The United States Supreme Court

1. The United States Supreme Court

2. The Court • The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction on all cases in the United States • The court only has original jurisdiction in cases involving foreign diplomats and cases between states. However those cases are usually heard in district court • The court also has the power to declare acts of the Legislative andExecutive Branches unconstitutional

3. The Court • The court has 9 judges, known as Supreme Court Justices • The Chief Justice is the leader of the court • John Roberts is the Chief Justice today • Justices are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate • They hold their jobs for life or until they want to retire • The only way they can be fired is through impeachment

4. Justice Firsts William Howard Taft became Chief Justice after his Presidency Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice, in 1967 Sandra Day O’Connor is the first female justice, serving from 1981 to 2006

5. Judicial Review • Judicial Reviewis the power to declare laws or actions of the government unconstitutional • The Supreme Court has the power of final judicial review on all cases • This power was established by the case ofMarbury v. Madison

6. Marbury v. Madison (1803) This case is the source of the court’s most important power It involved the change of power from John Adams leaving the Presidency and Thomas Jefferson taking over William Marbury was a man appointed to be a federal judge by Adams James Madison was Secretary of State and was responsible for delivering Presidential appointments

7. I want my job! William Marbury was named by Adams on the last day of his Presidency, however the official papers were never delivered When Jefferson took over, he decided to not name Marbury. He wanted to name some Democratic-Republican judges and Marbury was a Federalist (like Adams) Madison did not deliver the papers and Jefferson nominated someone else William Marbury then filed a lawsuit, claiming the judgeship was rightfully his

8. Catch-22 • Chief Justice John Marshall had a difficult problem • If he ruled in favor of Marbury, Jefferson might ignore him and make the court look weak • However, if he ruled in favor of Madison, it would look like the court was afraid to take on the power of the President, again looking weak

9. A brilliant solution! • Marshall decided that the part of the law that allowed the court to order delivery of appointments was unconstitutional • Thus, the court could not force Marbury’s appointment, essentially ruling in favor of Madison • However, by doing this the power of Judicial review was established • President Jefferson got what he wanted, but to get it he had to officially recognize the court’s power of Judicial Review • This decision made the court the equal of the President and Congress from then into the present day

10. Not just ancient history! Controversy over appointing federal judges didn’t stop with Marbury v. Madison There are often bitter fights between political parties over the appointing of judges Since they hold jobs for life, they can have a big effect on how a party’s views are upheld in government over the long term This is especially true with Supreme Court Justices

11. Robert Bork • Usually judges are approved by the Senate • However, sometimes they are voted down if they are judged to be unfit for the job • In 1987, Robert Bork was nominated by President Reagan but the Senate rejected him by a 58-42 vote • His views opposing some landmark civil rights decisions of the court led to strong opposition by minority and women’s groups

12. Clarence Thomas • Clarence Thomas was nominated by George Bush in 1991 to replace the retiring Thurgood Marshall, as the only African-American on the court • However, he held political views that went against those of most African-Americans and was opposed by most civil rights groups • It became the most controversial nomination in recent history • He was also accused of sexual harassment by a former co-worker, Professor Anita Hill • In the end he was approved by the Senate, 52-48 and is on the court today

13. What Cases To Hear There are thousands of cases appealed to the court each year It doesn’t have time to hear them all In 2009, over 7,738 cases were appealed The court accepted only 87 of the 7,738 How do you think they choose which cases to hear?

14. Court Selection • Most cases that are chosen by the court involve a Constitutional question • They also select cases that involve great public interest • They will also take cases with issues that are of national importance • At least four of the Justicesmust agree that a case is important before it is accepted • Once a case is accepted it is placed on the docket, or schedule of cases to be heard

15. Your Day in Court • Supreme Court cases are not like other courts • The Justices read the briefs, or written arguments of each side, before the hearing date • They also know the details of the case by studying the decision of the lower court • Each lawyer makes his case and is questioned by the Justices • There are no witnesses • The Justices meet in private and announce their decision months later

16. Decision Time The court can rule 1 of 3 ways in each case They can Uphold the decision of the lower court, leaving things as they are They can Overturn the decision, reversing the lower court They can Remand the case back to the lower court and order them to reconsider it

17. Everyone Has An Opinion • The winning side among the Justices writes an official statement explaining their decision, called the Majority Opinion • Justices that agree with the ruling, but for different reasons can write a Concurring Opinion • The Justices who voted against the majority explain their reasons in the Dissenting Opinion

18. Real Cases of the Court

19. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Homer Plessy was 1/8 African-American, 7/8 white He was riding a segregated train in Louisiana, riding in the “white” car The conductor ordered him to the “colored” car When he refused, he was arrested and charged with violating Louisiana “Jim Crow” laws http://www.vbschools.com/online_pubs/kaleid/2010/02/DAR.html

20. 19th Century Justice • Plessy appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court • He claimed that his 14th Amendment rights had been violated • The “equal protection under the law” clause made segregation unconstitutional in his opinion • Was he right?

21. Separate But Equal? • The court ruled against Homer Plessy • They said that states could mandate separate facilities for the races, as long as they were equal facilities • This met the requirements of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment • So racial segregation would be legal for several more decades

22. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • By the middle of the 20th Century, attitudes toward race were beginning to change • The NAACP, a major civil rights organization, decided to challenge the “Plessy” decision • Several cases from around the country were taken on by NAACP lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall

23. Crossing the tracks Linda Brown was an African-American girl in Topeka, Kansas She had to cross railroad tracks to get to the “colored” school, while there was a “white” school much closer to her home Her parents tried to enroll her in the “white” school and when they were refused, the NAACP filed a lawsuit on their behalf They argued that “Separate but Equal” did not work, because it was never equal

24. A new era begins • The Supreme Court ruled for the Browns and the NAACP • They stated that segregation in public schools is unconstitutional and unfair • They ordered all schools across the country to de-segregate immediately • This led to the end of legalized segregation in all public places • Thurgood Marshall became famous as a great lawyer and would earn a spot on the Supreme Court himself in 1967

25. Owasso School District v. Falvo (2002)

26. Sound Familiar? At Owasso Middle School in Tulsa, OK Students often grade papers in class Sometimes students would read out the scores

27. A Parent Objects! Kristja Falvo, who had 3 children in the school, complained She said her kids were embarrassed by the practice of grading in class She claimed the school was invading the privacy of her kids She said the school violated the “Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974” (FERPA)

28. FERPA (1974) The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act says: Schools are forbidden to release “educational records” of students without a parent’s permission

29. What do you think? • Does grading papers in class violate your privacy? • Is a grade in class an “Educational Record”? • Is FERPA violated?

30. A Unanimous Decision • The Supreme Court rejected Falvo’s argument by a 9-0 vote. It did not violate FERPA to grade papers in class

31. The Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court said: • Peer grading is part of the learning process and gives additional review to students • Educational records are those held in official files. Everyday student work and teacher records are not protected by FERPA

32. California vs. Andrade (2003) • This case was a Constitutional test of California’s “Three Strikes” law • In 1994, California voters approved Proposition 184, which required judges to issue sentences of 25 years to life for anybody convicted of a felony for the 3rd time

33. Three Strikes and You’re Out Under this new law many criminals were sent to prison for life who would have otherwise received much lighter sentences Sometimes the “third strike” was not a violent crime In California, “theft with a prior” issues a felony charge to what would be a misdemeanor for a first offense Some criminals objected to this, claiming to receive cruel and unusual punishment for relatively minor crimes, violating the 8th Amendment

34. Beats the Blue Light Special! Leandro Andrade had a long criminal record He had been convicted of 5 felonies and 2 misdemeanors in the past On November 4, 1995 he was caught trying to shoplift 5 videotapes, worth a total of $84, from K-Mart He was charged and released on bail Two weeks later, he was caught shoplifting $68.84 in videotapes from another K-Mart

35. You’re Out!!! He had priors for theft and burglary, so these charges became “theft with a prior”, a felony He was charged under the “3 Strikes” law He was found guilty and sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for the crimes He appealed under the 8th Amendment How would you have ruled?

36. Throw away the key! The court ruled 5-4 in favor of the State of California They ruled that the state had the right to set their own punishments for crime Prison time in this case did not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment Many states have passed similar laws since, including Virginia

37. Atkins v. Virginia (2002) Daryl Atkins has an IQ of 59 Mild mental retardation is generally believed to be between 50-69 on the IQ scale In August,1996 Atkins and a friend were trying to get some money to buy some beer Atkins approached Eric Nesbitt, 21, in the parking lot of a convenience store in York County, Virginia Atkins robbed Nesbitt, kidnapped him and took him to a field where he shot and killed him

38. An eye for an eye Atkins was soon arrested and put on trial for capital murder and robbery He was found guilty and sentenced to death He appealed his case to the Supreme Court

39. His appeal He claimed that his IQ should make him ineligible for the death sentence His lawyer argued that no state executed kids ages 9-12, and that his IQ of 59 was normal for 9-12 year olds Since the death penalty had been re-instated in 1976, 35 mentally challenged people had been put to death, four in Virginia Do you think he had a point? Is it wrong to execute a mentally challenged person?

40. The Verdict • The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Atkins • The majority opinion said that there was an emerging national consensus against executing the mentally challenged • Since 1989, 18 states had passed laws against it, including Texas • They said this justifies a national ban on executing the mentally challenged

41. The Court vs. Executive Branch Besides the power to invalidate unconstitutional laws, the courts have the power to declare acts of the Executive branch as unconstitutional as well Courts can cancel decisions by executive departments and even overrule the President of the United States

42. Nixon v. United States (1974) • During the Watergate Scandal, President Nixon refused to turn over tapes and documents to the special prosecutor • Nixon claimed “Executive Privilege” • The court ruled against Nixon • The White House tapes showed that he was guilty of several crimes and helped lead to Nixon’s resignation

43. September 11, 2001 • Following the attacks of September 11, President Bush issued some controversial executive orders • He basically created a separate justice system for people accused of being terrorists • Under his order (and the Patriot Act), anyone suspected of being a terrorist could be declared an “enemy combatant” and be held indefinitely without notifying anyone • Suspected terrorists could also be tried by “secret military tribunals” with no right of appeal or access to a lawyer of their choice

44. Bring ‘em on President Bush said that these steps were necessary to protect America from terrorism Some others, led by the ACLU, claimed that these moves are unconstitutional and a dangerous step that could lead to less freedom for Americans What do you think? Were Bush’s steps reasonable and necessary, given the reality of terrorism?

45. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) • Yaser Hamdi was captured by American forces in Afghanistan and taken to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp in Cuba • It was discovered that he was an American citizen, as he was born in Louisiana, so he was transferred to the Navy brig in Norfolk • A suit was filed on his behalf, demanding his day in court, “due process” as guaranteed by the 5th Amendment • The Bush administration refused, saying he had no rights as an “enemy combatant” • What do you think?

46. You have to obey the Constitution The Court ruled 8-1in favor of Hamdi The opinion said that an American citizen cannot be denied their Constitutional rights under any circumstances Anyone who is held by the government has the right to challenge that detention in court He is still being held, awaiting that day in court

47. Rasul v. Bush (2004) This case was very similar to the Hamdi case, except it involved a detainee who was not an American citizen Rasul was also being held as an enemy combatant, but still at the Guantanamo Bay Navy base in Cuba Does this make the Constitutional principle any different?

48. No, it doesn’t The court ruled 6-3 against the policy of President Bush Even if not an American citizen, a person held by the government has the right to challenge their detention in federal court Bush was ruled as having exceeded the power given to him by the Constitution