American Judiciary, Federal Courts, State Courts & Judicial Philosophy, Politics, and Policy
To view other note of American Government Click Here.
The Federal Courts
There are several types of opinions:
- Majority opinions are issued when at least five justices agree with the legal reasoning behind the decision. These opinions form new precedents that lower courts must follow.
- Plurality opinions are issued when several justices agree with the decision but not the legal reasoning behind it. A plurality opinion represents the views of a majority of the justices on the winning side.
- Concurring opinions are issued by justices who agree with the winning side but disagrees with the legal reasoning.
- Dissenting opinions are issued by justices who opposed the ruling decision and favored the losing party in a case. Dissenting opinions explain why the dissenting justices find the ruling decision wrong.
The decision can affirm the lower court’s ruling, in which case that ruling stands. If the Supreme Court finds error in the lower court’s ruling, it can reverse the ruling. Sometimes when a case is reversed, it gets remanded, or sent back to a lower court for a new trial or proceeding.
The following table summarizes some of the most important court cases in American history.
| Case | Date | Significance |
| Marbury v. Madison | 1803 | Courts assumed the power of judicial review (the power to declare laws unconstitutional) |
| McCulloch v. Maryland | 1819 | Granted the federal government broad powers through the necessary and proper clause |
| Dred Scott v. Sanford | 1857 | Forcibly returned a slave to his owner in the South and thus increased tensions over slavery |
| Plessy v. Ferguson | 1896 | Ruled that “separate but equal” was constitutional; legalized segregation and Jim Crow laws |
| Brown v. Board of Education | 1954 | Overturned Plessy; declared segregation unconstitutional |
| Mapp v. Ohio | 1961 | Expanded the exclusionary rule to cover state courts |
| Gideon v. Wainwright | 1963 | Ruled that the government must supply a lawyer to those who cannot afford one |
| Miranda v. Arizona | 1966 | Ruled that police must inform people they are about to question of their right against self-incrimination |
| Roe v. Wade | 1973 | Legalized abortions in the first trimester of pregnancy |
| Bush v. Gore | 2000 | Decided the 2000 presidential election by ruling that the Florida Supreme Court was wrong in ordering a recount |
Courts of Appeals
The U.S. Courts of Appeals hear cases from federal district courts that have been appealed. The United States has twelve Courts of Appeals, each of which covers a circuit, a geographic area containing several district courts. For this reason, the Courts of Appeals are also known as circuit courts. When a party appeals a decision made in a district court, a circuit court reviews the details of the case. The Courts of Appeals do not hold trials; if a new trial is warranted, the Courts of Appeals send the case back to the district court. Courts of Appeals will not review all cases that have been appealed. Cases only get reviewed for a good reason, such as if the ruling discarded precedent.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The U.S. court system also has a thirteenth Court of Appeals, called the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This court has national jurisdiction over certain cases, such as those in which the U.S. government is a defendant.
Specialized Federal Courts
The federal court system includes a number of specialty courts that fall outside the primary system that have similar authority to the district courts. These courts include the U.S. Claims Court (which covers cases in which the federal government is being sued for damages), the U.S. Court of International Trade, the U.S. Tax Court, and the U.S. Court of Military Appeals. These courts are all inferior to the Supreme Court, and the losing party in a case heard in one of these courts can appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
District Courts
The lowest level of the federal judicial system is the U.S. District Courts, which hear most federal trials. Each district court hears cases within a particular district, or geographical area. There are more than ninety districts. Every state has at least one district court, but some have as many as four. District courts are courts of original jurisdiction. Because they are the lowest federal courts, district courts must follow Supreme Court precedent as much as possible. Most federal cases begin and end at the district court level.
Selection of Federal Judges
All federal judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. Senatorial courtesy, a tradition since the 1840s, allows senators of the president’s party to have a say in the appointment of judges to their states. Once on the bench, a federal judge keeps the position for a term of “good behavior,” which is tantamount to life, barring criminal acts. As Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Papers No. 78 (1787), keeping judges in office for life gives them the independence they need to serve as a proper check on the executive and legislative branches.
Qualifications
The Constitution does not list any specific requirements an individual must meet in order to become a federal judge. A person does not, in theory, even have to be a lawyer in order to be a judge, although the vast majority of judges are lawyers. In recent years, more nominees have had prior experience as judges (either on a lower court or on a state court). The American Bar Association (ABA), the professional association of lawyers, issues ratings of nominees based on their qualifications.
Supreme Court Nominees
The president nominates someone to be a Supreme Court justice only when there is a vacancy on the Court. Most presidents choose nominees based on judicial philosophy, hoping to appoint someone who will most likely decide cases in accordance with the political views of the president and members of his political party. Other factors that influence the president’s choice include the nominee’s qualifications, input from any outside groups, and the likelihood that the Senate will confirm the nominee.
Supreme Ghosts
Sometimes a nomination to the Supreme Court will come back to haunt the president because the justice behaves differently than expected. When President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren as chief justice in 1953, he expected Warren to be a conservative. Instead, Warren led the Court through some of its most liberal decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education and Miranda v. Arizona.
Senate confirmation is often brutal process. Because federal justices serve for life, senators take great care to thoroughly question and investigate nominees. A failed nomination can be devastating to an administration and can make the president look foolish and politically weak.
Example: In July 2005, President George W. Bush nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. Republicans and conservatives of all stripes immediately criticized the choice, partly because they felt that Miers lacked the experience to be an effective justice. The media portrayed the president as out of touch with the Republican Party, and many critics argued that Bush had placed loyalty above experience in choosing Miers. Miers consequently withdrew her nomination.
The State Courts
More than 95 percent of court cases in the United States take place in state courts. Most crimes fall under state law, and violations of those laws are tried in state courts. Under the Tenth Amendment, the states have great latitude in how they structure their courts. Most states have a system similar to the federal system: a set of courts with original jurisdiction, appellate courts to hear appeals from these courts, and a state supreme court with final say on state law. States use different terms to describe their courts, so a court with the same (or similar) name might serve very different functions in two different states.
State Judges
Each state determines how to select its state judges. The most popular ways of selecting state judges include the following:
- Election: This is the most common way in which states select judges.
- Political appointment: In some states, the governor appoints state judges.
- The merit plan: The governor appoints judges from a list of qualified candidates provided by a judicial selection committee. This method of selection (also known as the Missouri Plan) tries to put qualifications ahead of partisanship. Judges then must face retention elections, which let voters decide whether the judge should stay in office.
Appeals to the Supreme Court
When a state supreme court has made a decision, losing parties have no higher state court to which they can appeal, but they can appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court will only hear these cases if there is a federal or constitutional issue at stake. The Supreme Court has ultimate judicial power in the United States, but it does not settle matters of state law and instead defers to the state courts.
Judicial Philosophy, Politics, and Policy
Although judges do not run on a platform, as do elected officials, they nevertheless hold political beliefs that influence their decisions. People strongly debate the role of the courts in politics and the role that personal beliefs and political philosophy should play.
Judicial Philosophy
Judicial philosophy is the way in which a judge understands and interprets the law. Laws are universal, but they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. To do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it.
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus judicial restraint, loose constructionism versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
Some judges develop a philosophy of activism, using the bench to enact social and political change. Other judges practice a philosophy of restraint, believing that judges must interpret the law strictly rather than seek to make new laws. And all judges, regardless of their philosophies, develop their own methods of reading the Constitution. Some judicial philosophies tend to coincide with certain political views. Most strict constructionists, for example, are also advocates of judicial restraint, but not all. Similarly, many advocates of judicial restraint also follow the doctrine of original intent. These views, however, do not always overlap. As a result, judicial philosophies are not the same as political ideologies.
We explore these philosophies in more detail in the following tables.
| Judicial Activism | Judicial Restraint | |
| Beliefs | Courts should overturn bad laws and create new policies | Courts must interpret the law, not legislate new policies |
| Example | Warren Court (1953–1969) | Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) |
| Key Decisions | Advanced civil rights and the rights of the accused | Limits on expansion of federal power |
| Politics | Tend to be liberal | Tend to be conservative |
| Loose Constructionism | Strict Constructionism | |
| Beliefs | Courts should read the Constitution expansively and should not limit themselves to what is explicitly stated | Courts should not reinterpret the Constitution |
| Example | Warren Court (1953–1969) | Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) |
| Key Decisions | Exclusionary rule, right to a government-funded attorney for the poor | Restrictions on abortion, eliminating federal rules for state governments |
| Politics | Tend to be liberal | Tend to be conservative |
| Living Document | Original Intent | |
| Beliefs | The Constitution must grow and adapt to new circumstances. | Courts should interpret the Constitution as the framers intended. |
| Example | Warren Court (1953–1969) | Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) |
| Key Decisions | Expansion of use of interstate commerce clause | Restrictions on privacy rights |
| Politics | Tend to be liberal | Tend to be conservative |
Constructionism in Action
Privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, so strict constructionists of the Constitution believe that the only privacy rights Americans have are those specifically outlined in the Constitution, such as protection against illegal searches. On the one hand, according to the strict constructionists, there is no general right to privacy. Loose constructionists, on the other hand, assert that a general right to privacy can be inferred from the rights that were explicitly listed by the framers. Privacy rights have taken center stage in many court cases, including Roe v. Wade (1973).
Checks on the Courts
The legislative and executive branches check the power of the judiciary branch in several ways. The main way of limiting the courts’ power lies with judicial implementation, the process by which a court’s decision is enforced. The executive branch must enforce court decisions, but if the president or governor disagrees with a ruling, he or she sometimes ignores it or only partially enforces it. Legislatures can also limit the courts through the power of the purse. If Congress refuses to appropriate funds for implementing a Supreme Court decision, that decision will not be enforced. Congress and state legislatures also have the power to amend the Constitution, which they can do to counter a court ruling.
