A Walk through the Halls of History: The Supreme Court and How it Works
Syllabus
Facilitator:
Paul Mauro, [email protected]
Week 1: March 27. Introduction to the US Supreme Court, relevant articles of the Constitution,
early court functioning, Glossary and Bibliography.
Week 2: April 3. Virtual Tour of the Court building, The Judiciary Acts, Hierarchy of the federal
system, Key Participants of the Court, The Chief Justice, Confirmation of a justice
Week 3: April 10. How a case makes it to the court, The procedure followed by the court, The
role of the Solicitor General, Court trivia, The 4 Overarching Themes, Class reports
Week 4: April 17. Seminal Cases through history, part 1
Marbury v. Madison - judicial review principle;
Fletcher v. Peck - private contracts;
McCullough v. Maryland - states sovereignty vs. federal power.
Class reports
Week 5: April 24. Seminal Cases through history, part 2
Dred Scott v. Sandburg - are all men created equal?;
Lochner v. New York - employers vis a vis employees;
Arizona v. Miranda/Gideon v. Wainwright - individual rights vis a vis police actions.
Class reports
Week 6: May 1. Seminal Cases through history, part 3
Plessy v. Ferguson - separate but equal;
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education - integration vs. separate but equal;
Minersville v. Gobitis - religious freedom.
Class reports
Week 7: May 8 Guest Speaker
Dr. Alan Chen, DU’s Sturm College of Law; on current cases of the Court and the Court today.
Week 8: May 15. Seminal Cases through history, part 4, and final words
Griswold v. Connecticut - right to privacy;
Citizens United v. FEC - corporations same as people;
The four overarching themes
Interview with Justice Stephen Breyer.
!1
Glossary for the Supreme Court
Note: The best source for the meaning of legal terms is Black's Law Dictionary, which is available in most libraries.
acquittal: A decision by a jury or judge that a person charged with a crime is not guilty.
affirm(ed): A judicial decision upholding the ruling of a lower court.
amicus curiae: Latin for "friend of the court"; a person or group that is not a party in the case and submits
a brief to the court.
appeal: A procedure by which the ruling of a lower court is submitted to a higher court for review.
appellant: In the federal courts of appeals, the party asking for reversal of a district court ruling (see appellee).
appellee: In the federal courts of appeals, the party asking for affirmance of a district court ruling (see appellant).
Attainder, Bill of: A legislative act declaring a person guilty of a crime without a trial or hearing: prohibited
by the Constitution.
balancing test: The judicial practice of deciding cases by weighing the rights of one party against the other
without applying a strict doctrinal rule.
brief: The written submission of a party (or amicus group) to a court, presenting the legal arguments in a
case.
certiorari, writ of: The Latin name for a request that the Supreme Court review a case: the Court denies
most applications for this writ.
class action: A lawsuit brought on behalf of a class of people with a similar stake in its decision.
common law: The practice imported from English law of deciding cases on the basis of precedent established by courts in earlier cases, rather than by reliance on legislation or constitutional provisions.
concurring opinion: An opinion by a judge who agrees with the courts ruling but who writes separately to
explain his or her reasoning in the case.
contempt: A knowing failure or refusal to carry out or abide by a judicial ruling; judges can punish contempt
with fines or jail terms.
courts of appeal: In the federal system, the intermediate layer of courts that hear appeals from the district
(trial) courts; rulings of the courts of appeal may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
de facto: A Latin term for a factual situation that is not imposed by law; applied most often in school segregation cases (see de jure).
de jure: A Latin term for a factual situation that is imposed by law, as in de-jure segregation.
defendant: The party against whom judicial relief is sought in a lawsuit.
dicta, obiter dicta: A statement in a judicial opinion that is not related to the ruling and that has no force as
law or precedent.
discretionary jurisdiction: A term for cases that a court is not required by law or the Constitution to decide, but may if it chooses to exercise its power of decision (see mandatory jurisdiction).
dissenting opinion: An opinion by a judge (or judges) in the minority in a case, taking issue with the
court's ruling.
!2
distinguish: A judge's explanation of reasons why a prior decision does not apply to a present case as
precedent.
district courts: In the federal system, the trial courts in which most cases are heard and decided.
diversity jurisdiction: The power of federal courts to decide cases brought under state law by parties
who are residents of different states.
due process: The requirement, established in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that governments treat all persons fairly in actions that might deprive them of "life, liberty, or property" (see substantive due process).
ex post facto law: A criminal law that punishes a person for acts committed before the law was passed.
exclusionary rule: The judicial doctrine that courts must not admit illegally obtained evidence in criminal
trials.
habeas corpus, writ of: A Latin term for "you have the body": a writ ordering an official to bring a person
into court to determine if he or she is being unlawfully detained.
incorporation: The judicial doctrine that provisions of the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" into the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and apply to the states.
injunction: A judicial order commanding a person to perform or refrain from performing an act required by
law.
judicial activism: A legal philosophy that judges should decide cases to protect the rights of minorities and
dissenters, striking down laws if necessary to accomplish this aim.
judicial restraint: A legal philosophy that judges should defer to the decisions of the legislative and executive branches unless their actions clearly violate a constitutional provision.
judicial review: The power of courts to determine whether a law or executive act conforms to the Constitution and to strike down those that violate the court's interpretation of the Constitution.
jurisdiction: The grant of power to courts, by the Constitution or laws, to hear and decide a case.
litigant: A party to a lawsuit.
mandamus, writ of: A Latin term from the word for "hand"; a judicial order directing an official to perform
an act required by law.
mandatory jurisdiction: A term for cases that courts are required by law or the Constitution to hear and
decide (see discretionary jurisdiction).
motion: A request made to a court for a ruling on a point of law, such as a motion to dismiss a case or to
rule on the admissibility of evidence.
order: A written command of a judge to carry out the court's ruling in a lawsuit.
per curium: A Latin term for "by the court"; a judicial opinion that is unsigned or issued by the court as a
body.
petitioner: In Supreme Court procedure, the party asking for reversal of a lower-court decision (see respondent).
plaintiff: The party who brings a lawsuit asking for judicial relief.
!3
plurality opinion: A judicial opinion that decides the case but is not joined by a majority of the court.
police powers: The judicial doctrine that governments have the power to pass laws protecting the health,
safety, welfare, or morals of the public, originating in English common law.
precedent: Previously decided cases that establish judicial doctrine that Judges follow in ruling on cases
before them.
pro se litigant: A party who appears in court on his or her own behalf, without a lawyer.
rational basis test: The judicial doctrine that presumes the constitutionality of laws for which any "rational"
argument can be found or presumed in its defense (see strict scrutiny test).
respondent: In Supreme Court procedure, the party asking for affirmance of a lower-court decision (see
petitioner).
reversal: A court's decision to reverse the ruling of a lower court.
Solicitor General: The Justice Department lawyer who represents the United States in cases before the
Supreme Court.
stare decisis: A Latin term for "let the decision stand"; the judicial doctrine that precedent established in
earlier cases should be followed in a present case.
state action: An action taken by an official or agency of government.
strict scrutiny test: The judicial doctrine that laws will be held unconstitutional if they infringe on "fundamental rights" protected by the Constitution or discriminate against members of minority groups, unless
governments can show a "compelling state interest" to justify the law.
subpoena: A judicial order that a person appear in court or produce a document or other evidence.
substantive due process: The judicial doctrine that the "liberty" interests protected by the due process
clause include rights that cannot he infringed legislation and are subject to judicial review.
vacate: A judicial order to rescind the ruling of a lower court.
venue: The geographic jurisdiction in which a case is heard.
warrant: A judicial order for an arrest or for a search and seizure of evidence.
writ: A judicial order commanding a person to perform or refrain from performing an act.
!4
BibliographyandResourcesfortheHistoryoftheSupremeCourt
Books
Biskupic,Joan.AmericanOriginal:TheLifeandConstitutionofSupremeCourtJusticeAntoninScalia,
2009
Thisbookshowsusthemaninpower:hisworld,hisjourney,andthefar-reachingconsequencesofa
transformedlegallandscape.
Breyer,StephenG.MakingOurDemocracyWork:AJudge'sView,2010
JusticeBreyer'sabsorbingstoriesofferinsightintohowademocracyworks,andsometimesfails.
Cushman,Clare.Courtwatchers:EyewitnessAccountsinSupremeCourtHistory(SupremeCourtHistoricalSociety,2011
SupremeCourthistorytoldprimarilythrougheyewitnessaccountsfromCourtinsiders;provides
readerswithabehind-the-sceneslookatthepeople,practices,andtraditionsthathaveshapedan
Americaninstitutionformorethan200years.
Garraty,JohnA.QuarrelsThatHaveShapedTheConstitution,1989
O’Connor,SandraDay.OutofOrder:StoriesfromtheHistoryoftheSupremeCourt,2013
Asuccinctaccountofhowtoday’scourt—sopowerful,socontroversialandsofrequentlydissectedby
themedia—evolvedfromsuchstartlinglyhumbleanduncertainbeginnings.
O'Connor,SandraDay.TheMajestyOfTheLaw:ReZlectionsOfASupremeCourtJustice,2003
Rehnquist,WilliamH.TheSupremeCourt:ANewEditionoftheChiefJustice’sClassicHistory,2001
Rosen,Jeffrey.TheSupremeCourt:ThePersonalitiesAndRivalriesThatDeZinedAmerica,2007
Scalia,Antonin.AMatterOfInterpretation:FederalCourtsAndTheLaw,1997
Sotomayor,Sonia.MyBelovedWorld,2013
Stevens,JohnPaul.FiveChiefs:ASupremeCourtMemoir,2012
Stevens,JohnPaul.SixAmendments:HowandWhyWeShouldChangetheConstitution,2014
Tarborough,TinsleyE.,andDavidH.Souter.TraditionalRepublicanontheRehnquistCourt,2005
TheistheZirstbiographyofJusticeSouteranditincludesinterestingchaptersonhisconZirmation
process,Bushv.Gore,theCaseydecisionandhisfamilybackgroundandpre-Courtcareer.
Toobin,JeffreyRoss.TheNine:InsidetheSecretWorldoftheSupremeCourt,2007
!5
Basedinpartonexclusiveinterviewswiththejusticesandformerlawclerks,ToobinproZilesthejusticesoftheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt,thefunctioningofthatinstitution,andhowithaschanged
overtheyears.
Trachtman,MichaelG.TheSupremes'GreatestHits:The44SupremeCourtCasesThatMostDirectly
AffectYourLife,2016
Tribe,Laurence.UncertainJustice:TheRobertsCourtandtheConstitution,2014
FromCitizensUnitedtoitsmomentousrulingsregardingObamacareandgaymarriage,theSupreme
CourtunderChiefJusticeJohnRobertshasprofoundlyaffectedAmericanlife.
Williams,Juan.ThurgoodMarshall:AmericanRevolutionary,2007
Woodward,BobandScottArmstrong:TheBrethren:InsideTheSupremeCourt,1979
!6
OnlineResources
OYEZhttp://www.oyez.org.
Thiscomprehensivesitecontainsmultipleresourcesforeachofhundredsofcasesorganizedbytopic--includingcaseabstracts,audiooftheoralarguments,andlinkstothefullopinions.Thesitealsocontainsextensiveinformationabouteachjustice'svotingrecord,audioarchivesofjusticeinterviews,andavirtualtour
oftheSupremeCourtbuilding.
TheSupremeCourtHistoricalSocietywww.supremecourthistory.org
TheFederalJudicialCenterhttp://www.Gjc.gov
CornellUniversityLawSchoolLegalInformationInstitute
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/home
TheLIISupremeCourtBulletincoverspendingcasesandthedecisionsassoonastheyareavailable.This
websitehasarchivedalltheSupremeCourtcasesuptothemostrecentdecisions.YouwillalsoZindasection
titled:HistoricSupremeCourtDecisions-ByJustice.
StreetLaw
www.streetlaw.org
NationalConstitutionCenterwww.constitutioncenter.org
TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthttp://www.supremecourt.gov
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10630/Supreme-Court-United-States.html
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/03/351-books-by-supreme-court-justices/
BooksbySupremeCourtJustices.AlistingofallthebookswrittenoreditedbytheJusticesoftheSupreme
Courtasof2012.Thetallyof351representsourbestcurrentcalculationofthetotalnumberoftitlesofbooks
(asopposedtoseparatelyprintedreports,opinions,articles,etc.)publishedduringtheJustices’lifetimes.
JusticeLearningHttp://Www.Justicelearning.Org
Student-targetedwebsiteisacollaborationofNPR's"JusticeTalking"programandtheNewYorkTimes
LearningNetwork.ThesitecontainsaguidetotheU.S.Constitution,lessonplans,audioarchivesofpast"JusticeTalking"programs,exclusivelinkstorelevantarticles,andinteractivetimelinesfordevelopmentsrelated
toeachofthe27Constitutionalamendments.
Http://Www.Archives.Gov/Exhibits/Charters/Charters.Html
TheWebsiteoftheNationalArchives--thepermanenthometotheConstitution,BillofRightsandother
seminalAmericanpapers.Hashigh-resolutionimagesofthesedocuments,aswellasallsubsequentamendments.
FindLaw--U.S.SupremeCourtCenterHttp://Supreme.Findlaw.Com
FindLawmaintainsacomprehensivelegaldatabase.ItssectionontheSupremeCourtincludesCourtnews,
copiesofbriefsforcasesdatingbackto1999,theCourt'scalendaranddocket,andthefulltextofSupreme
Courtdecisionsdatingbackto1893.
C-SPAN'sSupremeCourtWeekDocumentary
http://supremecourt.c-span.org/Video/TVPrograms/SC_Week_Documentary.aspx
!7
Cases Discussed
Marbury v. Madison
McCullough v. Maryland
Fletcher v. Peck
Lochner v. New York
Dred Scott b. Sandburg
Plessy v. Ferguson
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education
Miranda v. Arizona/Gideon v. Wainwright
Citizens United v. Common Cause
!8
Outline for Case Presentation
Case:
Issue:
Background:
Outcome:
Legacy:
!9