage 2- Introduction
During a trial, the courtroom is usually pretty crowded.
After all, there are a lot of people who participate in a trial: the defendant, lawyers, the
jury – you name it!
So, who’s running the show here? Who’s in control? That’s right: The judge.
A judge or justice rules over every court. Each judge has a big responsibility: to make
sure the laws are carried out correctly.
And since I know you’ve always wondered how a person becomes a judge, I think you
should read this next passage right away.
Reading Passage 2- Outro
Pretty interesting, huh?
Generic Activity Exit
Ah, mon ami, as the French say, “all good things must come to an end”. Ok, so the
French don’t say that. But they do say “au revoir”, and so do I. Au revoir!