Ch 12
Supreme Court Decision
Making
Supreme Court Justices
Standing: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G Breyer, Samuel A Alito Jr, Elena Kagan
Sitting: Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G Roberts, Anthony
Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The Supreme Court at
Work
Chapter 12 Section 1
The Court’s Procedures
■
■
■
st
Term=1
Monday in October
Continuous session with periodic
recesses
Sits 2 consecutive weeks each
month
■
■
Listen to oral arguments from lawyers Mon-Wed
Secret conference to decide Wed and Fri
The Court’s Procedures
■
After 2 weeks, Court recesses;
Justices do paperwork privately
■
■
■
Consider arguments heard
Study petitions from plaintiffs who want Court to hear
their case
Work on opinions
■
Opinions=written statements on cases already decided
Getting Cases to the Court
The Supreme Court
Original Jurisdiction
Writ of Certiorari
Appeal
Writ of Certiorari
■
■
Order from the Court to a lower
court to send up the records on a
case for review
Party seeking review must:
■
■
Petition Court and argue lower court made a legal error or
case raise significant constitutional issue
Court rejects about 90% of requests
for certiorari
Appeal
■
■
A request has been made to review
the decision of a lower federal or
state court
Results from:
■
■
■
A lower court has ruled a law unconstitutional
A lower court has dismissed the claim that state law
violates federal law or the Constitution
The Court dismisses many of these
cases
The Solicitor General
■
■
Appointed by the President
to represent the federal
government before the
Supreme Court
Staff
■
■
Does most of case
research
Preps written and oral
arguments for
government’s position
■
Key role in determining
Court’s agenda
■
Should federal
government appeal lower
federal court decisions?
Selecting Cases
■
“Rule Of Four”
■
■
■
4 of 9 Justices agree to accept a case
Decide whether to ask for more
information from opposing lawyers
Decide whether to rule quickly
based on written material
■
Per curiam opinion = a brief unsigned statement of the
Court’s decision
Steps in Deciding Major Cases
■
■
Court accepts case
Lawyers submit briefs
■
■
■
Written statement with legal arguments
Amicus curiae from parties not directly involved but
have interest in outcome of case
Oral Arguments
■
■
30 minutes
White light and Red light
Steps in Deciding Major Cases
■
The Conference
■
■
■
■
Wed and Fri
Justices meet and discuss cases heard
Tradition=Justices shake hands, everyone else leaves,
secret meeting
Chief Justice presides over; no minutes kept
Steps in Deciding Major Cases
■
Decision
■
■
■
■
■
■
30 minutes/case
Each Justice gives views according to seniority
Vote
Majority needed to decide case
6 Justices must be present for decision
Tie=low court decision left standing
Steps in Deciding Major Cases
■
The Opinion
■
■
■
■
■
1 written opinion for major cases
States facts of the case
Announces Court’s ruling
Explains Court’s reasoning
Written opinions
■
■
set precedent for lower courts to follow
Court’s communication with Congress, President and
the public
Steps in Deciding Major Cases
■
Opinions
■
■
Unanimous opinion
Majority opinion
■
■
■
■
Chief Justice assigns to another Justice if in majority
Senior Associate Justice assigns if Chief Justice in
minority
Concurring opinion
Dissenting opinion
■
May become a majority opinion of court changes its
mind
Supreme Court Cases Being Heard
■
2015-2016 Cases
■
■
■
Decided March 29, 2016
■ Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (Public
Union Dues)
Whole Women’s Health v. Cole (Abortion)
Evenwel v. Abbott (One Person, One Vote)
Shaping Public Policy
Chapter 12 Section 2
The Supreme Court is legal and
political
■
Legal-responsible for settling disputes
and interpreting meaning of laws
■
Political-when it applies the law to
specific disputes, it often determines
what national policy will be
Shaping Policy
■
The Supreme Court determines
policy in three ways:
■
Judicial Review
■
Interpreting Laws
■
Overruling or reversing its previous decision
Judicial Review
Court’s power to examine laws and
actions of local, state and national
governments and to cancel them if
they violate the Constitution
Judicial Review
■
■
Discourages passage of similar
legislation for years
Rulings have direct impact on
nation’s future
■
■
Dred Scott case ruled Missouri Compromise
unconstitutional
Missouri Compromise banned slavery in territories
■
Decision added tension leading to Civil War
Judicial Review and Civil Rights
■
Court may review presidential policies
■
Court exercises judicial review most at state and local
levels (342)
■
Use judicial review to significantly influence public policy
at state level:
■
■
■
Racial desegregation (Brown decision)
Reapportionment of state legislatures
Police procedure (Miranda decision R30)
Civil Rights vs Civil Liberties
■
Positive acts of
government that seek to
make constitutional
guarantees a reality for all
people
■
■
Guarantees of the safety
of persons, opinions, and
property from arbitrary
acts of government
Includes freedom of
speech and religion
Interpretation of Laws
■
Federal law that has been framed in
general language and must be
applied executive or judicial
branches
■
■
■
■
PGA Tour, Inc. vs Martin (2001)
Court ruled that PGA had to allow cart riding by
professional golfer with degenerative condition
Court interpreting Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Could influence who plays in variety of sports
Interpretation of Laws
■
■
■
Lau v Nicols (1974)
Court ruled that schools required to provide special
instruction in English to immigrant students
Court interpreting Civil Rights Act of 1964
Overturning Earlier Decisions
■
Stare decisis “Let the decision
stand”
■
■
■
Once the Court rules on a case, it becomes precedent
or model
Makes law predictable
Law flexibility and adaptability
■
■
Justices may change mind
New Justices bring different legal views to Court
Overturning Earlier Decisions
■
Olmstead v United States (1928)
■
■
Wiretaps on phone conversations were legal because they
did not require police to enter private property
Katz v United States (1967)
■
■
Overturned Olmstead
Wiretap is a search and seizure under 14th Amendment and
requires court order
Limits on Supreme Court
■
Types of Issues
■
■
Minor role in foreign policy
Bulk of cases = civil liberties, economic issues, federal
legislation and regulation, due process suits against
government
Limits on Supreme Court
■
Types of Cases
■
■
■
■
Decision will make a difference; no advice
Plaintiff suffered real harm
Substantial federal question
No political questions
Limits on Supreme Court
■
Limited control over agenda
■
■
With few exceptions, can only decide cases coming for
elsewhere in legal system
Lack of enforcement power
■
■
Court has limited ability to enforce rulings
Noncompliance
■
■
Lower court ignores Court ruling (school prayer or integration)
Checks and balances
■
Senatorial approvement of appointments, impeachment and
removal
Influencing Court
Decisions
Chapter 12 Section 3
Forces that shape decisions Court makes
■
■
■
■
■
Existing laws
Personal views of Justices
Justices’ interactions with one
another
Social forces and public attitudes
Congress and the President
Basing Decisions on the Law
■
■
■
Law is foundation for deciding
cases before Supreme Court
Interpret language
May involve answering difficult
questions (343)
Views of the Justices
■
Voting blocs or coalitions based on areas
of person concern exist; blocs and power
can change
■
Conservative vs Liberal
■
Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint
Relations Among Justices
■
■
■
■
■
Early Justices lived together
Present Justices have families near
Communication mostly in writing
Quality of relations affect decision
making
Chief Justice influence decision making
■
■
Direct discussion
Assign writing of opinion
The Court and Society
■
■
■
Court insulated from public opinion
and daily political pressure; lifetime
tenure
Justices interested in Court’s
prestige and public support
Public support for decision
enforcement
The Court and Society
■
■
■
Societal values and beliefs
influence Court
Attitudes and practices change
Earlier decision reversal
■
■
Plessy v Ferguson (1896)
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Balancing the Court’s Power
■
President’s Influence
■
■
Appointment power
Enforcing court decisions in Executive Departments
and Agencies
Balancing the Court’s Power
■
Congress’ Influence
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Control whether the Court is able to hear certain cases
from appellate courts
Pass laws to limit Court’s option to order a legal remedy in
a case
Reenact a law in a different form
Propose constitutional amendment to overturn Court ruling
Set Justices’ salary
Sets number of Justices
Confirmation of Court nominees
The Supreme Court Chapter
11 Section 1 and Section 3
Developing Supreme Court Power
■
Significant cases have shaped how
the Supreme Court’s power has
developed over the years
Early Precedents
Precedent = an act, decision or
case serving as a guide or
justification for subsequent
(following or future) situations
~ www.dictionary.com
■
Early Precedents
■
■
Supreme nor federal courts can
initiate action
Federal courts only decide conflicts
between 2 or more people; do not
answer general legal questions
Early Precedents
■
Cases determining precedent
■
Marbury v Madison 1803 (Judicial Review)
■
McCulloch v Maryland 1819 (federal government “supreme
in its sphere of action”)
■
Gibbons v Ogden 1824 (power of national government and
interstate commerce)
■
Dred Scott v Sandford 1835 (States’ Rights, citizenship and
slavery)
Due Process
No state may deprive any person of life,
liberty and property without due process
(consistent treatment for all in relation
to action or mode of operation)
14th Amendment
Due Process
■
Cases determining Due Process
■
Plessy v Ferguson 1896 (Separate but equal doctrine)
The Court and Business
■
1870s Court refused to enforce
individual rights
■
Broaden police power of the state
to protect consumers from
expanding power of businesses
and corporations
Protecting Civil Liberties
■
Brown v Board of Education of
Topeka 1954 (outlaw segregation
in public schools)
Power of the Supreme Court
■
Influence over policy increased by
th
the end of 20 century
■
How the Supreme Court uses its
power is determined by the views
of the justices