Ch. 18: The Federal Court System & Crash Course #18-22 (Magruder's American Government)

Front 1

inferior courts

Back 1

the lower federal courts, beneath the Supreme Court

Front 2

jurisdiction

Back 2

the authority of a court to hear a case

Front 3

exclusive jurisdiction

Back 3

cases than can only be heard in the federal courts; e.g., cases involving - an ambassador or some other official of a foreign government, violation of federal law, patent or copyright infringement

Front 4

concurrent jurisdiction

Back 4

when the federal and State courts share the power to hear certain cases

Front 5

plaintiff

Back 5

the person who files suit; in a criminal case, it's "the State" (either the federal government or the state government); in a civil case, it's the party claiming damages

Front 6

defendant

Back 6

the person whom the complaint is against

Front 7

original jurisdiction

Back 7

a court in which a case its first heard is said to have this over that case; concerned with establishing the facts of the case so it hears evidence as well as argument; decides if defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" as charged

Front 8

appellate jurisdiction

Back 8

a court that hears a case on appeal from a lower court has this over that case; concerned with questions of law rather than questions of fact, so it hears argument only; may uphold or strike down the lower court's ruling

Front 9

criminal case

Back 9

in the federal courts, is one in which a defendant is tried for committing some action that Congress has declared by law to be a federal crime; in state courts, it is one in which a defendant is tried for committing some action which violates a state statute

Front 10

civil case

Back 10

a federal civil case involves some noncriminal matter, such as a dispute over the terms of a contract or a claim of patent infringement; a state civil case is a dispute about contracts, property, or personal injury

Front 11

docket

Back 11

a list of cases to be heard

Front 12

writ of certiorari

Back 12

court order issued by the Supreme Court ordering a lower court to send up the records of a case for review; this is how most cases get to the Supreme Court

Front 13

the rule of four

Back 13

rule which SCOTUS applies when it grants certiorari; four judges must agree to hear a case

Front 14

certificate

Back 14

another way in which a few cases reach the Court; a process used when a lower court is not clear about the procedure or the rule of law that should apply in a case

Front 15

majority opinion

Back 15

the Court's opinion and the legal reasoning behind it; requires five votes of the nine justices ( a majority)

Front 16

precedent

Back 16

a prior court decision that constrains future court rulings; legal precedents are examples to be followed in similar cases as they arise in the lower courts or reach the Supreme Court; a type of "judge made law"

Front 17

concurring opinion

Back 17

written by justices who agree with the court’s decision, but not with the reasoning presented in the opinion; often, one or more of the justices who agree with the Court's decision may write one; to add or emphasize a point that was made in the majority opinion

Front 18

dissenting opinion

Back 18

written by justices who do not agree with the Court's majority opinion; may form the basis for a later reversal of precedent

Front 19

redress

Back 19

satisfaction of a claim, payment; only by an act of Congress

Front 20

courts-martial

Back 20

military courts that serve the special disciplinary needs of the armed forces and are NOT apart of the federal court system

Front 21

civilian tribunal

Back 21

a court operation as part of the judicial branch, entirely separate from the military establishment

Front 22

judicial activism

Back 22

the belief that a judge should use his/her position to promote desirable social ends; advocate "judge made law"

Front 23

judicial restraint

Back 23

the belief that judges should defer to the actions of the duly elected executive and legislative branches except in cases where those actions are clearly unconstitutional; generally oppose "judge made law"

Front 24

damages

Back 24

payment for injury or harm awarded in a civil case

Front 25

compensatory damages

Back 25

payment to make up for actual damages sufferedy by injury and awarded in a civil case

Front 26

punitive damages

Back 26

payment assessed to punish a company or individual for damaging a plaintiff and to warn others against such behavior or practice; assessed in addition to compensatory damages

Front 27

class action suit

Back 27

large lawsuit filed on behalf of a class of individuals claiming injury rather than on behalf of an individual plaintiff

Front 28

statutory or code law

Back 28

actual laws that are passed by a legislature; all they have in continental Europe

Front 29

common law

Back 29

involves use of past court decisions as legal precedents which constrains all following court decisions; a form of "judge-made" law practiced in U.S. and England which allows greater flexibility than statutory or code law

Front 30

administrative law

Back 30

regulations which have the force of law; established by executive agencies using their quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers

Front 31

dual court system

Back 31

refers to the fact that under the American federal system, both the federal government and the state governments pass laws and adjudicate offenses in separate systems

Front 32

three basic functions of courts

Back 32

settle disputes, interpret the laws, and create expectations for future actions

Front 33

state courts

Back 33

most legal action occurs in these

Front 34

the Supreme Court

Back 34

the nation’s highest appellate court (SCOTUS); only court actually created by the Constitution

Front 35

life or good behavior

Back 35

the term for which federal judges are appointed

Front 36

to preserve their judicial independence

Back 36

why federal judges are appointed for life and why their salaries cannot be reduced

Front 37

trial courts

Back 37

courts which exercise original jurisdiction; concerned with questions of fact (deciding the facts of the case); render verdicts of “guilty” or “not guilty” as charged

Front 38

appellate courts

Back 38

courts which exercise appellate jurisdiction; concerned with questions of law

Front 39

bench trial

Back 39

trial with no jury; only a judge who decides both the facts and the law

Front 40

90%

Back 40

most cases are settled out of court via plea bargain; in fact, about this percentage are regularly settled without a trial

Front 41

United States Attorney

Back 41

the court officer appointed to a four-year term by the President and confirmed by the Senate to prosecute cases in federal district court

Front 42

United States Marshal

Back 42

the court officer appointed to a four-year term by the President and confirmed by the Senate to make arrests in federal criminal cases, execute court orders and decisions, and respond to emergency disturbances

Front 43

Federal district court

Back 43

the 94 lower courts in the federal court system; decide questions of fact; where most cases are heard (the 50 states are divided into 89 districts and there are also courts for Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands)

Front 44

Federal courts of appeals

Back 44

hear cases on appeal from federal district courts and federal regulatory agencies; there are 12 federal courts of appeals with 179 circuit judges; each court generally sits in a panel of three judges; however, important cases may be heard EN BANC, by all the judges for the circuit participating

Front 45

Article III Courts

Back 45

courts created by Congress using its constitutional powers; e.g., the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Front 46

Marbury v. Madison

Back 46

case in which the Supreme Court asserted its right of judicial review

Front 47

Judicial Review

Back 47

It is not just the power to declare laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it applies to more than laws. It is the power of the judiciary to examine and invalidate actions taken by the legislative and executive branches of both the federal and state governments. It is not the power to review decisions of lower courts; that is APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

Front 48

Oral arguments

Back 48

lawyers for both sides have 30 minutes to present their case orally before the Supreme Court

Front 49

Briefs

Back 49

lawyers file written documents/arguments with the Supreme Court before oral arguments begin

Front 50

Amicus Curiae

Back 50

friend of the court briefs filed by people or organizations who are not party to the suit but are interested in influencing its outcome

Front 51

Stare Decisis

Back 51

“let the decision stand”; judicial practice of respecting legal precedent

Front 52

First Monday in October

Back 52

when the Supreme Court opens its yearly session

Front 53

Twelve

Back 53

the number of federal circuit courts of appeals

Front 54

Ninety-four

Back 54

the number of federal district courts

Front 55

SCOTUS: instances of original jurisdiction

Back 55

(1) CASES BETWEEN THE U.S. AND A STATE; (2) CASES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES; (3) CASES INVOLVING FOREIGN MINISTERS OR AMBASSADORS; (4) CASES BROUGHT BY CITIZENS OF ONE STATE AGAINST CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE OR AGAINST A FOREIGN COUNTRY; (5) CRIMES COMMITTED ON THE HIGH SEAS

Front 56

Nine

Back 56

number of justices on the Supreme Court

Front 57

Case or controversy

Back 57

For SCOTUS to take the case, there has to be an actual injury, a real one of these. SCOTUS does not issue ADVISORY OPINIONS about laws which have not yet gone into effect.

Front 58

Standing to sue

Back 58

For SCOTUS to take a case, the parties must have a substantial stake in the outcome. They must show actual injury in order to have this, which is necessary to sue.

Front 59

Mootness

Back 59

According to this doctrine, the court will NOT hear cases that no longer need resolution, for example, if one of the parties dies.

Front 60

Ripeness

Back 60

the flip side of MOOTNESS; if a potential injury has not yet occurred, then the case doesn’t have this

Front 61

political question doctrine

Back 61

The doctrine that some issues should be handled by the elected branches (executive or legislature) because they are inherently political questions.

Front 62

Circuit splits

Back 62

When two different circuit courts deliver contradictory decisions, the Supreme Court will decide the issue.

Front 63

The federal government

Back 63

When this organization initiates an appeal, SCOTUS will almost always hear the case.

Front 64

Clear constitutional questions

Back 64

cases involving these like freedom of speech or religion, although there are some issues they view as settled or they just don’t want to deal with, for example, gun control and obscenity.

Front 65

Conditions of federal jurisdiction

Back 65

(1) CASES WHERE THE LAW AT ISSUE IS A FEDERAL LAW; (2) CASES INVOLVING TREATIES (pretty rare);(3) CASES INVOLVING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; (4) CASES WHERE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS A PARTY TO THE LITIGATION; these cases start in federal district court

Front 66

9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Back 66

where an appeal is heard matters; for example, this liberal circuit includes California and Oregon and is likely to render liberal opinions

Front 67

5th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

Back 67

where an appeal is heard matters; for example, this conservative circuit is located in the South and is likely to render more conservative opinions

Front 68

writ

Back 68

court order

Front 69

Solicitor General

Back 69

the government’s lawyer who screens and argues cases before the Supreme Court; #3 at the Justice Department

Front 70

petitioner

Back 70

the party bringing a case before SCOTUS seeking to overturn the lower court’s decision

Front 71

respondent

Back 71

the party that wants the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court’s decision

Front 72

holding

Back 72

the way the majority rules in a case, either to uphold or overturn the lower court’s decision

Front 73

national security

Back 73

area in which the courts tend to defer to executive action

Front 74

U.S. v. NIXON

Back 74

court case which is the classic example of overturning an executive action; the Court denied Nixon’s claim of EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE and ordered him to turn over tape recordings relating to Watergate

Front 75

RASUL v. BUSH

Back 75

case in which SCOTUS placed limits on President Bush’s ability to deny the right to writ of habeas corpus to accused terrorists

Front 76

Supremacy Clause

Back 76

the federal courts’ power to review state actions comes from this part of the U.S. Constitution

Front 77

Writ of Mandamus

Back 77

a court order requiring a government official to do his job; what Marbury wanted the Supreme Court to issue in order to force Sec. of State James Madison to deliver his commission

Front 78

Judiciary Act of 1789

Back 78

By striking down a part of this law in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall weakened the Supreme Court in this case but strengthened it in future cases by firmly establishing the principle of judicial review

Front 79

Interpreting the law

Back 79

a Court can change the meaning of a law without rewriting it by simply doing this to it

Front 80

Signals

Back 80

Appellate court decisions are not COMMON LAW and are only binding on COURTS, not EXECUTIVE AGENCIES or LEGISLATURES. They are, however, ______________ to courts and legislatures about how the Court will rule in the future

Front 81

Miranda v. Arizona

Back 81

Supreme Court case which changed police procedures in all states by signaling that in the future, courts would throw out convictions in cases in which defendants had not been informed of their rights

Front 82

Factors influencing SCOTUS

Back 82

Congress, history , legal precedent and the principle of stare decisis, the president (but not much once justices have been appointed and confirmed), strategic thinking, political ideology, judicial philosophy (whether they advocate judicial activism or restraint)

Front 83

Originalism

Back 83

the idea that any new law should be interpreted in the light of the Constitution as it was written in 1787 according to its original intent

Front 84

The Warren Court and the Burger Court

Back 84

the “high tide” of judicial activism occurred during these Courts, which sat from the 1950s - mid 1970s; led by Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger, they expanded civil rights, voting rights, the right to privacy, and the rights of the accused

Front 85

The Rehnquist Court

Back 85

led by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, this Court was known for judicial restraint, dialing back civil rights, affirmative action, and desegregation programs and attempting to rein in the power of the national government and to devolve some power back to the states.

Front 86

the Citizens United case

Back 86

In this case, the majority conservative Roberts Court engaged in judicial activism when it broke with previous precedent and allowed much more campaign fundraising, which is something that political conservatives wanted.

Front 87

Voting Rights Act

Back 87

Recently the majority conservative Roberts Court engaged in judicial activism when it invalidated parts of this act, passed in 1965 and renewed in 2010.

Front 88

Clearly unconstitutional

Back 88

One of the core tenets of the philosophy of JUDICIAL RESTRAINT is that courts are not supposed to overturn the decisions of a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED CONGRESS in order to make POLICY, unless Congress has passed laws that are this.

Front 89

Justice Stephen Breyer

Back 89

This current justice is considered LIBERAL on the Roberts Court and was appointed by a DEMOCRAT, but he believes that judicial changes should be incremental and does not want to make decisions that will cause sweeping changes, so he exercises JUDICIAL RESTRAINT.

Front 90

Thurgood Marshall

Back 90

first African-American appointed (by LBJ) and confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court

Front 91

Sandra Day O’Connor

Back 91

first woman nominated (by Reagan) and confirmed as a Justice on the Supreme Court

Front 92

Associate Justices

Back 92

The nine on the Supreme Court consist of one chief justice and eight of these

Front 93

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan

Back 93

the three female justices sitting on the current Supreme Court

Front 94

Anthony Kennedy

Back 94

considered the “swing vote” on the current Supreme Court

Front 95

Chief Justice

Back 95

presides over the Supreme Court andis chief administrator of the Court’s business

Front 96

John Roberts

Back 96

current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Front 97

Clarence Thomas

Back 97

current African American associate justice; conservative