The Supreme Court’s Authority and Role

Section 1. The Power of Judicial Review

Marbury v. Madison

The Authority of the Supreme Court’s Judicial Review of Acts done by other gov. bodies is a case by case matter which depends on the nature of the act in question

The Ct.’s job/duty is to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the exec or congress perform their duties in which they have a discretion.

Political natured questions or questions that by the constitution and reserved to the other branches are NOT REVIEWABLE (A political act is one by which its very nature is one of discretion)

No legislative act contrary to the written or implied constitution can be valid and it can be reviewed by the Court.

The Court was designed to be an intermediary between the people and their elected officials.

The interpretation of the law is the “proper and peculiar province of the courts”

Absent a const. amend the written language of Const. can’t be trumped

Marshall used canons of construc. And Art. III to grant sup ct. original jurisdiction not just appellate.

Section 2. Supreme Court Authority to Review State Court Judgments

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee

§25 of Judiciary Act of 1789 provides Supreme Court review of final decisions of the highest State Courts

“it is the case and not the court that gives jurisdiction”

State and state judges are bound by the constitution

NEVER SAY THAT THE POWER COULD BE ABUSED, this isn’t an argument

Section 3. Judicial Exclusivity in Constitutional Interpretation

Cooper v. Aaron

Art. VI of Const. makes the Const. the “Supreme Law of the Land” (anything in the Const. or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”)

Very Broad and Strong Marbury reading

So Supreme Court decisions interpreting the constitution are also the “supreme law of the land”

A federal law MAY NOT overturn a constitutional decision

Political Restraints On the Supreme Court

Judicial Selection: The Nomination and Confirmation Process

The Pres. Nominates Justices but Art. III §2, cl.2 says that the appointment won’t be effective unless the Senate approves it.

So it used to be the view that the Senate could reject a nominee only on grounds of incompetence or defects in character or temperament

But now (since Reagan) have a Judiciary Committee which feels free to probe even ideology but it doesn’t always make a difference cause nominee usually refuses talk about it.

Impeachment:

Jusitces appointed to the ct “to hold their offices during good behavior” but Art. IV says officer of US. may be removed from office by Impeachment for and conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and misdemeanors

So ideology isn’t a proper ground for impeachment and there has never been a Justice impeached.

Court Packing:

Congress has power to set the size of and budget for the Court & this can be a potential source of political checking on the courts power

(ie. setting the time at which the Court meets can be used to serve political means, increase # or justices, etc)

Court Stripping:

Congress, under Art. III §2, has the power to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction

There have been failed congressional proposals to eliminate the Court’s appellate jurisdicition in such controversial areas and busing, abortion, and school prayer.

Internal Limits: Cong. Can’t remove the essential functions of the ct or do anything to destroy the essential role of the Sup. Ct., in the const. plan.

External Limits: Cong couldn’t bar Sup Ct. review by excluding certain litigants on the basis of race or political beliefs.

Constitutional Amendment

Art. V specifies 2 ways for Amend. Const:

1^st: Congress, by 2/3 vote, proposes amend which must be ratified by of the States

2^nd: 2/3 States apply to Congress to call a Constitutional Convention (never tried)

An amend to text of const. to reject a sup. Ct. ruling binds the Court and supersedes its prior decision.

Only done 4 times: (1) 11^th Amend overruled Chisholm v. Georgia & gave states immunity against certain suits in Fed ct. (2) 14^th Amend reversed Dred Scott decision & gave citizenship to former slaves (3) 16^th Amend circumvented Pollack v. Farms Loan to permit a fed income tax (4)26^th Amend overturned Oregon v. Mitchell & requires states to grant voting rights to 18 yr. olds.

Section 4. Constitutional & Prudential Limits on Constitutional Adjudication: The “Case or Controversy” Requirments

Art. III, §2,cl. 1 of Const. provides that the judicial power shall extend to a list of enumerated “cases” + “controversies”

So this implies that Judicial power doesn’t extend to anything but a case or controversy:

Must be concrete and non-hypothetical (ie. no advisory opinions merely)

Must involve parties claiming actual injury that is personal & concrete to them (ie. standing to sue)

Must arise neither too late or too soon for judicial resolution (ie. mootness /ripeness)

If involves a nonjusticiable political question, then it is committed rather to unreviewable discretion of another branch

Advisory Opinions: Opinions on the legality of executive or legislative action that don’t involve an actual case

Mootness & Ripeness: limits adjudication pertinent to the timing of lawsuits

Mootness: a case is moot when changing circumstances developing after the initiation of the suit have ended the controversy so that a court no longer confronts a live dispute

An actual controversy must exist at all stages of review

Some exceptions: (cases capable of repetition yet evading review, ex. Roe v. Wade due to time constraints)

Doctrine prevents parties from manipulating courts

Ripeness: A case isn’t ripe when it is brought too soon, when the parties haven’t yet reached a concrete confrontation

Typical problem arises in situations in between, especially in requests for anticipatory relief

Ripeness decisions can be made on Art. III grounds or on prudential, discretionary, or remedial grounds

Political Questions:

1^st: Marbury disavowed...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law Outlines.