Government

1. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department
to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other; the
courts must decide on the operation of each”

2. Learning Objective(s)
11.12a.2

3. Essential Question

4. Inferior Courts = lower federal courts beneath the Supreme Court

5.  The authority of a court to hear
(to try and decide) a case
 Federal courts hear cases for two reasons:
• Subject Matter
 Application of the U.S. Constitution
• Parties Involved
 State v. State
 Citizen v. State

6. Types of Jurisdiction
Exclusive Jurisdiction
Those cases that can only be heard in the
federal courts
Concurrent Jurisdiction
States and Federal Courts share power to
hear cases
Original Jurisdiction
A court in which a case is first heard
Appellate Jurisdiction
A court that hears a case on appeal from a
lower court

9. Define Federalism
Power is split between the Federal government
and state governments.
Applying federalism to court jurisdiction
All cases not heard by Federal Courts are in the
jurisdiction of State Courts…

10. State
Courts
Inferior
(lower)
Federal
Courts

11. What does
the word
“Supreme”
mean?
Highest rank
and
authority;
ultimate,
final
Why do you
think it might
be important
to have a
“Supreme”
Court?

12. Chief Justice and eight
associate judges
Nominated and appointed by
President, with Senate
approval.
Concepts of judicial activism
and judicial restrain affect the
judicial selection process

13.  Service Birth
 Name, state Assoc. Justice Chief Justice Yrs
Place Date Died Religion
 Antonin Scalia, DC 1986– — N.J. 1936 —
Roman Catholic
 Anthony M. Kennedy, Calif. 1988– — Calif. 1936
— Roman Catholic
 Clarence Thomas, DC 1991– — Ga. 1948 —
Roman Catholic
 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, DC 1993– — N.Y. 1933
— Jewish
 Stephen G. Breyer, Mass. 1994– — Calif. 1938
— Jewish
 John G. Roberts, DC 2005–— N.Y. 1955 —
Roman Catholic
 Samuel A. Alito, Jr., N.J. 2006– — N.J. 1950
— Roman Catholic
 Sonia Sotomayor N.Y. 2009– — N.Y. 1954 —
Roman Catholic
 Elena Kagan N.Y. 2010– — N.Y. 1960 —
Jewish

14. Maintain their neutrality
Protect the rights of people to express
unpopular views
Promote consistent interpretations of laws

15. Supreme Court Justices can retire:
• At age 70
 Must have served 10 years to receive full
salary for life
• At age 65
 Must have served 15 years to receive full
salary for life
Chief Justice
$217,400
per year
Associate
Justices
$208,100

16.  Vary in their political and legal philosophies...
Judicial Activism
Loosely interpret and
apply the
Constitution based
on ongoing changes
and values.
Judicial Restraint
Follow a strict
interpretation of the
Constitution
Believes judges should
also follow precedent

17. OF THE CASE
RELEVANT
TEXT OF THE
JUDICIAL

18. Both original and appellate jurisdiction
• Most cases come on appeal from the lower courts.
Original jurisdiction exists when:
1. There are controversies involved 2+ states
2. The case involves ambassadors or other public ministers
Marbury v. Madison
• Supreme court case that established
power of judicial review

19. Supreme Court has the power to decide
the constitutionality of:
• State and federal legislation
• Actions of chief executives
• Decisions of other courts
In other words, the Supreme Court has the
final authority on the meaning of the
Constitution
They have the POWER to declare acts
and laws unconstitutional

20. *Rule of Four: At least 4 of 9 justices must agree to hear a case in the S.C.

21.  Petition for Writ of
Certiorari. (informally
called "Cert Petition.") A
document which a losing
party files with the Supreme
Court asking the Supreme
Court to review the decision
of a lower court.
 It includes a list of the
parties, a statement of the
facts of the case, the legal
questions presented for
review, and arguments as to
why the Court should grant
the writ.
 Writ of Certiorari- A
decision by the Supreme
Court to hear an appeal
from a lower court.
 "Review on writ of certiorari
is not a matter of right, but a
judicial discretion. A petition
for writ of certiorari will be
granted only for compelling
reasons." Rule 10, Rules of
the U.S. Supreme Court.

22. Learning Goal
11.12a.4

24.  Born on March 19,1891 in Los Angeles
 Earned law degree at University of CA
 Appointed attorney general of CA in 1939
 Governor of CA from 1942-1950
 Ran for vice president in 1948 unsuccessfully
 Appointed chief justice by President Eisenhower and serves
from 1953-1969
• Known for controversial decisions about civil rights
• First major case was Brown v. Board of Education
• Engle v. Vitale 1962: prayer in public school is unconstitutional
• Miranda v. Arizona 1966: authorities must inform criminal suspects of
their rights

25. Plessy v. Ferguson 1896- establishes the
“separate but equal” doctrine
• Different interpretation of the 14th amendment
• Court battles with this issue for over 50 years
• People take advantage of this doctrine to oppress
African Americans
 “Separate but equal” doesn’t become an
issue in education until later due to the
slow development of public education.

26.  The case combined several cases from Kansas, South
Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware.
 The most famous case and namesake is that of Linda Brown
and her family.
 1952- The case was heard by Chief Justice Fred Vinson
• No decision was reached
• He died that year and was replaced by Earl Warren
 1953- The case was reargued
 1954- The court reached a unanimous decision declaring
“separate but equal” unconstitutional.

27.  The court found that even if segregated schools had identical
facilities (which wasn’t usually the case), something about
them was “inherently unequal.” through the use of
Amicus Curiae
 They came to the conclusion that segregation itself “had a
detrimental effect” and was giving African American children a
sense of “inferiority” that “affects the motivation of a child to
learn.”
 They also declared that segregation violates the 14th
amendment of equal protection under the law.

28.  The court passed a 2nd clause for the decision dealing with
implementation.
• The cases would be brought back to the state courts so states
could set up a means for integration in their public schools.
• This didn’t acknowledge the problem of balance.
 Many states fought back against mandated integration.
• Changed public schools into private schools and charged whites
tuition
• Angry mobs prevented African American students from entering
schools.
• Example: Little Rock Nine 1957

29. It forced Americans to redefine the
meaning of “all men are created equal.”
 It destroyed the “separate but equal”
loophole in the 14th amendment.
Step in the right direction for African
Americans gaining equality in society
Major stimulus to civil rights movement
Led to a great decline in de jure [based on
or according to law] school segregation

30. Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

31. Miranda v. Arizona Case Background
•In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was accused of rape by a woman who
identified him in a police line up.
•Miranda was charged with rape and kidnapping and was
questioned by police for 2 hours but was never informed of his
5th amendment right against self incrimination or his 6th
amendment right to the assistance of an attorney.
•As a result of his interrogation, he confessed in writing to the
crimes of which he was charged, his written statement also
included his acknowledgement that he was aware of his right
against self-incrimination.
•Miranda was sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison for each
crime

32. Miranda, The Plaintive
•His attorney argued that his confession
should have been excluded from trial
because he had not been informed of his
rights, nor had an attorney been present
during his interrogation.

33. Arizona, The Complainant
•The police officers involved admitted that they
had not given Miranda any explanation of his
rights. They argued, however, that because
Miranda had been convicted of a crime in the
past, he must have been aware of his rights.
The Arizona Supreme Court denied his appeal
and upheld his conviction.

34. The Verdict
•Miranda's defense attorney appealed to
the Arizona Supreme Court. Eventually
the case ended up at the supreme court
where it was decided in favor of Miranda
with a 5-4 vote.

35.  Before Miranda, the rules governing custodial
interrogation of suspects in criminal cases
were left primarily to the police and state
legislatures.
 In Miranda, the Supreme Court created and
imposed a new procedure for interrogating
suspects in custody, introducing the famous
"right to remain silent" speech.
 The court's decision expanded the lawmaking
power of the courts at the expense of the
lawmaking power of the other branches of
government

36.  The Exclusionary Rule prevents the government
from using most evidence gathered in violation of
the United States Constitution.
 It applies to evidence gained from an
unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, see Mapp v. Ohio, (1961),
 to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements
gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, see
Miranda v. Arizona, (1966),
 to evidence gained in situations where the
government violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment
Right to Counsel, see Miranda.
 The rule does not apply to civil cases, including
deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,

38.  In the early 1970’s, UC Davis had two
admissions systems for their medical
school
 Regular Admission Program
 Special Admissions Program for
ethic minority and/or disadvantaged
applicants.
 16 out of the 100 spaces in the school
were allocated for these students.

39. Allan Bakke, a white male was rejected
twice from the medical program.
Students with lower “benchmark” scores
were admitted through the special
admissions program.
Bakke filed a suit against UC Davis for
violating the 14th Amendment and the
Civil Rights Act of 1964.

40. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment:
• “No State shall…deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
• “No person in the United States shall be excluded
from participation in or otherwise discriminated
against on the ground of race, color, or national
origin under any program or activity receiving
Federal financial assistance. “

41. Superior Court of Yolo County:
• Found that the program violates the Constitution,
but did not force Bakke’s admittance.
Supreme Court of California:
• Declares the program is in violation of the
Constitution, and orders Bakke’s admittance.

47. Learning Goal
11.12a.3

48.  The argument over Midnight Judges led one of the most
important Supreme Court cases of all time
 William Marbury was a midnight judge who never received
his official papers
 James Madison was the Sec. of State whose duty it was to
deliver them
 Judiciary Act 1789 req. Supreme Court to order that the
papers be deliver- Marbury sued to enforce this
 Chief Justice Marshall decided this provision was
unconstitutional b/c the Constitution did not empower the
Supreme Court to issue such an order
 Affirmed the principle of judicial review- the ability of the
Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress
unconstitutional

50.  McCulloch v. Maryland- [1819] Supreme Court case that
strengthened federal authority and upheld the constitutionality
of the Bank of the United States by establishing that the State of
Maryland did not have the power to tax the bank
 Maryland had tried to destroy a branch of the Bank of the
U.S. by imposing a tax on its notes
 John Marshall used implied powers and strengthened the
federal authority by stating “the power to tax involves the power
to destroy” and that “a power to create implies a power to
preserve”
 This case legitimized loose construction of the Constitution
arguing that the Constitution was intended to “endure for ages
to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises
of human affairs”

52. The Watergate Scandal

53.  This became a landmark United states supreme court
decision against President Nixon. On June 17, 1972 5
burglars broke into the Watergate building also known as
the Democratic headquarters. The burglars were linked
to the White house under Nixon. Later tapes were found
that held information that could link the president to the
burglars. Nixon pleaded guilty claiming that this shouldn’t
be subject to judicial resolution since the matter was a
dispute within the executive branch. Also he argued that
the tapes should be protected under the president’s
executive privilege.

54. UNITED STATES NIXON
 The President's power to claim
executive privilege is not an
absolute one. Executive
privilege may not be invoked to
deny the courts access to
evidence needed in a criminal
proceeding. This is a dispute
that can be heard in the federal
courts.
 The constitutional system of
separation of powers grants to
the President the privilege of
withholding information from
the other branches of
government. This power is
absolute, and it is very
important where high-level
communications are involved.
In addition, this dispute should
be resolved within the
executive branch, not by the
courts.

55. The Court ruled unanimously that President Nixon had to
give up the tapes. The Court made it clear that the President
could not withhold evidence from an ongoing criminal
prosecution of another person simply because he was the
President.
The ruling established a constitutional basis for executive
privilege. It also stated that the president is not immune from
judicial process, and must turn over evidence warrant by the
courts. The doctrine of executive privilege entitles the
president to a high degree of confidentiality from the courts if
the evidence involves matters of national security, but the
president cannot hold back evidence involving non-sensitive
information when needed for a criminal investigation.

56. Review

57. Learning Goal:
11.12a.1

58.  Facts:
• 1857, Missouri, Illinois,
Wisconsin
• Dred Scott was an African-
American slave
• He was taken by his master
from the slave state of Missouri
to the free state of Illinois
• He lived on free soil for a long
time
• When the Army ordered his
master to go back to Missouri,
he took Scott with him back to
that slave state
 Issues:
• Scott said that he should be
free since he lived on free soil
for such a long time

59.  Arguments:
• As a non-citizen many felt that
Scott had no rights and could not
sue in a federal court and
therefore must remain a slave.
 Decision:
• Scott lost the decision as the
Supreme Court declared no
slave or descendant of a slave
could be a U.S. citizen
• The Supreme Court also ruled
that Congress could not stop
slavery in the newly emerging
territories
• The decision enraged Abraham
Lincoln, and brought the nation to
the brink of the Civil War
 Amendment:
• 13th- Abolition of Slavery

60.  Facts:
• 1896, Louisiana
• Louisiana law said all
African Americans must
ride in a separate railroad
car
• Homer Plessy, a black
man, refused to leace a
“white only” railroad car
 Issues:
• Does segregation violate
the principle of equal
protection?

61.  Arguments:
• Plessy said this law of
segragation violated his right
to equal protection.
 Decision:
• The Supreme Court ruled that
the segragation law didn’t
violate the 14th Amendment as
long as the cars for blacks and
whites were of equal quality
• For more than 50 years this
idea of separate but equal
was the law of the land
 Amendment:
• 14th- Citizenship and Civil
Right

62.  Facts:
• 1954
• Lind Brown attended an all
black school 21 blocks from
her home
• Linda Brown and her parents
felt she should be able to
attend a white school seven
blocks from her home
 Issues:
• Is the separate but equal law
acceptable?
 Arguments:
• Thurgood Marshall argued
that the black children were
made to feel inferior to whites
by having separate schools for
black students.

63.  Arguments:
• Thurgood Marshall argued that
black children were made to
feel inferior to whites by having
separate schools for black
students
 Decision:
• The court agreed with
Thurgood Marshall, saying
separate but equal violated the
equal protection clause of the
14th Amendment
• The decision of Brown v. Board
of Education of Topeka
overturned the Plessy v.
Ferguson and made all
segragation unconstitutional
 Amendment:
• 14th- Citizenship and Civil
Rights

64.  Facts:
• The university of California.
Davis reserved places in each
entering class for African
American, Hispanic American,
Asian American and Native
American students.
• In 1973 and 1974 a white
applicant named Allan Bakke
applied for admission and was
rejected
• At the same time other
applicants of other racial groups
were admitted even though they
had lower grade-point averages
bandb test scores

65.  Issues:
• Allan Bakke argued he was a victim of
reverse discrimination
 Arguments:
• Some said that colleges can use race as
basis for admission, others disagreed
 Decision:
• The court ruled that under the equal
protection principle it was
unconstitutional for an admission
program to discriminate against whites
only because of their race
• However the court said race could be
one of the factors considered if the
school wished to create a more diverse
student body
 Amendment:
• 14th- Citizenship and Civil Rights

66.  Facts:
• Ida Phillips applied for a
position with the Martin Marietta
Corporation
• The corporation screened
women applicants to find out
whether they had young
children, since the corporation
believed children took up a
large part of a women’s time
• Ida had two preschoolers and
was denied the job.
 Issues:
• Can the company ask only
women whether they have
children and use this
information in the hiring
process.

67.  Arguments:
• Ida took the corporation to
court saying she was being
discriminated against since
men were not questioned as
to whether they had children
and were hired whether they
had young children or not
 Decision:
• The Supreme Court ruled that
the company could not have
“one hiring policy for women
and another for men”
 Amendment:
• 14th- Citizenship and Civil
Rights