Ch 16 Vocab

Front 1

standing to sue

Back 1

the requirement that plaintiffs have a serious interest in a case, which depends on whether they have sustained or are likely to sustain a direct and substantial injury from a party or an action of government

Front 2

class action suits

Back 2

lawsuits permitting a small number of people to sue on behalf of all other people similarly situated

Front 3

justiciable suits

Back 3

a requirement that to be heard a case must be capable of being settled as a matter of law rather than on other grounds as is commonly the case in legislative bodies

Front 4

amis curiae briefs

Back 4

legal briefs submitted by a “friend of the court” for the purpose of raisin additional points of view and presenting information not contained in the briefs of the formal parties. These briefs attempt to influence a court’s decision

Front 5

original jurisdiction

Back 5

the jurisdiction of courts that hear a case first, usually in a trial. These are the courts that determine the facts about a case

Front 6

appellate jurisdiction

Back 6

the jurisdiction of courts that hear cases brought to them on appeal from lower courts. These courts do not review the factual record, only the legal issues involved

Front 7

district courts

Back 7

the 91 federal courts of original jurisdiction. They are the only federal courts in which trials are held and in which juries may be impaneled

Front 8

courts of appeal

Back 8

appellate courts empowered to review all final decisions of district courts, except in rare cases. In addition, they also hear appeals to orders of many federal regulatory agencies

Front 9

Supreme Court

Back 9

the pinnacle of the American judicial system. The Court ensures uniformity in interpreting national laws, resolves conflicts among states, and maintains national supremacy in law. It has both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction, but unlike other federal courts, it controls its own agenda

Front 10

senatorial courtesy

Back 10

an unwritten tradition whereby nominations for state-level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator from the state in which the nominee will serve. The tradition also applies to courts of appeal when there is opposition from the nominee’s state senator

Front 11

solicitor general

Back 11

a presidential appointee, and the third-ranking office in the Department of Justice. The solicitor general is in charge of the appellate court litigation of the federal government

Front 12

opinion

Back 12

a statement of legal reasoning behind a judicial decision. The content of an opinion may be as important as the decision itself

Front 13

stare decisis

Back 13

a Latin phrase meaning “let the decision stand.” The vast majority of cases reaching appellate courts are settled on this principle

Front 14

precedents

Back 14

how similar cases have been decided in the past

Front 15

original intent

Back 15

a view that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of the framers. Many conservatives support this view.

Front 16

judicial implementation

Back 16

how and whether court decisions are translated into actual policy, thereby affecting the behavior of others. The courts rely on other units of government to enforce their decisions

Front 17

Marbury v. Madison

Back 17

the 1803 case in which Chief Justice John Marshall and his associates first asserted the right of the Supreme Court to determine the meaning of the U.S. Constitution. The decision establish the Court’s power of judicial review over acts of Congress, in this case the Judiciary Act of 1789

Front 18

judicial review

Back 18

the power of the courts to determine whether acts of Congress, and by implication the executive, are in accord with the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review was established by John Marshall and his associates in Marbury v. Madison

Front 19

United States v. Nixon

Back 19

the 1974 case in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that the doctrine of executive privilege was implicit in the Constitution but could not be extended to protect documents relevant to criminal prosecutions

Front 20

judicial restraint

Back 20

a judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal policymaking roles, leaving that duty strictly to the legislatures

Front 21

judicial activism

Back 21

a judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground. Advocates of this approach emphasize that the courts can correct pressing needs, especially those unmet by the majoritarian political press

Front 22

political questions

Back 22

a doctrine developed by the federal courts and used as a means to avoid deciding some cases, principally those involving conflicts between the president and Congress

Front 23

statutory construction

Back 23

the judicial interpretation of an act of Congress. In some cases where statutory construction is an issue, Congress passes new legislation to clarify existing laws