In This Chapter

Chapter Outline

The Legal System Settles Disputes

1. Court cases in the United States proceed under two broad categories of law: criminal law and civil law.
2. In the area of criminal law, either a state government or the federal government is the plaintiff who alleges that someone has committed a crime.
3. Civil cases are those between individuals or between individuals and the government in which no criminal violation is charged. The two most common types of civil cases involve contracts and torts.
4. In deciding cases, courts apply statutes and legal precedent. Precedents are applied under the doctrine of stare decisis, the doctrine that a previous decision by a court applies as a precedent in similar cases until that decision is overruled.
5. By far, most cases are heard by state courts.
6. Cases are heard in federal courts if the U.S. government is a party in the case or if the case involves federal statutes, treaties with other nations, or the U.S. Constitution.
7. Although the federal courts hear only a fraction of all the cases decided every year in the United States, federal court decisions are extremely important.

The Federal Courts Hear a Small Percentage of All Cases

1. The eighty-nine federal district courts are trial courts of original jurisdiction, and their cases are, in form, indistinguishable from cases in the state trial courts.
2. The thirteen U.S. courts of appeals review and render decisions in approximately 10 percent of all lower-court and agency cases.
3. Federal judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by a majority vote of the full Senate.
4. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country and has the power and the obligation to review any lower-court decision involving a substantial issue of public law, state legislation, or act of Congress.
5. The Constitution does not specify the number of justices that should sit on the Supreme Court, although since 1869 there have been nine—one chief justice and eight associate justices.
6. The solicitor general can influence the Supreme Court by screening cases before they reach the Court, submitting amicus briefs, and shaping the arguments used before the Court.

The Power of the Supreme Court Is Judicial Review

1. The Supreme Court’s power to review acts of Congress, although accepted as natural and rarely challenged, is not specifically granted by the Constitution.
2. The Supreme Court’s power to review state action or legislation derives from the Constitution’s supremacy clause, although it is neither granted specifically by the Constitution nor inherent in the federal system.
3. Appeals of lower-court decisions can reach the Supreme Court in one of two ways: through a writ of certiorari, or, in the case of convicted prisoners, through a writ of habeas corpus.
4. The solicitor general is the top government lawyer in virtually all cases before the Supreme Court in which the government is a party. The solicitor general controls the flow of cases by screening them before any agency of the federal government can appeal them to the Supreme Court.
5. Every federal judge employs law clerks to research legal issues and assist with the preparation of opinions. Some justices rely heavily on their clerks for advice in writing opinions and in deciding whether an individual case ought to be heard by the Court.
6. Groups and forces in society attempt to influence justices’ rulings on particular issues.
7. After filing written arguments, or briefs, attorneys present oral argument to the Supreme Court. After oral argument, the justices discuss the case and vote on a final decision.
8. The Supreme Court always explains its decisions in terms of law and precedent.
9. Despite the rule of precedent, the Court often reshapes law. Such changes in the interpretation of law can be explained, in part, by changes in the judicial philosophy of activism versus restraint and by changes in political ideology.
10. The framers hoped that the courts would protect liberty from the potential excesses of democracy. Today, Americans of all political persuasions view the courts as useful instruments through which to pursue their goals rather than as protectors of individual rights, raising the question of whether the courts are just another set of policy-making institutions.