JUSTICE
FOR ALL
A RESTRUCTURING OF
AMERICA'S FEDERAL
JUDICIAL SYSTEM
EMMA NOEL ROBINSON
JUSTICEFORALL
1
TableofContents
Abstract.................................................................................2
JusticeforAll:ARestructuringofAmerica’sFederalJudicialSystem......................3
PresentationoftheProblem.............................................................4
DefinitionofTerms
PoliticalPerspectives
HistoryandStructureoftheJudicialBranch.............................................8
BiblicalApplication
TheConstitution
PurposeoftheFederalJudiciary
StructureoftheFederalJudiciary
FormationofJudicialSovereignty.......................................................17
McCullochv.Maryland
Lochnerv.NewYork
Roev.Wade
Bushv.Gore
Obergefellv.Hodges
FuturePotential
TheTable-TennisMandate:APolicyProposal..........................................28
Conclusion.............................................................................30
FortheInterestedReader..............................................................32
References.............................................................................33
JUSTICEFORALL
2
Abstract
Judicial activism on behalf of the Supreme Court infringes upon the rights of the other
branchesofthefederalgovernment,andupontherightsofthestates.Aclarificationofthe
various terms in question and an analysis of how both activism and originalism manifest
themselves will present the potential hindrances that can arise if activism is left
uncontrolled. A brief history of the judicial system in America will present the original
intent of the Founders in creating a judicial branch. In order to see how the violation of
constitutional powers takes place, the following Supreme Court cases will be examined:
McCulloch v. Maryland, Lochner v. New York, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, and Obergefell v.
Hodges.Eachofthesecasespresentsadifferentcircumstancewhereinjudicialactivismwas
exercised,redefiningtheSupremeCourt’sadopteddoctrinewitheachnewruling.Oncethe
problem of activism is outlined, a policy proposal requiring a restructuring of the federal
judicial system and developments in the way the Court can rule on cases will provide a
cleanoutlineastohowtheconstitutionalfutureofAmericacanbepreserved.
Keywords:judicialactivism,constitutionaloriginalist,legislationfromthebench,court
overreach,politicalaffiliation,judicialreview
JUSTICEFORALL
3
JusticeforAll:ARestructuringofAmerica’sFederalJudicialSystem
Asthegavelbangsuponthedeskendingalongcourtsession,anotherdecisionhas
beenmarkedinthehistorybooks.Anewinterpretationofconstitutionallawhasbeen
portrayed,castingashadowonhowthefederalgovernmentcomposesitself,adjustingand
redefiningpowerswitheachnewruling.TheSupremeCourtholdsthebatonwhenitcomes
totheinterpretationofhoweachbranchofthefederalgovernmentisabletoconductitself
inrelationtotheotherbranches,andadditionallydefineshowthesebranchesinteractwith
thestatesandthenationasawhole.
The powers of the federal judicial branch can be summarized by the Preamble,
which states that the government functions in order to “establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
BlessingsofLibertytoourselvesandourPosterity”1Thesewordsencompassthenatureof
thejudicialbranchoftheUnitedStates.Thisbranchofgovernmentwasuniquelycreated
forthepurposeprovidingasystemofbalanceinthefederalstructure,inordertoserveasa
propercheckonthelegislativeandexecutivebranches,whilesimultaneouslyservingasthe
final word in controversial court cases regarding citizens and the states. However, as the
last few centuries have unfolded, the court system has managed to drift from the
constitutional intention it was created under, and has begun to exercise powers that are
outsideofitsrealmofconstitutionalresponsibility.Throughthepoliticalaffiliationsofits
justices,theSupremeCourtisneglectingitsoriginalpurposetoupholdtheConstitutionby
infringing upon the powers of the other federal branches as well as on the rights of the
statesthroughtheexerciseofjudicialactivism.
1
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
JUSTICEFORALL
4
PresentationoftheProblem
The judicial branch of the United States was designed to operate on a delicate
balanceofpowerbetweenitselfandtheexecutiveandlegislativebranchesofgovernment.
The federal system was also intentionally created to act as a separate entity from that of
thegovernmentalsystemsofthestates.1Ultimately,thefederalgovernmentissovereignin
comparison to the states, but clear lines were established between federal and state
boundariestoprotecttherightsofboththestatesandthecitizensresidinginthem.2
As the last two centuries have unfolded, the rulings of the Supreme Court have
become increasingly refined and authoritative as the federal government has grown in
power;however,thisgrowthofpowerhasledtoinstanceswherethefederalcourtsystem
hassteppedoutsideofitsappropriaterealmofauthority.Thisoverreachofthecourthas
ledtoinfringementsofpowerupontheoriginalconstitutionalboundariesthatweredrawn
forthejudicialbranch,aswellasupontheboundariesthathavebeengiventothefederal
court system through the formation of additional laws and judiciary acts. The Supreme
Courthasdevelopedintoanentitywhichisneglectingitsoriginalpurpose-toupholdthe
Constitution-byinfringingonthepowersoftheotherfederalbranchesandontherightsof
the states through the exercise of “legislating from the bench.” This sense of judicial
activismhasgrowninpracticeasaresultofpoliticalaffiliationinterferenceonbehalfofthe
SupremeCourtjustices.
DefinitionofTerms
1
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
2
Johnson,JohnW.(2001).
JUSTICEFORALL
5
The principles behind court overreach, legislating from the bench, and judicial
review must be clarified and separated from one another in order to more completely
understandthistopic.First,theideaofcourtoverreachiscommonlymisconstrued.Inthe
examplestocome,courtoverreachasatermispurelybeingusedinordertorepresentthe
occurrenceofwhentheCourtmanagestoreachoutsideofitsownrealmofresponsibility
and power and attempts to instead exercise the powers of other governmental branches.
The main case where this is commonly portrayed is through the practice of judicial
activism.
Theactionoflegislatingfromthebenchishighlycontroversial.Manyscholarsargue
thatlegislatingfromthebenchisanabsolutelyvitalpracticeofthecourts,asthecurrent
expectationonthefederalcourtsystemistointerpretanddefinethelawswhichhavebeen
createdandimplementedinpracticalwaysandtoapplysaidrulesoflawtospecificcases.
However,thedoctrinalideaofinterpretingthelawaswellasprovingtheconstitutionality
ofsuchlawsandthenapplyingsaidlawtocasesisactuallythepracticeofjudicialreview.
Judicialreviewisavitalpracticeinthecurrentcourtsystem.Theactionoflegislatingfrom
the bench occurs when the courts attempt to create and implement policy as a result of
their ruling in cases; this practice is absolutely unconstitutional. It is this infringement
which intrudes on the rights of both the legislative and executive branches, as the courts
attempttodefinehowtheythinkpolicieswouldbestbeimplementedinthenation.
Legislationfromthebenchoccursonthefederallevel(betweentheSupremeCourt
andCongress)aswellasbetweenthefederaljudicialbranchandthelegislativebranchesof
the states. Several landmark cases in Supreme Court history, including McCulloch v.
Maryland and Roe v. Wade, have been founded upon rulings which served to be
JUSTICEFORALL
6
overreaches on behalf of the courts. In order to better understand the controversy
grounded behind each of these rulings, a clear understanding of the many ways that the
Constitutioncanbeinterpretedisrequired.
PoliticalPerspectives
WhenanalyzinganycaseinlightoftheConstitution,therearetwoopposingcritical
approachesthatonecantake.Thefirstofthese,theoriginalistview,holdstruetoThomas
Jefferson’slineofthinking.Aconstitutionaloriginalistwouldstatethatallhearingsofthe
SupremeCourtshouldnotonlybereadinlightofthetextoftheConstitutionitself,butalso
should give consideration to the framers’ original intentions in initially creating the
document. The primary reason behind the originalist approach is tangibility; there is a
basic premise that all citizens should be able to access the Supreme Court. Additionally,
eachcitizenshouldhavetheabilitytorecognizewhenthecourtisactingproperly,orwhen
it has drifted from its appropriate position. Scholars suggest that one who views the
Constitution from an originalist perspective clearly, “understands that judges are to
interpretthelaws,nottoimposetheirpreferencesorprioritiesonthepeople.”1Thereisa
generalassumptionamongtheoriginalistmentalitythatSupremeCourtjudgeswouldinno
waylegislatefromthebench,butinsteadwouldapplytheConstitutionandlawstospecific
circumstancesforconsideration.
Standing in opposition to the constitutional originalist mentality is the activist
viewpoint. A judicial activist strongly believes that, “the Constitution [is] a document of
broad principles and concepts, one that empowers [the justices] to substitute their
1
Roosevelt,KermitIII.(2006).
JUSTICEFORALL
7
personalbeliefs,values,andpoliciesforthoseenumeratedintheConstitution.”1Alexander
Hamiltonwasafirmjudicialactivist,believingthatlimitinganddefiningthepowerofthe
courtwouldhinderthegrowthandadaptabilityofthenation.Withouttheabilitytogrow
andadaptwiththecurrenttimes,thereisabsolutelynowaythatAmericawouldbeableto
surviveovertime.However,theactionsofactivistsarequestioned,astheytendtoviewthe
positionofjusticesasto“makeratherthaninterpretthelaw.”2
When examining both of these viewpoints critically, one can easily understand
where each position is founded logically, however, each standing has its own particular
fault. In considering the originalist view, one must realize that it fails to recognize the
existence of a court doctrine. Each individual ruling that is made by the Supreme Court
contributes to the current court doctrine: the record of rulings and adjustments to laws
thathaveoccurredasaresultofthecaseoutcomesofthepastfewcenturies.Asthecourt
doctrinehasevolved,thepoliticalatmosphereofthenationhasshiftedaswell,whichcan
beseenthroughanexaminationoflandmarkcasesthathavetakenplaceovertime.
Onthecontrary,theactivistviewadoptsinappropriatepowerswhichhavenotbeen
granted to the judicial branch. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall stated it well
whenheboldlydeclaredthatthepositionofajudgeisto“dowhatyouthinkisrightandlet
thelawcatchup.”3Withthismentality,itisextremelyeasytojustifyarulingthatmanages
tocreatelegislationforthefederalorstategovernmentstofollow,eliminatingtheneedfor
a legislative branch. Additionally, viewing the world through the activist lense allows
justicestoexpandtheirpowerstooperateastheyseefit.
1
Levin,Mark.(2005).
2
Levin,Mark.(2005).
3
Levin,Mark.(2005).
JUSTICEFORALL
8
Manyscholarsargueoverthepossibilityofwhetherneithertheoriginalistnorthe
activistperspectivestrulyexist.1KermitRooseveltIIIpresentsthethoughtthatthereisno
truly accurate or correct way to interpret the Constitution. In the case that no correct
interpretation exists, there would be no argument between activists and originalists. In
countertothis,perhapsthecorrectoptionismoresimpleandlogical:boththeoriginalist
and activist views exist, but there is a delicate balance between the two that must be
reachedinorderto1)properlyrecognizethepoliticalpolarizationofthejusticesandadapt
to court doctrine as it develops, and 2) to respectfully and adequately represent the
intentionofthefoundersoftheConstitutionitself.
HistoryandStructureoftheJudicialBranch
In order to effectively analyze whether the actions being taken by the justices are
acceptable,aclearandaccuratehistoryofhowthejudicialbranchcametobestructuredas
itistodayisrequired.ThestructureoftheAmericanjudicialbranchisnotunique;infact,
its roots trace all the way back to ancient times with the original founding of a court
system. These roots can then be traced through the development of America, and lead
directly to the processes through which the judicial branch operates today. The political
bendsofthecourtsysteminAmericacanthenbetracedthroughlandmarkcasesanderas,
allowingthestrugglebetweenoriginalismandactivismtobecomeglaringlyapparent.
BiblicalApplication
ThehistoricalstructureofthecourtsystemlongprecedesthecreationofAmerica.The
currentgovernmentalsystemintheUnitedStatescanstructurallybetracedandrelatedto
1
Roosevelt,KermitIII.(2006).
JUSTICEFORALL
9
therootsofthegovernmentoftheIsraelites.LookingfromOldTestamenttimesforward,it
iseasytodrawconnectionsandseehowtheAmericancourtsystemofmoderntimeshas
stemmeddirectlyfromtheBiblicalfoundationalcourtsystemofthepast.
Biblicallyspeaking,itisinGod’snaturetoactasaGodoforder,structure,andjustice.It
isimportanttonotethatthecharacteroftheLordleadsdirectlyintotheplansHehasfor
His people. The world which He created is a fallen world that is filled with injustice. The
GodoftheIsraelitesdesignedHispeopletoliveincommunitywithoneanother.AsGenesis
2:18states,“TheLordGodsaid,‘Itisnotgoodforthemantobealone.”1However,because
theworldisfallentosin,biblicalprinciplessuggestthatmanmustbesupportedthrough
order and structure to be able to effectively function in community with other men. The
entiretyoftheOldTestamentisacompilationofall613laws2thatGodinstitutedinorder
to create a structure for His people as an example for how communities need to be
controlledandconductedinordertobestmanagethefallenworld.
Therefore, in Exodus, Moses was established by God to be the first Judge over the
Israelite community. Moses was reprimanded for performing this function alone, and
thereforeadditionaljusticeswereimplementedtoworkalongsidehim,asseeninExodus
17:18-23:
Whatyouaredoingisnotgood…Thisworkistooheavyforyou;youcannothandle
it alone…Select capable men from all people… Have them serve as judges for the
peopleatalltimes,buthavethembringeverydifficultcasetoyou…youdothisand
1
LifeApplicationStudyBible:NewInternationalVersion.
2
Hecht,Mendy.(2016).
JUSTICEFORALL
10
Godsocommands,youwillbeabletostandthestrain.1
Later,thestructureofthecourtsystemwasagainaddressed,asDeuteronomy16:18says
to“appointjudgesandofficialsforeachofyourtribesineverytowntheLordyourGodis
givingyou,andtheyshalljudgethepeoplefairly.”2Thecourtsystem,asestablishedbyGod,
wascreatedtoholdtworesponsibilities,whicharestilltheresponsibilitiesoftheAmerican
courtstoday;1)toadministerjusticeforthepeoplebydoingwhatisbestforthepeople,
and 2) to establish boundaries and form a structure for the nation as a whole. This very
muchcorrelatestotheexistenceoftheSupremeCourtbenchoftoday.
Tracing the idea that the plans of God follow His overall character, and knowing that
God is characterized by structure, order, and justice, it is clear that government was
established to function as a servant of God. Through the establishment of government,
God’sjusticeisservedtotheworld.GovernmentisGod’swayofwieldingHisswordagainst
man’s sinful nature, and it is a vital tool that allows God to still be moving through the
worldtoday.Duetothenatureofaccountabilitythatthegovernmentholdstothepeopleit
serves, the nation it belongs to, and the God of Israel whom it ultimately exists for, the
establishment of government has a freedom and an obligation to uphold what is best in
eachoftheserealms.
TheConstitution
WhenAmericawasestablished,theFoundingFatherscreatedtheConstitutiontoact
asalighthouse,guidingthedevelopmentofthenewlybirthednation.Thishassincebeen
the foundation of all legal and governing decisions, paving the development of America
1
LifeApplicationStudyBible:NewInternationalVersion.
2
LifeApplicationStudyBible:NewInternationalVersion.
JUSTICEFORALL
11
overthelasttwocenturies.TheConstitutionclearlydividesthenation’sgovernmentinto
three separate branches, which are designed to function in their own unique way and
additionally serve as checks on the powers of the other two federal entities. Article III of
theUnitedStatesConstitutionspecificallyaddressesthejudicialsectorofthegovernment,
outlining the branch’s powers, and defining limitations the judiciary is contained by as
well.1
Many of these powers have been further defined and modified by the other two
governmental branches, and will be examined later. The Constitution has established
checks against the judicial branch to counter the fairly broad span of powers that this
document granted; these checks directly correlate with how the judicial branch has
expandedanddevelopedsinceitsoriginalfoundingovertwohundredyearsago.2
ChecksontheJudiciary
Despiteitsclearfoundationalimportancetotheexistenceandjudiciaryfunctionof
thenation,theConstitutionprovidesfewdetailsregardingthefederaljudicialcourtsystem
as a whole; Article III only addresses and establishes the Supreme Court itself. This is to
serve as a power-check against the judicial branch, as a reminder that the federal court
systemisgivennottothejudiciarytocontrol,butinfacttoCongress.3Congresstherefore
holdsthepowertocreatealldistrictandappellatecourtsthatfunctionundertheSupreme
Court, and determines how these courts are to act.4 It was Congress which defined that
districtcourtsholdoriginaljurisdictionoveramajorityofcases,whiletheappellatecourts
1
RooseveltIII,Kermit.(2006).
2
Starr,KennethW.(2002).
3
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
4
Bork,RobertH.(1990).
JUSTICEFORALL
12
hold appellate jurisdiction, except in the express cases given in Article III where the
SupremeCourtholdsoriginaljurisdiction.1
ArticleII,Section2oftheConstitutiongrantsthepresidentthepowertonominate
andappointalljusticesoftheSupremeCourt.However,inordertoavoidanineffectiveor
overly biased bench, Congress holds the power to eliminate any appointments which it
findstobeinferior.ArticleVI,Section1statesthatCongresshastherighttoproscribethe
manner in which all court proceedings occur, ensuring that they are in line with the Full
FaithandCreditclausewhichgivesCongressthepowertocheckthatjudicialproceedings
arefairandproperlyconducted.2
The justices themselves were also given specific instructions by the Constitution
throughArticleVI.PursuantoftheSupremacyClause,theSupremeCourtwasdevelopedas
an entity which is governed solely by the Constitution, not by any man or government
entity.Additionally,theSupremeCourtholdsthesolepowertointerprettheConstitution
and apply it, as previously discussed. Combined, these powers could prove to be a
dangerouscombinationforonegovernmentbranchtoyieldagainsttheothers.Inorderto
provide an accurate check here, Congress was given the power in Article V to amend the
Constitutionifnecessary,makingsurethatthejudicialbranchwasnotgiventhepowerto
edititsownpowers,ordefinethemtocovermoreterritorythantheyactuallydo.
ConstitutionalAmendmentsandAdditionalPowers
Followingalloftheregulationsthatwereplacedinfrontofthembytheoriginaltext
oftheConstitution,thefederalgovernmentquicklyrealizedthatadditionalpowersneeded
1
ArticleIII,TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
2
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
JUSTICEFORALL
13
tobedefined.TheNinthandTenthAmendmentswerepassedinordertoprovideadequate
support both for the states and individual citizens who were residing in the nation. The
Ninth Amendment specifically addresses the key principle that simply because defined
rightsarenotoutlinedbytheConstitution,thisdoesnotmeanthattheserightsinherently
donotexist.TheTenthAmendmentguaranteesthatanyrightwhichisnotexplicitlygiven
to the federal government through the Constitution belongs to either the states or the
people.1
TheothercentralamendmentwhichdirectlyaffectedthejudiciarywastheEleventh
Amendment. The Eleventh Amendment was passed following the ruling in Chisholm v.
Georgia, clarifying that federal courts could correctly rule on cases occurring between a
stateandcitizensbelongingtoanotherstate.Thisamendmentwasnotwrittenwithregard
to citizens bringing cases against the state in which they resided, but these cases were
deemedtofallundertheprincipleofsovereignimmunity,andthuswerenottobebrought
forward.2
PurposeoftheFederalJudiciary
Thefederaljudicialbranchwascreatedinordertoactasacheckagainsttheother
twobranchesofgovernment.Additionally,thebranchwasnecessarytoeffectivelygovern
andmakedecisions,andtorulejustlyonbehalfofthepeoplewithregardstocontroversial
issuesbetweencitizens,states,andthenationasanentity,andtointerpretlawsinorderto
maintainandmanagetheorderofthenation.Asmentionedpreviously,thepurposeofthe
federal judiciary was not to interpret laws or judge the constitutionality of rulings; this
1
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
2
White,G.Edward.(1991).
JUSTICEFORALL
14
practicewasadoptedbythecourtasapowerfairlyearlyintheit’sexistence.Accordingto
Hamilton, the judiciary did not represent a threat as long as it “remain[ed] truly distinct
fromboththelegislatureandtheExecutive.”“ForIagree,”hecontinued,“thatthereisno
liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive
powers.”1
ThefoundersoftheConstitutiondebatedwhetherornottogivethejudicialbranch
thepowerofjudicialreview.However,afterconsideringtheamountofpowerthatwould
begiventothissingularentitythroughsuchadecision,theyoptedtoleavethatdoctrine
out. There was already an extremely large amount of power given to the federal judicial
system through the Constitution, and since no power had the authority to rule over the
courts,thefounderssawreasontoapproachadditionalgrantsofpowerwithcaution.1
Robert Yates, an Anti-federalist and delegate to the Constitutional Convention,
warned that the Supreme Court justices would not be confined by established rules, but
insteadwouldhavethepowertocreatetheinterpretationoftheConstitutioninthenation.
Hefearedthatthejusticeswouldhavetheabilitytoshapethefederalgovernmenthowever
theydesiredifnocourtofappealwasplacedabovetheSupremeCourtitself,asnoperson
would be able to correct their errors.1 Additionally, Jefferson cautioned that if the
Legislature and Executive branches were not able to check the Supreme Court, the result
would be disastrous to the effectiveness of the judicial branch in ruling justly and
unbiasedlyoncases.
StructureoftheFederalJudiciary
1
Levin,Mark.(2005).
JUSTICEFORALL
15
Originally,thefederaljudicialbranchwascreatedjustastheConstitutiondescribed
it: a Supreme Court to oversee judicial proceedings in the nation, and any courts which
Congress decided to create would then fall under it. This remained the federal judicial
structureuntil1789,whenCongresspassedthefirstfederalJudiciaryAct,creatingdistrict
and appellate courts under the purview of the Supreme Court. Over the years, several
changes have been proposed, further defining and ratifying the federal judicial structure
culminatinginthatwhichweseetoday.
TheJudiciaryActof1789
TherewereinitiallymanydebatesastowhatArticleI,section8oftheConstitution
actuallyintendedwhenitwaswritten.WastheConstitutionitselfsupposedtogovernthe
court system because of this portion of the article, or was Congress actually given the
expressedpowertoestablishtheremainderofthecourtsystem?TheJudiciaryActof1789
defineditasthelatter,establishingthethree-tiercourtsystemthatwehavetoday.1Brian
Landbergsummarizedthat,“theactestablishedthreetiersoffederalcourts:theSupreme
Court,districtcourts,andcircuitcourts.”2TheSupremeCourtwasunabletooverturnany
facts found by juries, and all “trial jurisdiction over suits arising under the Constitution,
federallaws,andtreaties,”2weregivendirectlytostatecourts.
TheJudiciaryActof1789wasintendedtobeatemporaryplaceholderforwhatever
establishmentofstructurewouldfollowcloselybehindit.Asitwasbeingdrafted,“theAct’s
creators, by essentially all accounts, viewed it as a work in progress. Although indeed
1
Marcus,M.(1992).
2
Landsberg,Brian.(2004).
JUSTICEFORALL
16
amendedthroughouttheyears,thebasicoutlineitprovidedhasremainedlargelyintact.”1
However, the system which was put in place proved so effective that it has mostly
remained,andonlyminorstructuraldetailshaveevolvedoverthelasttwocenturies.
TheJudiciaryActdividedthenationintodistrictsanddefinedtheSupremeCourtas
a bench consisting of one chief justice and five associate judges. The Act also determined
thattherulingsoftheSupremeCourtweretobefinalanddecided.Inaddition,itleftvested
in the Supreme Court the ultimate power to decide disputes between states, and also
providedformandatoryreviewbytheSupremeCourtonthefinaljudgmentsgivenbythe
highestcourtofanystateforanycaseswherethequestionregardedthevalidityoftreaties
or statutes. Overall, “this act is, without question, one of the most important laws ever
enactedbythenationallegislature.”2
Today’sFederalCourtStructure
Theconstructionoftoday’sfederalcourtsystemisfairlystraightforward,andvery
similartothestructurethatwasinitiallycreatedinthelate18thcentury.Todaythereare
three tiers constituting the federal court system itself.3 The top tier, naturally, belongs to
theSupremeCourt.ThesecondtieristhatoftheU.S.CourtsofAppeals,andthethirdtier
consistsoftheU.S.DistrictCourts.Thejobofthedistrictcourtsistotakethelawandapply
it to specific cases correctly. The courts of appeal serve as a check on the district courts,
andfunctioninordertobesurethatthelawisproperlyappliedtothecaseathand.Finally,
the Supreme Court serves as a check over both the appellate and district levels, and can
1
JudiciaryActof1789.(2016).
2
Clinton,R.L.(1992).
3
AdministrativeOfficeoftheU.S.CourtsonbehalfoftheFederalJudiciary(2016).
JUSTICEFORALL
17
overturn their rulings in the occurrence that both courts manage to apply the law
incorrectly.Withasolidfoundationnowintheoriginalintentionofthecourtsystemanda
grasponhowithasgrownovertheyears,ithasbecomeclearastowheretherolesofthe
judicialbranchoftodayhavebeguntoblurthelinesoriginallydrawnaroundthem.
FormationofJudicialSovereignty
AstheSupremeCourtcameintoexistenceandhasevolvedoverthelasttwocenturies,
ithasbecomeapparentthatthepoliticalaffiliationsofthejusticeshavegrowninrelevance
with regards to how the Court operates. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton
disagreedonhowtheCourtshouldconductitself,andastimehasunfolded,certaincases
havecausedthedoctrineoftheCourttodrasticallyshiftfromoneextremetothenext.
ThroughtherulingofMarburyv.Madison,theSupremeCourtmanagedtogiveitselfthe
powerofjudicialreview,despitetheearlierattemptsofthefoundingfatherstokeepthis
power away from the judicial branch. Since the establishment of judicial review in 1803,
thecourthasbeenabletoruleontheconstitutionalityofcases.KermitHall,anotedlegal
historian, stated, “In other words, when the Constitution--the nation's highest law-conflictswithanactofthelegislature,thatactisinvalid.”1
In 1816, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee determined just how far the power of the Supreme
Courtwasabletoreachintotherealmofthestatecourtsystem.2Throughthisruling,the
Court declared that the federal court system was sovereign over the state courts, and
resultedintheoverturningofSection25oftheJudiciaryActof1789,whichgavetheUnited
StatesSupremeCourtthepowertoreviewstaterulingsonbehalfofconstitutionality.This
1
Marburyv.Madison.(2016).
2
Hall,Kermit.(1999).
JUSTICEFORALL
18
led directly into an increase in the question of the relationship between the federal
governmentandthestates,andresultedinthedevelopedthepoweroftheSupremeCourt.
Followingthiscase,McCullochv.Marylandfurtheredthefederalcourt’spower,anddefined
muchmoreclearlyhowfarthetwospectrumscouldinteract.
McCullochv.Maryland
Through the hearing of McCulloch v. Maryland, the relationship between the federal
government and the state governments were redefined forever. This was the first major
casetocalluponstateversusfederaljurisdiction,andtherulingoftheSupremeCourtto
implementastrongerfederalgovernmenthassincecreatedtheabilityforcourtoverreach
to exist. Kermit Hall presented that, “it settled the meaning of the Necessary and Proper
Clause of the United States Constitution and determined the distribution of powers
between the federal government and the states.”1 While this case did not specifically
exerciseanoverreachofthefederaljudiciary’spower,itisthegroundingpointastowhy
suchoverreachandtheproblemofjudiciallegislationexists.
McCulloch v. Maryland directly questioned the political opinions of Hamilton against
those of Jefferson. In debating the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution,
Jefferson, in his originalist perspective, believed that the federal government was only
given the implied powers that were absolutely required for the performance of its
enumeratedpowers.AlexanderHamiltonontheotherhandbelievedthattheclausehelda
looser and much more activist approach. He feared that narrowing the clause would
1
Hall,Kermit.(1999).
JUSTICEFORALL
19
deprive it of its real and potential effect. The Marshall court ruled in favor of Hamilton,
definingthetoneofthefederalgovernmentforgenerationstocome.1
TheCourtruledthatthestatesdidnothavetheauthoritytoplacetaxesonfederal-run
programsandinstitutions,thereforedefiningthesovereigntyandauthorityofthefederal
government over that of the states. According to Johnson, “The advocates of state
sovereignty correctly perceived that Marshall’s expansive reading of the necessary-andproper clause could legitimize extraordinary assertions of federal power in the future.”2
This was the singular landmark decision surrounding how the Supreme Court would
approachanycasewhichappliedtoanyfederalpowerthatisnotspecificallymentionedin
the Constitution. In a nutshell, this case is commonly known as the opening of Pandora’s
Box.
Lochnerv.NewYork
MovingforwardfromMcCullochvMaryland,theabilitiesofthecourtcontinuedto
developandgrow.In1905,duringthetimeofChiefJusticeFuller’sCourt,theabilityforthe
federalgovernmenttocreatelegislationforthestategovernmentswascalledintoquestion.
ThebasicsofLochnerv.NewYorkarefairlystraight-forward.ThestateofNewYorkpassed
a statute stating that bakers could not work more than 60 hours each week. The Bakers
Union fought for their rights granted by the Contract Clause and the Fourteenth
Amendment.3
1
Schwartz,Bernard.(1993).
2
Johnson,JohnW.(2001).
3
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
JUSTICEFORALL
20
TheSupremeCourt,“gavelittledeferencetotheNewYorklegislature’spositionthat
thelaborlawboreadirectrelationtothewelfareofthebakers,”1andthereforeupheldthe
rightofthebakerstoworkasmanyhoursastheywouldlikeunderthefreedomgrantedto
them by the contract clause. As time passed since the Court’s ruling on Lochner, this
evolvedintoacaseregardingtheCourtprovidingfortheemployeroverthewelfareofthe
employee.
As the case of Lochner played out, the Court, “no longer considered the proper
business of government to tell business what to do unless it involved a state’s narrowly
defined‘policepowers’toassureitscitizens’safetyandhealth.”2WhattheCourtfailedto
recognize with the ruling of this case was that the state of New York was exercising this
exact authority, by determining the hours which its citizens were able to work, and
upholdingthehealthandsafetyofitscitizens.
Furthermore, Justice Harlan pointed out in his dissenting opinion that when the
constitutionalityofastatuteofastate’slegislatureiscalledintoquestion,thereshouldbe
noCourtinterferenceinthatstatute,orinrewritingthatstatuteunlessittrulyisfoundto
be unconstitutional.3 This was debated on both sides of the courtroom, as some more
activist judges saw the benefit for the Court to have a say in state legislatures, and more
originalist minded justices preferred to remain separate. Ultimately, the ruling of the
SupremeCourtoversteppeditsboundsbyoverturningastatestatutethatdidnotviolate
1
Avery,MichaelandDanielleMcLaughlin.(2013).
2
Solomon,Burt.(2009).
3
Johnson,JohnW.(2001).
JUSTICEFORALL
21
any constitutional boundaries, and was fully within the right of the states to create, as
grantedbytheTenthAmendmentoftheConstitution.1
AdditionalControversies
ChiefJusticeFuller’scourtruledinseveraladditionalcasesfollowingLochnerv.New
York that would have been controversial, had the court doctrine not been completely
shifted by its decision. One of the largest controversies determined by Fuller’s court in
addition to Lochner was Plessy v. Ferguson, which resulted in the further segregation of
whiteandcoloredpeople.Uptothispoint,theSupremeCourthadattemptedtoavoidcases
regarding segregation, as the ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford was so politically divisive.
JusticeBrownrepresentedtheopinionoftheCourtclearlybystating,“wecannotsaythata
law which authorizes or even requires the separation of the two races in public
conveyances is unreasonable.”2 This ruling established the principle of “separate but
equal,”andupheldsegregationforseveraldecadestocome.
WhentheWarrenCourtruledin1955onBrownv.BoardofEducation,theyreversed
therulingofPlessy,whichledtoaquestionofwhereactivismhadbeenexercisedinthese
two decisions. The case of Brown, “had been seen as activism in the day it occurred, but
todayweview Plessyv.Fergusontobetherealactivistissue,andthatBrownoverturned
this ruling.”1 With the overturn of Plessy, the Court continued to spread in power and
expandintoadditionalpolicyareasthathadpreviouslybeenavoided,allowingpolitically
chargedsubjectstobeintroducedandreadilyexaminedintheSupremeCourt’sdocket.
Roev.Wade
1
Hall,Kermit.(2005).
2
Levin,Mark.(2005).
JUSTICEFORALL
22
Following the Warren Court, Chief Justice Burger came into position. The Burger
Court is known for many challenging decisions, including Bowers v. Hardwick and
Thornburghv.AmericanCollegeofObstetriciansandGynecologists.However,oneofthebest
remembered cases determined by the Burger Court was also one of the most politically
chargeddecisionsatthispointintime:Roev.Wade.
The hearing of Roe v. Wade (1973) by the Supreme Court was a monumental
occurrence. Prior to this case, the Supreme Court had avoided touching the issue of
abortion, as the sheer number of cases presented on the issue were staggering, and the
ruling on the case would be extremely politically charged. Up to this point, abortion
regulationshadbeenlefttothestate’sdiscretion.However,asadditionalnumbersofcases
were rising, it became clear that the federal court system needed to speak up and define
thisissue.
WhiletherulinginRoev.Wadewasahugeturningpointinabortionpolicyforthe
nation,thespecificsgivenbytheCourtaddressingthisissuewerenotwithintherealmof
the judiciary to grant, therefore this case turned out to be another classic example of the
Supreme Court legislating from the bench. The Court ruled that women had the right to
abort their pregnancies through their personal right to privacy,1 however this portion of
the ruling was within the realm of the Court to prescribe. The remainder of the ruling
however defines the various levels of state interest for the varying trimesters of a
pregnancy,whichshouldbeleftuptothestatestodetermine.Throughthislegislationof
policyfromtheSupremeCourtbench,theCourtsteppedoveritsrealmofresponsibilityyet
again,andexercisedlegislation.
1
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
JUSTICEFORALL
23
JusticeRehnquistandJusticeWhitebothwrotedissentingopinionsexplainingthat
“theCourt’sbalancingofcompetinginterestsandcarefullayingoutofwhatdoctorscould
do in various circumstances resembled a statute.”1 Justice Rehnquist protested further,
explaining how judicial legislation was a violation upon state interests.2 The political
divisiveness regarding this case added an extra factor to question the motives of the
justices. Chief Justice Burger’s bench was primarily conservative, and so the support of
legalabortionsandwomen’srightsaddsanadditionallayerofcontroversytothisspecific
ruling.
TherulingofRoev.Wadewassodivisivethat,“fewdecisionsinthemodernhistory
oftheCourtrankhigherthanRoeonthecontroversymeter.”3Itisextremelycontroversial
to have the establishment of abortion as a fundamental right of women;4 however, it
remainsthespecificityoftherulingmadebytheCourtwhichstandsoutevenfurtherasa
caseofcontroversy.ThedecisionfortheCourttoprescribespecificlegislationwassofar
outside the bounds of the its responsibilities that justices themselves were calling each
otheroutforit.
Bushv.Gore
The Burger Court then gave way to the Rehnquist Court, which is debatably the
mostactivistcourtsinSupremeCourthistory.5ThecaseofBushv.Gorebroughtaunique
amountofpoliticalstigmawithit,asthiswasthefirsttimethattheAmericanpublicwas
clearly able to recognize the political affiliations of the justices in their ruling. The 2000
1
Hall,Kermit.(1999).
2
Johnson,JohnW.(2001).
3
Starr,KennethW.(2002).
4
PoweJr,Lucas.(2009).
5
Levin,Mark(2005).
JUSTICEFORALL
24
election brought with it a major case of controversy to the bench of the Supreme Court.
While many assumed that this case was too political for the Supreme Court’s docket to
accept,theCourtagreedtoreviewthecaseonthebasisoftheEqualProtectionClauseof
theConstitution(ArticleII,Section1,Clause2)1.
The construction of the case which the Court reviewed, “defined some equal
protection clause rights connected with voting,”2 but overall the bench was divided as to
whetherthecasewasabletobeheardatall.Bushv.Goreendedwithamajoritydecision
foundedintheEqualProtectionClause,statingthatnoconstitutionalrecountswereableto
occur.Thiscasewaslargelyfearedonceitwasruledupon,asmanywereconcernedasto
how future elections would play out, if voting methods and practices could suddenly be
calledintoquestion.3
TheoutcomeofBushv.Gorewasextremelycontroversialonthepoliticalspectrum,
as the five justices upholding the case were conservative, and the outcome of the case
swungthevoteinfavoroftheconservativecandidate.However,thecasewasadditionally
controversial among the bench because the Court did not agree as to whether the Court
shouldhavebeenhearingthiscasetobeginwith,duetooftheprinciplesoffederalism.
Giventhefacts,theSupremeCourtwaswrongtohearthiscaseinthefirstplace.A
mattertechnicallyrelatingtothelegislativebranch(ArticleI,Section4)4,electionsarenot
a place where the Supreme Court has the authority to make a ruling. Justices Breyer and
Souterpointedoutthatifanyfederalbranchweregoingtostepinandofferanopinion,it
1
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
2
Cross,Frank.(2007).
3
Levin,Mark.(2005).
4
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
JUSTICEFORALL
25
shouldhavebeenCongress.1Furthermore,thequestionathandwasnotregardingfederal
legislationatall,butinsteadwasinterpretingtheintentionofthelawsofastate,whichwas
created completely separate from any federal election law. Therefore, the dissenting
opinions, “maintained that the Court had no place interfering with the state supreme
court’sinterpretationofstatelaw.”2
Obergefellv.Hodges
Following Chief Justice Rehnquist was the establishment of the Roberts’ Court,
which is the present court of today. The final case up for examination was decided much
more recently than those previous, and has proven to be extremely divisive. Obergefell v.
Hodges (2015) was determined by the Roberts court, and resulted in a ruling even more
controversial than even Roe v. Wade proved to be 50 years ago. Court overreach was
magnifiedtoawholenewlevelthroughthehearingofthiscase,andasaresultthenation
willneverbethesame.
The facts of Obergefell v. Hodges are well known. Several same-sex couples
challengedthelawsofseveralstateswhichrefusedtorecognizesame-sexmarriagesthat
occurredinjurisdictionswheretheseunionswerelegal.Theargumentissimple:ifacouple
ismarriedinonestate,theirmarriageshouldberecognizedinallstates,regardlessofthe
lawsofeachindividualstateonthetopicofsame-sexmarriage.Furthermore,thecasealso
includedadebateastowhetherallstatesshouldlegalizesame-sexmarriage,asthedenial
oftheseunionswasaconstitutionalviolationupontheFourteenthAmendment.
1
Hall,Kermit.(1999).
2
Johnson,JohnW.(2001).
JUSTICEFORALL
26
In a 5-4 decision, the split bench determined that states needed to perform
marriagesforcouplesofthesame-sex,andalsothatthesecouplesdeservedtohavetheir
marriages recognized in all states as a proper union. While this ruling was divisive on
behalfoftheCourt,andvaryingopinionsfromallpoliticaldirectionsweighedheavilyupon
thedecisionthatwasmade,thedecisioninitselfwasnotthesourceofcourtoverreach.
WherejudicialoverreachclearlyexistedliesintheinitialquestionsfacingtheCourt.
Thequestionsathandwere1)“DoestheFourteenthAmendmentrequireastatetolicense
amarriagebetweentwopeopleofthesamesex,”1and2)“DoestheFourteenthAmendment
requireastatetorecognizeamarriagebetweentwopeopleofthesamesexthatwaslegally
licensed and performed in another state?”1 The first question should never have been
heard by the Court to begin with. This question calls legislation and policies directly into
question,asmarriagelicensesarecivilcontractscontrolledandmanagedbythelegislature
ofthestate.Bydecidingtohearthiscase,theSupremeCourtoverreacheditsspectrumof
poweranddirectlydisregardedthepowerofthestatestocreatetheirownlegislation,as
grantedbytheTenthAmendmentoftheConstitution.
By choosing to explicitly rule on a case out of its constitutional and congressional
bounds, the Court has stepped into a whole new realm of legislation from the bench and
judicial overreach, which can lead to drastic shifts in the balance of federal power as the
next few decades progress. It is due to the increasing activism in the Court, and political
chargesbehindthecasesathand,thatthejusticesarenolongerseeinganeedtofilterwhat
theywanttodowithwhattheyarecalledtodo.Thepowerbalancebetweenthestatesand
1
Obergefellv.Hodges.(2016).
JUSTICEFORALL
27
the federal government have become exceedingly blurred, and will soon need to be
completelyredefined,ascurrentconstitutionalprincipleswillbecomeobsolete.1
FuturePotential
Over the last two centuries, court overreach has occurred on countless occasions
through hundreds cases aside from the few examined here. These cases are merely an
analysisoflandmarkdecisionsmadebytheSupremeCourtwhicheither1)shouldnothave
been heard by the Supreme Court in the first place, or 2) resulted in rulings which
completely overstepped the boundaries set for the Court based off of the separation of
powersandallofthespecificauthoritieswhichthefederalcourtsystempossesses.Muchof
thepowerthattheSupremeCourtcurrentlypossessesovertheothertwobranches,aswell
asoverthestates,wasnotinitiallyputinplacebytheConstitution,butinsteadhasbeen
adoptedbythejusticesthroughtheirmonumentalrulings.
ThepoliticalaffiliationsoftheSupremeCourtjusticesplayavitalroleofinfluence
upon the decisions that the court will come to. Therefore, it is vitally important that, as
each new justice is nominated, careful consideration is given as to how their political
leaningsandbiaseswillaffectthependulumswingofthecourtbenchasawhole.Thisis
why the presidential nomination for the Supreme Court is such a vital decision; once
appointed,ajusticeholdstheirseatforlife.ThereisnosuperiorcheckupontheSupreme
Court;theyaretheultimatevoiceinthepoliticalspectrum,andtheirbiasesanddecisions
will govern and shape the future of America. As a result, it is vitally important that the
1
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.
JUSTICEFORALL
28
justicesabidebytheiroriginalpurposetoupholdtheConstitution,andarecautiousintheir
exerciseofjudicialactivism.
Ifleftunaddressed,theproblemofactivismwillcontinuetoplayoutinthefuture,
andwillleadtoacontinuedoverreachofthefederaljudiciaryintotherealmsofstateand
federalgovernmentalpower.Thispotentiallywilleliminatethepowersheldbythestates,
aswellastheotherbranchesofgovernment.Itisclearthroughanexaminationofthisissue
thatanewproposalmustbemadetoattempttolimittheoverreachofthejudicialbranch,
andultimatelypreventitaltogether.
TheTable-TennisMandate:APolicyProposal
As seen previously, the Founders of the Constitution did not provide much guidance
regarding the establishment or definition of the judicial branch. Two logical conclusions
may be drawn to explain why the branch was left with so broad a description: 1) the
Founding fathers recognized the magnitude of the judicial branch’s significance to the
operationofthenation,andwantedtoallowforittobeabletogrowandevolvealongside
the ever-changing nation, or 2) the judicial branch is such a complex and divisive entity,
thatthetheFoundingFatherswereunsureofwhatwouldactuallywork.
By giving Congress the ability to create the federal judicial court system, this
provided an adequate check upon the original powers of the judiciary. However, as the
Supreme Court has determined controversial rulings over the years, it has managed to
provide itself with a number of abilities that were not initially granted to it. Through the
implementationofjudicialreviewandtheexpansionofCourtdoctrineasseenpreviously,
the power of the judicial branch has exceeded the influence of the check-and-balance
systemthatwasoriginallycreatedtocountertheCourt,justasThomasJeffersonfeared.In
JUSTICEFORALL
29
ordertobringreformtothebalanceofpowersinthefederalsystemandestablishamore
efficientjudiciary,anewchangeisclearlyneeded.
Throughanin-depthexaminationofpotentialoptionsthatcouldbeimplementedto
limitthepoweroftheSupremeCourt,itisclearthatnoproposalwillcompletelyresolve
theissue.Itisalsoapparentthatnoproposalwillbewithoutitsfaults.Regardlessofthese
complexities,thefactofthematterremainsthatjudicialactivismneedstobenarrowedand
more managed on behalf of the Court. Therefore, some aspect of reform needs to be
institutedinordertoallowthejudicialbranchtoevolveinlinewiththenation’sgrowth.
After examining many options, perhaps one of best regards creating a new mandate
defininghowSupremeCourtrulingsaredecided.Currently,theSupremeCourtrulesona
decision with a “simple majority” approach: the ruling must be 5-4 for a decision to be
made. What if the Supreme Court instead required a two-thirds majority, similar to the
legislativefederalbranch?Thiswouldrequireatleasta6-3voteinorderforadecisionto
be determined. The Supreme Court bench is usually well balanced between political
parties,witheitherdemocratsorrepublicansdominatingthebyoneseat.Inthecasethata
two-thirds majority was required, this would mandate that at least one person of the
“minority” party would have to also rule in favor of the decision. While justices are
supposedtoactasimpartialparties,eachholdstheirownpoliticalaffiliationthatwillcome
intoplayinextremelycontroversialandpolitically-chargedcases.
One could propose a potential problem with this solution, recognizing that the 5-4
ruling of today would be extremely common, especially during the early times of
implementingthenewpolicy,andquestioninghowthesecaseswouldthenbedetermined.
Regardlessofwhetherthe5-4casesareleftas“hungjury”rulings,oriftheyareleftonthe
JUSTICEFORALL
30
Supreme Court’s docket to be determined later, the Supreme Court will not remain
undecided for long. To leave a case undecided, or to keep a case open for a prolonged
period of time only prolongs the implementation of justice through a ruling. There is
enoughpressureonbehalfofthepeopleaswellasthegovernmentfortheSupremeCourt
to implement justice quickly, in order to eliminate any situations of this branch not
completingitsproperfunction.
AnadditionalbenefittothisproposalliesinthefactthattheSupremeCourtselects
itsowndocket.Inselectingcases,thejusticeswillnotwanttobringforthacaseunlessthey
arecertainthattheywillbeabletomakeanimpartial,two-thirdsmajorityruling.Dueto
thisenactment,thedocketoftheSupremeCourtwilladdressmoredirectcasesthatwillbe
in line with the intention and purpose of the Court and its doctrine. This also could
potentiallylimittheamountofcasesthatarebroughtinfrontoftheCourttobeginwith,as
peoplewillnotwanttopushcasesthatwouldremainundetermined.
Conclusion
Whileeveryproposalhasitsnegativeandcontroversialaspects,perhapsasimple
changemerelyneedstobeimplementedinordertobeginthereformmovementin
restructuringthejudicialsystemofAmerica.Thepotentialproposalathand,while
restructuringthefederaljudiciaryandcreatinganewmandateuponthedecidingofcases,
wouldpreventtheoverreachofjudicialactivismasseenincasessuchasBushv.Goreand
Obergefellv.HodgeswhilestillpreservingthevitalrulingsofMcCullochv.Marylandand
respectingtherightsprovidedforthecourtsbytheJudiciaryActs.Theoverreachofthe
SupremeCourtthroughlegislationfromthebenchhasintrudedontherightsofthestate
governmentstocreatetheirownlegislation,andhashinderedstatejudicialrulings.
JUSTICEFORALL
31
Additionally,theSupremeCourthasintrudedontheresponsibilitiesoftheotherbranches,
andexpandeditsinfluenceintothepoliticalrealmaswell,causingmanylinesdrawnbythe
separationofpowerstobebentandcompromised.Thishascausedanincreaseindistrust
betweenthepeople,thestates,andthefederalgovernment,whichneedstobecarefully
recoveredandpreserved.
As the history of the judicial branch is traced through the various court cases,
JudicialActs,constitutionalamendments,andtheinitialfoundingofthenation,theoriginal
intention behind the creation of the courts was to rule on controversial cases to the
ultimatebenefitofthecitizens,thestates,andthenationasawhole.However,aspolitical
preferences and judicial activism have stepped in the way, something vital needs to shift
and adjust to accommodate the changing times. Through these adaptations, the judicial
branchwillbeabletotreattheConstitutionasalivingandadaptabledocument,whilestill
upholdingtheoriginalvaluesandintentionsthatitwasdesignedtoembrace.
JUSTICEFORALL
32
FortheInterestedReader
Theauthorrecognizesthatnotallrelevantcasescouldbeexaminedinthecontextof
thisdocument.Considerlookingfurtherintothefollowingcontroversialcasesaswell,and
examinehowtheypertaintothegrowthandspreadofjudicialactivism.
TheTaneyCourt:
DredScottv.Sandford
TheWarrenCourt:
Mirandav.Arizona
NewYorkTimesv.Sullivan
Griswoldv.Connecticut
TheTaftCourt
Adkinsv.Children’sHospital
TheHughesCourt
Moreheadv.Tipaldo
Carterv.CarterCoalCompany
MarshallCourt
Barron.vBaltimore
StoneCourt
Korematsuv.UnitedStates
JUSTICEFORALL
33
References
AdministrativeOfficeoftheU.S.CourtsonbehalfoftheFederalJudiciary(2016).CourtRole
and
Structure.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-
courts/court-role-and-structure.
Avery,MichaelandDanielleMcLaughlin.TheFederalistSociety:HowConservativesTookthe
LawBackfromLiberals.Nashville,TN:VanderbiltUniversityPress,c2013.
Berger, Raoul. Congress v. The Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
c1969.
Biskupig, Joan and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court,
VolumeI,ThirdEdition.Washington,D.C.:CongressionalQuarterlyInc,c1997.
Biskupig, Joan and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court,
VolumeII,ThirdEdition.Washington,D.C.:CongressionalQuarterlyInc,c1997.
Bork,RobertH.TheTemptingofAmerica:ThePoliticalSeductionoftheLaw.NewYork,NY:
SimonandSchusterInc,c1990
Burt,RobertA.TheConstitutioninConflict.Cambridge,MA:TheBelknapPressofHarvard
UniversityPress,c1992.
Clinton, R. L. (1992). Rewriting the History of the Judiciary Act of 1789: Exposing Myths,
ChallengingPremises,andUsingNewEvidence.TheReviewOfPolitics,(3),467.
Cross,Frank.DecisionMakingintheU.S.CourtofAppeals.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity
Press,c2007.
Federal Judicial Center (2016). History of the Federal Judiciary. Retrieved from:
http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/talking_ej_tp.html.
JUSTICEFORALL
34
Hall, Kermit. Institutions of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch. Oxford, New York:
OxfordUniversityPress,c2005.
Hall, Kermit. The Oxford Companion to The Supreme Court of the United States, Second
Edition.Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,c2005.
Hall,Kermit.TheOxfordGuidetoUnitedStatedSupremeCourtDecisions.Oxford,NewYork:
OxfordUniversityPress,c1999.
Irons,Peter.APeople’sHistoryoftheSupremeCourt:TheMenandWomenWhoseCasesand
DecisionsHaveShapedOurConstitution.NewYork,NY:ThePenguinGroup,c2006
Hecht,
Mendy
(2016).
The
613
Commandments.
Retrieved
from:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613Commandments.htm
Johnson,JohnW.HistoricU.S.CourtCases:AnEncyclopedia,VolumeI,SecondEdition.New
York,NY:Routledge,c2001.
Johnson,JohnW.HistoricU.S.CourtCases:AnEncyclopedia,VolumeII,SecondEdition.New
York,NY:Routledge,c2001.
Judiciary Act of 1789. (2016). In Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from:
http://academic.eb.com/EBchecked/topic/307569/Judiciary-Act-of-1789
Lamb,Brian.TheSupremeCourt:AC-SpanBookFeaturingtheJusticesinTheirOwnWords.
NewYork,NY:PublicAffairs,c2010.
Landsberg, Brian. Major Acts of Congress, Volume I: A-E. Macmillan Reference USA,
ThomsonLearning,Inc.andtheGaleGroup,Inc.c2004.
Landsberg, Brian. Major Acts of Congress, Volume II: F-M. Macmillan Reference USA,
ThomsonLearning,Inc.andtheGaleGroup,Inc.c2004.
JUSTICEFORALL
35
Landsberg, Brian. Major Acts of Congress, Volume III: N-Z. Macmillan Reference USA,
ThomsonLearning,Inc.andtheGaleGroup,Inc.c2004.
Levin,Mark.MeninBlack:HowtheSupremeCourtisDestroyingAmerica.Washington,DC:
RegneryPublishing,c2005.
Levy,LeonardW.ThePalladiumofJustice:OriginsofTrialbyJury.Chicago,IL:IvanR.Dee,
c1999.
Life Application Study Bible: New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
c2011.
"Marburyv.Madison."Oyez.Chicago-KentCollegeofLawatIllinoisTech,n.d.Apr13,2016.
Retrievedfrom:https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
Marcus, M. (1992). Origins of the Federal judiciary. [electronic resource]: Essays on the
JudiciaryActof1789.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1992.
Napolitano,JudgeAndrewP.TheConstitutioninExile.Nashville,Tennessee:ThomasNelson
Inc,c2006.
Obergefell v. Hodges. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 24, 2016, Retrieved from:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556.
Powe Jr, Lucas. The Supreme Court and the American Elite: 1789-2008. Cambridge, MA:
HarvardUniversityPress,c2009.
Roe v. Wade. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved February 23, 2016, Retrieved from:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18
Roosevelt III, Kermit. The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court
Decisions.YaleUniversityPress,c2006.
JUSTICEFORALL
36
Scalia, Antonin. Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges. St. Paul, MN:
Thomson/West,c2008.
Schwartz, Bernard. A History of the Supreme Court. Oxford, New York: Oxford University
Press,c1993.
Shesol,Jeff.SupremePower:FranklinRooseveltvs.TheSupremeCourt.NewYork,NY:W.W.
NortonandCompany,c2010.
Solomon, Burt. FDR v. The Constitution: The Court-Packing Fight and The Triumph of
Democracy.NewYork:WalkerandCompany,c2009.
Starr,KennethW.FirstAmongEquals:TheSupremeCourtinAmericanLife.NewYork,NY:
WarnerBooksInc,c2002.
TheConstitutionoftheUnitedStatesofAmericawiththeDeclarationofIndependence.New
York,NY:FallRiverPress,c2012.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York, NY:
Doubleday,c2007.
White, G. Edward. The Marshall Court and Cultural Change: 1815-1835. New York, NY:
OxfordUniversityPressandMacmillianPublishingCompany,c1991.