Objective: Explain the principle of judicial review and how it checks the power of other institutions and state governments.
Starter: So a majority of Americans disapprove of Congress and a majority disapprove of the president, but do more Americans have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court?
1.How accurate was your prediction?
2.How surprised are you by this information?
3.What trend do you see in the chart?
4.List two explanations for this trend:
5.What is a consequence of this trend?
6.If this current trend continues, when will the Court's unfavorable ratings surpass its favorable ratings?
7.While 62% of Democrats have a favorable opinion of the Court, only 33 % of Republicans do. Considering that 5 of the 9 Justices were Republican appointees, and the Supreme Court Chief Justice was appointed by Republican, George W. Bush, what explains this partisan divide?
8.How do you think Donald Trump's appointments of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have affected American's opinions of the Supreme Court?
9.How did Americans' feelings about the U.S. Supreme Court impact the 2016 elections?
10.Explain one way the declining popularity of the Supreme Court impacts the court.
11.Explain one way the declining popularity of the Supreme Court does not impact the court.
Quiz Today: the Presidency!
Word of the Day
Judicial Review
- Define it.
- Use it in a sentence.
- Provide an example of the Supreme Court using their power of judicial review.
- Does judicial review give the Supreme Court too much power? Consider that some of the most controversial issues in U.S. society (abortion, affirmative action, Obamacare, gay marriage, gun control) have been ultimately decided not by Congress or the president, but by SCOTUS. Also consider that popular policies such as the line-item veto and congressional term limits have been overturned by the courts, while extremely unpopular actions such as animal sacrifice and the right of neo-Nazis to hold rallies have been protected.
The Federalist No. 78
Please click here for the text of Federalist 78.
Good students will further their learning of Publius' perspective on the judicial branch below:
2AB 4B
Good students will further their learning of Publius' perspective on the judicial branch below:
2AB 4B
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Case summary courtesy of oyez.org
Facts of the Case:
Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State.
William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.
Questions:
Decision:
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.
Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Facts of the Case:
Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election. Before Jefferson took office on March 4, 1801, Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts, added judges, and gave the president more control over appointment of judges. The Act was essentially an attempt by Adams and his party to frustrate his successor, as he used the act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were approved by the Senate, but they would not be valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State.
William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia, but his commission was not delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel the new Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions.
Questions:
- Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions?
- Can they sue for their commissions in court?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions?
Decision:
The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.
Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
Supreme Court 2019
There is a proposal that all Justices be appointed for 15 years, with a cap on age 70 and a grandfather clause for the present members of the court. Write a well reasoned response to this proposal explaining why you support or oppose it.
Organization of Federal Courts
State Courts
- each state has its own court system (federalism)
- 97% of criminal cases heard in state courts
- roughly 100 district courts with at least 1 in each state
- district courts handle have original jurisdiction in almost all cases and decide over 80% of the federal caseload
- less than 2% are decided by trials
- 13 circuit courts with panels of judges
- review district court rulings, checking for constitutionality
- do not hold trials, deciding issues of law instead of issues of fact
- original jurisdiction on federal regulatory agencies
- handles both federal and state appeals
- hears less than 5% of cases brought to it
- decisions binding on entire nation
Closer: Explain the principle of judicial review and how it checks the power of other institutions and state governments.
On Deck
Next Topic: Legitimacy of the Supreme Court
Textbook: Read sections 15.3-15.4 (pp. 450-460)
28th Amendment Project due November 1
Textbook: Read sections 15.3-15.4 (pp. 450-460)
28th Amendment Project due November 1