GOV CH 20-345 SUPREME COURT OPERATION

Last Name: First Name:

Period:

Multiple Choice
Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

The Supreme Court

Because of its importance in the federal court system, the United States Supreme Court deserves special attention. Here we look at how cases reach the Supreme Court, how the decisions of the Court are put into written form, and how the Court performs its work.

How Cases Reach the Supreme Court

Many people are surprised to learn that there is no absolute right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is given original jurisdiction in a small number of situations. In all others, it acts as an appeals court. Thousands of cases are filed with the Supreme Court each year. On average, though-at least in recent years-it hears fewer than one hundred cases each year.

To bring a case before the Supreme Court, a party must request the Court to issue a writ of certiorari . A writ of certiorari [pronounced sur-shee-uh-rah-reel is an order sent by the Supreme Court to a lower court requesting the record of the case in question. Parties can petition the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari, but whether the Court will do so is entirely within its discretion. In no instance is the Court required to issue a writ of certiorari.

Most petitions for writs of certiorari are, in fact, denied. A denial is not a decision on the merits of a case, nor is it an indication of agreement with a lower court's opinion. The Court will not issue a writ unless at least four justices approve of it. This is called the "rule of four."

In January 1988, the United States Supreme Court, in Hazelwood School District v. Cathy Kuhmmeier, reversed the lower court's ruling by a vote of five to three. justice Byron White, writing for the majority, argued that "school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community." The majority also noted that students' rights "are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings." In his dissent, justice William Brennan' (joined by justices Thurgood Marshall and' Harry Blackmun) said that the decision might make public schools into "enclaves of totalitarianism."

This Supreme Court decision prompted several state legislatures to consider writing specific state laws. to spell out students' rights and, in some cases, to grant student publications specific privileges against censorship.

Every person has a right to have their case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court

true

false

In the case of Hazelwood School District v. Cathy Kuhmmeier, the Supreme Court rulled that

a.	school districts cannot restrict the free speech of students	c.	students have no rights in school
b.	school districts can restrict the free speech of students	d.	students have the same rights in school that they have outside of school

A writ of certiorari

a.	is a judgement by the Supreme Court	c.	a request for case records from lower courts
b.	is a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court	d.	none of those

Decisions and Opinions

The Supreme Court normally does not hear any evidence . As mentioned, this is generally true in all appellate courts. The Court's decision is based on the written records of a case. The attorneys, however, can present oral arguments-arguments presented in person rather than on paper. The case is then privately examined by the justices .

After reaching a decision, the Court writes an opinion.
The opinion sets forth the Court's reasons for its decision, the rules of law that apply, and the judgment.
There are four types of written opinions.

1. When all of the justices agree on an opinion, the opinion is written for the entire Court and can be deemed a unanimous opinion.
2. When there is not a unanimous opinion, a majority opinion is written. This opinion outlines the views of the majority of the justices involved in the case.
3. Often, a justice who feels strongly about making or emphasizing a particular point that was not made or emphasized in the majority opinion writes a concurring opinion. The justice writing the concurring opinion concurs (agrees) with the conclusion given in the majority opinion but for reasons that are different from those stated in the majority opinion.
4. Finally, dissenting opinions are usually written by justices who did not agree with the majority. The dissenting opinion is important because it often forms the basis of arguments used years later that cause the Court to reverse the previous decision and establish a new precedent.

The Supreme Court bases its decisions on

a.	the evidence in the case	c.	testimony the witnesses
b.	the written records of the case	d.	all of these

When most of the judges agree on a case the decision of the court is written as

a.	a majority decision	c.	a concurring opinion
b.	a unanimous opinion	d.	a dissenting opinion

A judge that wants to make a point about the decision of the court that is not written into the majority decision writes a

a.	dissenting opinion	c.	majority opinion
b.	minority opinion	d.	concurring opinion

A judge who does not agree with the majority decision of the court will usually write

a.	a concurring opinion	c.	unanimous decision
b.	a dissenting opinion	d.	majority decision

The Supreme Court at Work

The Supreme Court begins its regular annual term on the first Monday in October and usually adjourns in late June or early July of the following year. Special sessions may be held after the regular term is over, but only a few cases are decided in this way. More commonly, cases not heard in one term are carried into the next term.

Cases that are appealed to the Court are scheduled for oral argument or denied a hearing in a written "orders list." Orders lists are released on Mondays. Generally, arguments are heard during seven two-week sessions scattered from October to April or May. The justices hear oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and sometimes Thursday. Recesses are held between periods of oral arguments to allow the justices to consider the cases and handle other Court business . Oral arguments run from 10 A.M . to noon and again from 1 to 3 P.M., with thirty minutes allowed for each side's argument, unless special exceptions are granted. All statements and the justices' questions are tape-recorded during these sessions. Lawyers addressing the Supreme Court can be questioned by the justices at any time during oral argument, a practice not followed in most courts .

Each Wednesday and Friday during the annual Court term, the justices meet in conference to discuss cases under consideration and to decide which new appeals and petitions the Court will accept . These conferences take place in an oak-paneled chamber and are strictly private-no secretaries, tape recorders, or video cameras are allowed.

When each conference is over, the chief justice, if in the majority, will assign the writing of opinions. When the chief justice is not in the majority, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the writing . After the necessary editing and the publication of preliminary prints, the official Court decision is placed in the United States Reports, the official record of the Court's decisions, which is available in many libraries. The decisions are also printed in West Publishing Company's Supreme Court Reporter, which is available about a year sooner. Additionally, Supreme Court decisions are now released immediately for online publication . You can access these decisions at www.ssctplus .com/online/index .htm.

When does the Supreme Court begins its yearly term?

a.	firs Tuesday in November	c.	First Monday in October
b.	January 1st	d.	Twice yearly

The Supreme Court cannot possibly hear every case that is appealed. Who decides which cases will be heard by the Court?

a.	The judges on the Supreme Court	c.	The Senate Judiciary Committee
b.	The lower courts	d.	The Congress

10.

Lawyers who are arguing cases before the Supreme Court can be questionsed at any time by the judges.

true

false

All federal judges, including the justices of the Supreme Court, are appointed. (In contrast, state court judges are often elected.) Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution authorizes the president to appoint the justices of the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. Laws passed by Congress provide that the same procedure be used for appointing judges to the lower federal courts as well .

According to Article III, Section l, "The judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." This means that, in effect, Supreme Court justices-and all federal judges-are appointed for life . Federal judges who engage in clearly illegal conduct, such as bribery, may be removed from office through impeachment, but this rarely occurs. Normally, federal judges serve in their positions until they resign, retire, or die .

Article III, Section 1, also states that judges "shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." In other words, federal judges, while in office, cannot have their salaries lowered . Congress determines the salaries for the judges of the federal court system, including the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court. Current

11.

Which statement is true

a.	All federal judges are appointed while state judges are elected	c.	All federal and state judges are elected
b.	All federal judges are elected while state judges are appointed	d.	All federal and state judges are appointed

12.

Federal judges hold their office for

a.	4 years	c.	2 years
b.	6 years	d.	life

13.

Which part of the Constitution describes the duties and responsibilities of the Federal Courts?

a.	Art I	c.	Art III
b.	Art II	d.	Art IV

Who Becomes a Supreme Court Justice?

Although the Constitution sets no specific qualifications for those who serve on the Supreme Court, all who have served share certain characteristics . The make-up of the federal judiciary is far from typical of the American public .

The majority of the justices were in private legal practice or state or federal judgeships at the time of their appointment. Most justices were in their fifties when they assumed office, although two were as young as thirty-two and one as old as sixty-six. The average age of newly sworn justices is about fifty-three. In general, the justices have belonged to the same political parties as the presidents who appointed them.

Note that the great majority of justices have had a college education. By and large, those who did not attend college or receive a degree lived in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when a college education was much less common than it is today. In recent years, justices have typically had degrees from such prestigious institutions as Yale, Harvard, and Columbia.

The religious background of Supreme Court justices is strikingly atypical of that of the American population as a whole, even making allowances for changes over time in the religious composition of the nation

Catholics, Baptists, and Lutherans have been underrepresented compared with their numbers in the population as a whole. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Methodists have been overrepresented among the justices, as have Unitarians. Typically, there have been one Catholic justice and one Jewish justice on the Court.

14.

Which part of the Constitution describes the qualifications to become a Justice?

a.	Art I	c.	Art II
b.	Art III	d.	there are no established qualifications to become a justice on the Supreme Court

15.

The President usually appoints judges to the Supreme Court

a.	who share his philosophy	c.	who served previously on lower courts
b.	who are in the same political party	d.	all of these are true

16.

All religions are represented equally on the Supreme Court

true

false

17.

Most judges appointed to the Supreme Court are

a.	in their forties	c.	in their sixties
b.	in their fifties	d.	in their thirties

Ideology and Judicial Appointments

The power to nominate Supreme Court justices belongs solely to the president. This is not to say, however, that the president's nominations are always confirmed . In fact, almost 20 percent of presidential nominations to the Supreme Court have been either rejected or not acted upon by the Senate . Many bitter battles over Supreme Court appointments have occurred when the Senate and the president have not seen eye to eye about political matters .

From the beginning of Andrew Jackson's presidency in 1829 to the end of Ulysses S. Grant's presidency in 1877, the U.S . Senate often refused to confirm the president's judicial nominations. During the long period from 1893 until 1968, the Senate rejected only three Court nominees. From 1968 through 1986, however, there were two rejections of presidential nominees to the highest court. These persons had been nominated by President Richard Nixon.

President Ronald Reagan had two of his nominees for a Supreme Court vacancy rejected by the Senate . Both were then judges in the courts of appeals. In 1987, he nominated Robert Bork, who faced sometimes hostile questioning by the Senate on his views of the Constitution. Next, Reagan nominated Douglas Ginsburg . Ginsburg ultimately withdrew his nomination when the press leaked information about his alleged use of marijuana during the 1970s. Finally, the Senate approved Reagan's third choice, Anthony Kennedy. President George Bush nominated two justices to the Supreme Court-David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Both were confirmed . In 1993, the Senate confirmed President Bill Clinton's nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who became the second woman to sit on the Supreme Court (the first was Sandra Day O'Connor, who was appointed by President Reagan in 1981) . In 1994, Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer, who was also confirmed without significant opposition.

Ideology plays an important role in the president's choices for the Supreme Court. It also plays a large role in whether or not the Senate confirms those choices. Political party affiliation is an important part of ideology where presidential appointments are concerned. In the long history of the U.S. Supreme Court, fewer than 14 percent of the justices nominated by a president have been from an opposing political party.

18.

Which statement is true

a.	the Senate is not allowed to consider the ideology of the candidates to the Supreme Court	c.	the Senate seldom argues over the ideology of the nominees to the Supreme Court
b.	none of these are true	d.	the Senate usually argues over the ideology of the nominees to the Supreme Court

Multiple Response
Identify one or more choices that best complete the statement or answer the question.

19.

Which judges did Bill Clinton appoint to the Supreme Court? (pick 2)

20.

Which judges did Ronald Reagan appoint to the Supreme Court? (Pick 2)

21.

Who approves or rejects the judges that the President appoints to the Supreme Court?

a.	The House Judiciary Committee	c.	The Attorney General
b.	The Senate of the United States	d.	This is a power that the President exercises alone

Fedral Courts as policy makers

The framers probably expected the Supreme Court to play an important role in the national government. Yet they surely did not expect the federal courts to play such a large role in public policymaking. Indeed, in Federalist Paper Number 78, Alexander Hamilton stated that "the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power." Certainly, during its first decade, the Supreme Court handled few important matters . In 1800, John Jay refused to serve a second term as chief justice . He explained why in a letter to President John Adams:

I left the [Supreme Court] perfectly convinced that under a system so defective it [the Court] could not obtain the energy, weight, and dignity which are essential to its afford- ing due support to the national government ; nor acquire the public confidence and respect which, as a last resort of the justice of a nation, it should possess

Clearly, things have changed since then. Today, the courts play a significant policymaking role in government.

22.

Which statement is true

a.	the courts play no policy making role in the U.S. Governemnt	c.	the courts play an important policy making role in government today
b.	the courts play a policy making role in state government but not federal government	d.	the courts no longer play an important policy making role

How Do the Courts Make Policy?

The function of the courts, of course, is to interpret and apply the law, not to make the laws-that is what the legislative branch of government does . Yet judges do make law. At times, this is unavoidable. For example, sometimes courts hear cases that are not covered by any law that currently exists. This may happen when new technology, such as the Internet, leads to disputes that are not covered by existing law. In such cases, a Supreme Court decision may become the law until Congress passes legislation to cover the matter. Perhaps the most important policymaking tool of the courts, however, is the power of judicial review. This is particularly true of the Supreme Court.

Judicial review is the process by which a court determines whether or not a law is contrary to the mandates of the Constitution. The courts have the authority and power to determine whether a particular law violates the Constitution.

The Constitution did not specifically provide for judicial review. Most constitutional scholars, however, believe that the framers intended the federal courts to have this power. In Federalist Paper Number 78, for example, Alexander Hamilton stressed the importance of the "complete independence" of federal judges and their special duty to "invalidate all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution ." Hamilton thought that without judicial review, there would be nothing to ensure that the other branches of government stayed within their constitutional limits when exercising their powers .

Chief Justice John Marshall shared these views. In 1803, Marshall claimed this power for the Courts . In Marbury v. Madison

23.

What happens when the Supreme Court hears cases not covered by any law?

a.	The court does not hear cases not covered by any law	c.	They are unable to act until Congres passes a law on the matter
b.	The courts decision becomes law until Congress gets around to passing a law	d.	All cases are covered by law

24.

What is “judicial review?”

a.	the ability of the Supreme Court to say whether or not a law is constitutional	c.	the ability of the court to pass laws in congress
b.	the ability of the State Courts to say whether or not a federal law is constitutional	d.	the ability of the court to review laws before they are submitted to congress

25.

What case gave the Supreme Court the power to exercise judicial review?

a.	Brown v Board of Education	c.	Plessy v Ferguson
b.	U.S, v Microsoft	d.	Marbury v Madison

26.

Who was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1803?

a.	Earl Warren	c.	Clarance Thomas
b.	John Marshall	d.	Samual Alito

Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Judicial scholars like to characterize Supreme Court justices as being either activist or restraintist. Justices who practice judicial activism believe that the Court should use its power of judicial review to alter the direction of the activities of Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission . Justices who practice judicial restraint believe that the Court should only rarely use its powers of judicial review. In other words, decisions made by popularly elected legislators should not be changed by the Supreme Court, so long as the legislative actions are clearly not unconstitutional

Judicial activism can take either a liberal or a conservative direction. In the early 1930s, for example, the Supreme Court was activist and conservative, ruling that extensive regulation of business was unconstitutional . In the 1950s and 1960s, the Court was activist and liberal. Many of the Court's critics believed it should exercise more restraint. They criticized the 1954 Brown v . Board of Education of Topeka decision (see Chapter 7) on the grounds that the highest court settled a problem of school racial segregation that should have been resolved by Congress or left to the states .

In the 1980s and 1990s, the pendulum seemed to swing again in the other direction. Some contend that the Supreme Court of the 1990s was an activist conservative Court, especially with respect to issues concerning states' rights . In United States v. Lopez (1995), for example, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its constitutional authority under the commerce clause when it passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990. This was the first time in sixty years that the Supreme Court had limited the national government's regulatory authority under the commerce clause .

27.

Justices who practice judicial _____ believe that the Court should use its power of judicial review to alter the direction of the activities of Congress

a.	tolerance	c.	activism
b.	intolerance	d.	restraint

28.

Justices who practice judicial _____ believe that the Court should only rarely use its powers of judicial review

a.	activism	c.	intolerance
b.	restraint	d.	tolerance

29.

What did people who criticized the 1954 Brown v . Board of Education of Topeka decision say?

a.	Plessy v Ferguson is above any current court rulling because it is an older rulling.	c.	the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate education
b.	each shool should decide for itself whether or not it wants to have segregation.	d.	school segregation should be left up to the states or congress

30.

What did the conservative Supreme Court rule in U.S. v lopez?

a.	the Commerce Clause of the Constitution was unconstitutional	c.	the Gun-Free School zones Act was unconstitutional
b.	Guns are unconstitutional	d.	the Gun-Free School zones Act was constitutional

31.

It is safe to say that conservatives want

a.	to limit the power of the federal government	c.	to limit the power of the states
b.	to extend the power of the federal government	d.	to limit the power of individuals

Limits on Congress's powers
.
In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), for example, the Court declared that Congress had exceeded its power when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 . In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court ruled that certain sections of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 unconstitutionally burdened state governments.

Today's courts are sometimes referred to as "mini-legislatures" because of their policymaking powers . The power of the federal courts to shape law is not limited to the Supreme Court. In particular, the federal appellate courts exercise a good deal of policymaking power because their decisions are often final. Unless the Supreme Court overturns an appellate court's decision, the appellate court's decision becomes the law in that judicial circuit. As discussed in Section 3 of this chapter, the Supreme Court does not-and cannot-review all appellate court decisions

Critics contend that the powers of the federal courts should be checked. Currently, there is a movement in Congress to rein in the power of the federal courts, particularly judicial activism . Others, however, believe that there are already enough checks on the power of the courts

32.

Why are todays courts often called mini-legislatures?

a.	because of their policy making powers	c.	because they work to make the legilatures more powerful
b.	because they exercise restraint on the power of the courts	d.	because they work to limit the power of the President

33.

Which statement is true

a.	the appellate courts have no policy making powers	c.	only the Congress has appellate powers
b.	the appellate courts often make policy because their decisions are often final	d.	only the President has the power to overturn a decision made by appelate courts

34.

When is an appellate court decision final

a.	appellate court decisions are never final	c.	when the Supreme Court decides not to review the case
b.	when Congress refuses to review a case	d.	when the President refuses to rule on a case

35.

When the courts become too involved in making law it is called

a.	judicial review	c.	judicial activism
b.	none of these	d.	judicial restraint

What Checks Our Courts?

Our judicial system is probably the most independent in the world. But the courts do not have absolute independence, for they are part of the political process. Political checks limit the extent to which courts can exercise judicial review and make activist changes. These checks are exercised by the legislature, the executive branch, other courts, and the public .

Legislative Checks

Courts may make rulings, but often the funds to carry out those rulings must be appropriated by legislatures at the local, state, and federal levels. When such funds are not appropriated, the courts in effect have been checked . A court, for example, may decide that prison conditions must be improved, but if a legislature does not find the funds to carry out the ruling, the decision has little effect .

Court rulings can also be overturned by constitutional amendments at both the federal and state levels . Many amendments to the U.S. Constitution check the state courts' ability to allow discrimination, for example . Recently, however, proposals to amend the Constitution in order to reverse court decisions on school prayer, flag burning, and abortion have failed .

Finally, legislatures can pass new laws that overturn court rulings. This may happen when a court interprets a statute in a way that Congress did not intend . The legislature can pass a new statute to counter the court's ruling .

36.

Which groups exercise political checks on the courts? (pick 4)

37.

What are ways that the legislature can put limits on the power of the courts? (pick 3)

a.	the legislatures can pass Consitutional Amendments	d.	the legislature can fail to appropriate the money to carry out court decisions
b.	the legislatures can pass laws to overturn court rulings	e.	the legislature can veto a court ruling
c.	the legislature can review all court decisions

Executive Checks

The president has the power to change the direction of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary by appointing new justices and judges whose ideologies are more in line with those of the current administration . Furthermore, a president, governor, or mayor can refuse to enforce a court's rulings . As President Andrew Jackson once said, in response to a ruling by Chief Justice Marshall concerning Native Americans, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."

The Rest of the Judiciary

Higher courts can reverse the decisions of lower courts, but lower courts can also put a check on higher courts . The Supreme Court, for example, cannot possibly hear all of the cases that go through the lower courts . Lower courts can directly or indirectly ignore Supreme Court decisions by deciding in the other direction in particular cases. Only if a case goes to the Supreme Court can the Court correct such a situation.

Public Checks

History has shown members of the Supreme Court that if their decisions are noticeably at odds with public opinion, the Court will lose its support and some of its power. Perhaps the best example was the Dred Scott decision of 1857 . In that decision, the Supreme Court held that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship. The Court ruled, in addition, that the Missouri Compromise banning slavery in the territories was unconstitutional. Most observers contend that the Dred Scott ruling contributed to making the Civil War inevitable.

Observers of the court system believe that the judges' sense of self-preservation forces them to develop self-restraint . Some observers even argue that this self-restraint is more important than the other checks previously discussed.

38.

What are two ways the executive can check judicial power? (pick 2)

a.	refuse to enforce the court ruling	c.	appoint new judges
b.	revise the constitution	d.	pass new laws

39.

How can lower courts check higher courts?

a.	lower courts rule first and the first ruling always stands	c.	higher courts and lower courts never hear the same cases
b.	often the higher courts cannot hear cases from the lower courts so the lower court ruling stands	d.	all of these are true

40.

According to the passage above

a.	public opinion has a strong effect on the judges in the courts	c.	judges are always elected and always try to please the public
b.	public opinion has no effect on court decisons	d.	none of these are true