The document provides an overview of the American judicial system and constitutional limitations on judicial power. It discusses the dual court system with separate federal and state court hierarchies. Key points include: - The US Constitution established both federal and state court systems, with 95% of cases handled in state courts. - Federal courts have limited jurisdiction over cases concerning federal law and constitutional questions, while state courts have general jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court has the final say on the meaning of the US Constitution.

1. American Constitutional LawAmerican Constitutional Law
Judicial Power
And
The American Court System
Text in Red indicate vocabulary you should know. Text in blue leads to
an external source explaining the word or phrase.

2. Goals of this SessionGoals of this Session
●
Introduce the American judicial system
●
Show how federalism impacts this system
●
Explain constitutional limitations on judicial
power
●
Describe how judicial review power was
developed

3. American Court SystemAmerican Court System
●
Fifty-one separate systems
– Each state has their own separate and distinct court
system.
●
95% of all cases are handled in state courts
●
This is because states make most of the laws.
●
The U.S. Constitution created federal court
system separate and distinct from the state
systems.
– Once a case begins in the state court system, it
stays there and vice versa (with minor exceptions).

4. Article IIIArticle III
●
Die richterliche Gewalt
der Vereinigten
Staaten liegt bei einem
Obersten
Bundesgericht und bei
solchen unteren
Gerichten, deren
Errichtung der Kongreß
von Fall zu Fall
anordnen wird.
●
"The judicial Power of
the United States,
shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and
in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may
from time to time
ordain and establish."
– NOTE: Congress
creates the federal
court system!

5. Federal Court HierarchyFederal Court Hierarchy

6. U.S. Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme Court
●
Hearing before all
9 Justices
●
Must get
permission to have
appeal heard =
granting certiorarigranting certiorari
●
Usually only over
matters of law
Youngest 50, Oldest 85, Average age 68

7. U.S. Court of AppealsU.S. Court of Appeals
●
13 circuits
including D.C. &
Federal Circuit
– Appeal here is a
matter of right.
– Court usually looks
at legal issues, not
facts.
– Hearing is before a
randomly selected
three judge panel.

8. Federal District CourtFederal District Court
●
Cases are heard before jury and/or one judge.
– This is a trial courttrial court
– Magistrates help judges with cases
●
Hear both civil and criminal matters
– 80% civil (including constitutional matters), 20%
criminal
●
Two special courts at this level
– International Trade Court, Federal Claims Court

9. Each State Has ItsEach State Has Its
Own Court SystemOwn Court System

10. Impact of Federalism on CourtsImpact of Federalism on Courts
●
Federalism = division of power between states
and the federal government.
●
When a law or power is challenged, question is
in which court can we file our lawsuitlawsuit.
●
General Rule:
– Cases dealing with federal law are filed in federal
courts.
– Cases dealing with state law in state law.

11. Court JurisdictionCourt Jurisdiction
●
The REAL Rule
– Federal courts have limited jurisdiction = cases
concerning questions of federal law.
●
Exception =Exception = Diversity JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction,, but not relevant for
constitutional law questions.
– State courts have general jurisdiction = cases
concerning all state law & federal civil law (including
U.S. Constitution!).
●
U.S. Supreme Court has final say on what U.S.
Constitution means.

12. American Court SystemAmerican Court System
NOTE:
Exception to
“general rule”

13. Legal PrecedentLegal Precedent
●
Past cases with similar
legal issues and facts.
●
Compares current case
with past cases.
●
Legal principles/rules
from past cases are
then applied to current
case.
●
Sometimes called
AuthorityAuthority

14. Stare DecisisStare Decisis
●
Generally = stand by a prior decision.
●
Rule established by prior court that must be
followed by current court.
●
Constitutional Law
– Interpretations of constitution made by some courts
are binding on others = binding precedent.
– We study the court hierarchy to find out which
courts can create binding precedent and which
courts must follow it.

15. ●
Vertical Stare DecisisVertical Stare Decisis: an interpretation made by
a higher court must be followed by a lower court.

16. Vertical Stare DecisisVertical Stare Decisis
in the Dual Systemin the Dual System
●
Only federal courts make binding precedent
regarding federal law.
●
Only state courts make binding precedent
regarding state law.
●
Lower federal courts follow rules made by
higher federal courts.
●
Lower state courts follow rules made by higher
state courts.

17. Interpretation of State LawInterpretation of State Law
●
State Supreme
Court binds all
courts.
●
State intermediate
courts bind state
trial courts.
●
Interpretations
made by other
courts have no
effect.

18. Interpretation of Federal LawInterpretation of Federal Law
●
U.S. Supreme
Court binds all
courts.
●
U.S. Court of
Appeal binds U.S.
District Court in
same region.
●
Interpretations
made by other
courts have no
effect.

19. Cliqr QuestionCliqr Question
●
Who has the final say (das letzte Wort) over
what the U.S. Constitution means?
a) The highest state court in the state where the case
is taking place
b) The United States Supreme Court
c) The United States Congress
d) The President of the United States

20. U.S. Court of AppealsU.S. Court of Appeals
– Binds only lower
federal court in
same region
(vertical)
– Also self binding
(horizontal)
– But NOT binding
on other regional
courts of appeals

21. Split in the CircuitsSplit in the Circuits
●
Split in the circuits = when regional courts of
appeals interpret federal law or the the
constitution differently.
●
Solution
– Appeal to Supreme
Court and let them
settle the dispute
– Their interpretation
binds ALL courts!
●
Problem
– Different parts of the
country live under
different
interpretations of the
law

22. 5/3/19 22
Stare Decisis IllustratedStare Decisis Illustrated
Court of
Appeals
(same region)
Similar facts
and law
Horizontal Stare DecisisHorizontal Stare Decisis
Vertical stareVertical stare
DecisisDecisis
Similarfacts
andlaw

23. Art. II und IIIArt. II und III
●
Die Richter sowohl
des Obersten
Bundesgerichts als
auch der unteren
Gerichte sollen im
Amte bleiben, solange
ihre Amtsführung
einwandfrei ist. . . .
– Artikel III, Abs. 1
●
Er (der Präsident)
nominiert auf Anraten
und mit Zustimmung
des Senats . . . die
Richter des Obersten
Bundesgerichts und
alle sonstigen Beamten
der Vereinigten
Staaten.
– Article II, Abs. 2

24. Selection of Federal Court JudgesSelection of Federal Court Judges
●
Appointed for life by
President with
consent by Senate
– No qualification
specified in
Constitution
– President nominates
→ Senate Committee
interviews nonminee
→ full Senate votes.
●
majority vote needed
to confirm.
Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald
Trump's nominee for the Supreme Court,
on the first day of his confirmation
hearing, March 20, 2017, before the
Senate Judiciary Committee, on Capitol
Hill, in Washington. Photo: REUTERS/Al
Drago/POOL

25. AmtsenthebungsverfahrenAmtsenthebungsverfahren
●
Artikel 1, Abs 2
– “Das Repräsentantenhaus .
. . . hat das alleinige Recht,
Amtsanklage zu erheben.”
●
Artikel 1, Abs 3
– Der Senat hat das alleinige
Recht, über alle Amts-
anklagen zu befinden. . . .
Niemand darf ohne
Zustimmung von zwei
Dritteln der anwesenden
Mitglieder schuldig
gesprochen werden.
●
Artikel 2, Abs 4
– wenn sie wegen
Verrats, Bestechung
oder anderer
Verbrechen und
Vergehen unter
Amtsanklage gestellt
und für schuldig
befunden worden sind.

26. Removal of Federal Court JudgesRemoval of Federal Court Judges
●
Only 8 federal judges
have been removed
via this process.
●
Removal by
impeachment
– Grounds: Bribery,
Treason or Other High
Crimes or
Misdemeanors
– Majority of House
must indict, 2/3 of
Senate must convict.

27. Cliqr QuestionCliqr Question
●
Who selects federal judges?
a) the Congress
b) the President
c) the people
d) the President with the Consent of the U.S. Senate

28. Constitutional Questions
Regarding the Power of the Judiciary

29. GerichtsbarkeitGerichtsbarkeit
●
Die richterliche Gewalt erstreckt sich auf alle
Fälle nach dem Gesetzes- und dem
Billigkeitsrecht, die sich aus dieser Verfassung,
den Gesetzen der Vereinigten Staaten und den
Verträgen ergeben . . . — auf Streitigkeiten
zwischen zwei oder mehreren Einzelstaaten . . .
zwischen Bürgern verschiedener Einzelstaaten;

30. What can Federal Courts Hear?What can Federal Courts Hear?
●
“The judicial Power shall extend to all CasesCases, in
Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,
the Laws of the United States . . . (andand) to
ControversiesControversies . . . .”
– Article III, Section 2
●
This “cases and controversiescases and controversies” language has
been the subject of numerous court decisions.
– Real issue = limitations placed on the court’s power
by the constitution.

31. Constitutional LimitationsConstitutional Limitations
●
Nature of the dispute – subject matter jurisdictionsubject matter jurisdiction
– Cases dealing with topics related to federal law
●
Extent of the dispute – there must be an active
controversy.
– standing – must have personal harm
– no advisory opinion – cannot simply give advice to one
of the other branches
– Mootness and Ripeness – the dispute must be current/
active.

32. Subject Matter JurisdictionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
– Ambassadors, public
Ministers and Counsels
●
Supreme Court has original
jurisdiction
– admiralty and maritime
– Parties from different states
– where U.S. is party
– between 2 or more
states
●
Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction
●
Generally, cases in which federal government has
an interest (federal question jurisdiction).
– Constitution, laws, treaties
●
Or the Court has been given express jurisdiction by
the Constitution:

33. Original Jurisdiction ExplainedOriginal Jurisdiction Explained
●
“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and those in which a state
shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have
original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before
mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have
appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with
such exceptions, and under such regulations as
the Congress shall make.”
●
Article III, Section 2
●
When the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction,
a case begins and ends in the Court!

34. Original Jurisdiction ExamplesOriginal Jurisdiction Examples
●
Brought directly to
Supreme Court
after states could
not agree on
boundary.
Boundary Dispute: Virginia v.
Tennessee (1893)

35. Original Jurisdiction ExampleOriginal Jurisdiction Example
●
Water Rights Dispute:
Kansas v. Colorado
(multiple lawsuits)
●
Usually involving
whether Colorado
used too much
water from the
Arkansas River
Basin, which flows
into Kansas.

36. From the Beginning:From the Beginning:
No Advisory OpinionsNo Advisory Opinions
●
“The lines of Separation drawn by the Constitution
between the three Departments of Government, their
being in certain Respects checks on each other, and our
being judges of a court in the last Resort, are
Considerations which afford strong arguments against
the Propriety of our extrajudicially deciding the questions
alluded to; especially as the Power given by the
Constitution to the President of calling on the Heads of
Departments for opinions, seems to have been purposely
as well as expressly limited to executive Departments.”
– Chief Justice John Jay (1793) in a letter to President
Washington rejecting his request for the Court to advise him on
the proper interpretation of the Neutrality Treaty which prohibited
the U.S. from siding with either France or England.

37. Advisory OpinionsAdvisory Opinions
●
Chief Justice Jay: it is
not the constitutional
role of the court to
give advice.
●
Congress is also not
allowed to ask the
Court for advice = no
abstract review like in
GG Art. 93, Abs. 2.
●
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht
entscheidet: . . . bei Meinungs-
verschiedenheiten oder
Zweifeln über die förmliche und
sachliche Vereinbarkeit von
Bundesrecht oder Landesrecht
mit diesem Grundgesetze oder
die Vereinbarkeit von
Landesrecht mit sonstigem
Bundesrechte auf Antrag der
Bundesregierung, einer
Landesregierung oder eines
Viertels der Mitglieder des
Bundestages;
– GG Art. 93, Abs. 2

38. StandingStanding
●
The Standing Question:
– “Whether the litigant is entitled to have the court
decide the merits of the dispute.”
– This is always the first question the court will
address whether parties raise the issue or not.
●
Requirements:
– Injury (including to rights)
– Injury is traceable to Defendant’s conduct
– Favorable court decision will remedy the injury.

39. National Emergency Standing?National Emergency Standing?
●
Trump plans to use national emergency power
to allocate unused military funds to build a
border wall, some of which will be built on
private property. Congress passed a resolution
stating Trump cannot use this money for his
wall, but Trump vetoed the resolution.
●
Who has standing to challenge this?
– Who is harmed by the shifting of funds to the wall
project?
– Who is harmed by the building of the wall?

40. RipenessRipeness
●
Matters that are
premature for litigation
cannot be heard.
●
Threatened harm must
be real and immediate.
●
Closely linked to
standing: if too early,
no real harm yet. Dispute must be “ripe” before
Court will “bite” into it.

41. Mootness: Roe v. WadeMootness: Roe v. Wade
●
Mootness defined:
– actual controversy
existing at all stages
of the court process.
– If events after filing
solve dispute before
FINAL decision, case
is moot.
●
Roe was pregnant and
denied an abortion
because Texas law
prohibited the procedure.
●
She challenged the law in
court.
●
At the time of the both the
first hearing and the
appeal she was no longer
pregnant. Moot case?

42. The Mootness ExceptionThe Mootness Exception
●
TEST
– Likely to happen to
plaintiff again
– injury is type that will
always be limited in
duration
●
CLASSIC CASES –
voting (signature
gathering, voting
requirements, ballot
access)

43. Mootness: The Case of JoseMootness: The Case of Jose
PadillaPadilla
●
Padilla in U.S. airport on
suspicion of being a
terrorist.
●
Labeled an “enemy
combatant” = no due
process
●
Before Supreme Court
hears case, government
removes label. Moot
case? (see cliqr)
Jose Padilla

44. Judicial ReviewJudicial Review
●
Judicial review =
power of the court to
declare actions of the
other branches
unconstitutional.
– Art. III does NOT
expressly provide for
judicial review of
constitutional
questions.
●
In Marbury v. Madison
Supreme Court gave
itself the power to
engage in judicial
review.
Chief
Justice
John
Marshall