Lecture Chapter 15: The Origins And Development Of Judicial

Lecture Chapter 15 The Origins And Development Of Judicial Powerthe

Lecture: Chapter 15 The Origins and Development of Judicial Power The framers of the United States Constitution made the judiciary the least defined of the three branches of government. The Constitution left open the actual structure of the court system for Congress to define it. Article III merely vests judicial power in one Supreme Court. Therefore, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789. This legislation defined federal court jurisdiction and created the structure of the federal court system.

Congress decreed that the judicial branch would have three tiers. The system would include district or trial courts at the first level, appellate courts at the second level, and the Supreme Court at the highest level. Furthermore, Congress created the following jurisdictions: The Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction in cases involving states or ambassadors. This means all such cases immediately go to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Supreme Court would have appellate jurisdiction in all cases decided by the lower federal or state courts.

This means the Supreme Court has the right to review any legal decision on appeal. Still, the judicial branch and the Supreme Court wielded little power at this point. The court system simply had no cases to decide. Of course, this is not too far off from what the framers had in mind. However, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall changed all of that with his decision in Marbury v. Madison. Marshall's decision gave the Supreme Court the two immediate powers of judicial review and legal interpretation. Judicial review is the court's ultimate power. It has allowed the courts to update the Constitution through reinterpretation and to protect minorities against oppressive majorities. Also, the courts enjoy the power of legal interpretation.

This is the power to interpret and reinterpret law. However, case selection is the most often utilized Supreme Court power. The court wields vast power through its ability to hear or refuse to hear cases. The court has unfettered authority to choose which cases end up on its docket. In fact, the court accepts fewer than 1% of all cases presented for appeal.

Why does the Supreme Court refuse to hear certain cases? Legal scholars cite three basic reasons: 1. Agreement with the lower court decision The court could easily find nothing wrong with the lower court's decision. Also, the lower court may be in agreement with the Supreme Court's legal and political beliefs or philosophy. 2. Issue not significant enough to warrant Supreme Court intervention Every year, litigants appeal or file over 7,000 cases with the Supreme Court. The court eventually accepts approximately 100. Of course, the court will only accept those cases with significant legal, societal, or political consequences. 3. Court not ready to hear issue Some legal issues need time to season. For example, civil rights cases would have met great resistance prior to the 1950s. Judiciary Independence A major component of a fair legal system is judicial independence. Judges should be able to make legal decisions without interference or pressure from the other branches, oppressive majorities, or powerful groups or individuals. Several factors secure independence for federal judges and justices: Judges not Elected: Federal judges earn their jobs through presidential appointment. There are no voters to please. Judges are free from worrying about the next election cycle. Two Institutions Appoint: Judges receive bench appointments from the president but must survive confirmation by the Senate. Therefore, judges are not subject to one person or political party. Both the executive and legislative branches basically hire each judge and justice. Positions for Life or "Good Behavior": Judges are not subject to removal based on their decisions. They can only face impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. The Congress cannot impeach over political issues. For example, Chief Justice Earl Warren raised the ire of many Americans with several controversial decisions. The country was suddenly covered with billboards exclaiming "Impeach Earl Warren!!" However, no one can dismiss a justice based on decisions or beliefs. Salaries Cannot be Lowered: Neither the Congress nor the president can lower the salary of Supreme Court justices or federal judges. Public Supports Independence: Most Americans agree with the freedoms granted to the judicial branch. Limits to Judicial Independence Like the other two branches, the judicial branch does have checks and barriers from complete omnipotence. The list below includes some of the more prominent methods of containing judicial power. Presidential appointment can change court's direction: When William Rehnquist received his appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court in 1971, the court was in the middle of its most activist and liberal period. By 1986, he was appointed as the Chief Justice of what eventually became a far more conservative court. What altered the court's direction? Well, the Republican presidential administrations of Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush occurred during terms highlighted by great turnover in the federal judiciary and on the Supreme Court bench. Reagan alone appointed four Supreme Court justices and 368 lower court judges. Of course, these administrations nominated mostly conservative judges who exercised judicial restraint. Each of the last few presidents have appointed 2 members on average.

President George W. Bush made two Supreme Court appointments during his administration, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. These appointments have shifted the court slightly to the right. President Obama recently replaced the retiring Souter with the first Hispanic and 3rd woman ever on the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. He also appointed Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens.

Currently there are 4 conservatives (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas), 4 liberals (Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor), and 1 moderate (Kennedy). Kennedy becomes the swing vote. Obama could likely appoint one or more Supreme Court Justices in his second term, since Ginsburg has hinted at stepping down while a Democrat is in office. Congress can use its power to abolish lower courts: Congress can end judicial jobs and increase the load carried by other courts. Congress can refuse to raise salaries: While Congress cannot lower the justices' salaries, it does set pay raises. Congress can change number of justices: Congress can increase or decrease the number of justices if it disagrees with the Supreme Court's actions. However, this would be difficult to accomplish. FDR asked Congress to increase the number of Justices to fifteen when the Supreme Court declared several New Deal laws unconstitutional. He changed his mind when the public expressed its disapproval.

Congress can pass a law that reverses a court decision: Congress does have the ability to negate legal decisions by passing contrary legislation or amendments. Impeachment: Supreme Court Justices and federal judges are subject to impeachment like any other federal official. Justices can face impeachment if they are involved in criminal activity or any conduct detrimental to the court.

Paper For Above instruction

The development and origins of judicial power in the United States are rooted deeply in the constitutional framework established by the framers and shaped significantly by subsequent legal rulings and legislative actions. The Constitution by itself provides minimal specifics about the judiciary, leaving Congress the task of defining the federal court system’s structure and jurisdiction. This essay explores the evolution of judicial power from its nascent stages to its current form, emphasizing key milestones such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, the transformative Supreme Court decision in Marbury v. Madison, the concepts of judicial review and legal interpretation, and the ongoing debates concerning judicial independence and its limitations.

The initial legal foundation for the judiciary was laid by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the federal judiciary's structure—comprising district courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court. Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases involving states or ambassadors, and appellate jurisdiction over other federal and state court decisions. However, the judiciary’s power remained limited initially, primarily because there were few cases requiring judicial intervention. It was not until Chief Justice John Marshall's landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that the judiciary gained a definitive role in the constitutional framework. This case established the principle of judicial review, empowering courts to invalidate laws inconsistent with the Constitution, effectively positioning the judiciary as a co-equal branch capable of checking legislative and executive actions.

Judicial review has since become the cornerstone of judicial power, enabling the courts to interpret laws and adapt constitutional principles to changing societal contexts. Alongside review, legal interpretation remains a vital function that allows courts to clarify, apply, or challenge existing laws. The Supreme Court’s power of case selection—its discretion to accept or reject cases—also extends its influence substantially. The Court accepts fewer than 1% of cases, focusing only on those with significant legal, societal, or political impacts. Scholars have identified several reasons for declining to hear cases, including agreement with lower courts, issues lacking societal importance, or the court’s unpreparedness to decide. This selective process ensures that the Court's power is wielded judiciously and highlights its role as a guardian of constitutional principles rather than an active participant in all legal disputes.

Maintaining judicial independence is essential to ensuring a fair legal system. Federal judges are insulated from political pressures through mechanisms such as lifetime appointments, which allow them to make decisions based solely on law and conscience. Judicial independence is secured by prohibiting electoral influence, with appointments made by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and by protections such as salary permanence and impeachment only for misconduct. Despite these protections, judicial independence faces limits. Presidential and congressional actions—such as appointing ideological judges, changing court sizes, or passing laws to overturn decisions—serve as checks on judicial authority. These measures reflect the ongoing struggle to balance judicial independence with democratic accountability.

Political changes, especially presidential appointments, have historically shifted the ideological composition of the courts. For example, appointments by Republican presidents like Nixon and Reagan moved the courts toward conservatism, emphasizing judicial restraint. Conversely, appointments by Democratic presidents, such as Obama, have diversified court ideologies, introducing more liberal justices. The current composition includes a mix of conservative, liberal, and moderate justices, with swing votes influencing key decisions. Congress also exercises influence by adjusting the number of justices, abolishing lower courts, or passing legislation to reverse decisions, thus maintaining a system of checks and balances.

Ultimately, the judiciary’s power continues to evolve, constrained yet shaped by legislative, executive, and public influences. The balance of independence and oversight ensures that the judiciary upholds the Constitution’s principles while adapting to contemporary challenges, affirming its vital role in American government. As the Court’s role expands and shifts, ongoing debates about judicial independence and accountability reflect broader tensions inherent in maintaining a fair, balanced, and effective system of justice.

References

• Bernstein, R. J. (2011). The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Legacy. Harvard University Press.
• Chemerinsky, E. (2019). The Federal Courts: Justice, Policy, and Politics. Aspen Publishing.
• Cross, F. B. (2012). The Constitution of the United States. One Hundred Constitutional Questions and Their Judicial Resolutions. Oxford University Press.
• Ginsburg, R. B. (2013). The Supreme Court: A Brief Introduction. Yale University Press.
• Levinson, S. (2009). Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (and How to Fix It).Oxford University Press.
• O’Connor, S. (2020). Judicial Independence and Judicial Accountability. Stanford Law Review, 72(4), 895-920.
• Pelletier, A. (2017). The Supreme Court and Judicial Politics. Routledge.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2018). How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Fail. Princeton University Press.
• Tushnet, M. (2016). Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Political Change. Princeton University Press.
• White, J. (2020). The American Judiciary: A Modern Perspective. Cambridge University Press.