THE SUPREME COURTTHE SUPREME COURTOF THE UNITED STATESOF THE UNITED STATES

UNIT 17UNIT 17

PreviewPreview

HistoryHistory Sources of law in the USASources of law in the USA State and federal courtsState and federal courts Jurisdiction of the Supreme CourtJurisdiction of the Supreme Court Judicial appointmentsJudicial appointments CasesCases

THE COLONIAL PERIODTHE COLONIAL PERIOD

Judicial functions: closely intertwined, Judicial functions: closely intertwined, often even fused, with legislative and often even fused, with legislative and executive onesexecutive ones

The hightest court: the royal council, The hightest court: the royal council, which was also the upper house of which was also the upper house of the legislaturethe legislature

CONFEDERAL PERIODCONFEDERAL PERIOD

During the Confederation period: 13 During the Confederation period: 13 independent state legal systems; independent state legal systems;

No unifying national judiciaryNo unifying national judiciary The Founding Fathers: each state would The Founding Fathers: each state would

maintain its own court system, but maintain its own court system, but national legal uniformity had to be creatednational legal uniformity had to be created

THE CONSTITUTIONTHE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution “shall be the The Constitution “shall be the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI) supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI) providing for a national judiciary providing for a national judiciary (Article III)(Article III)

Established the Supreme Court at the Established the Supreme Court at the top of the national system and left top of the national system and left the creation of other federal courts to the creation of other federal courts to CongressCongress

State courts – established under State courts – established under state responsibilitystate responsibility

SOURCES OF LAW IN THE U.S.SOURCES OF LAW IN THE U.S.

The ConstitutionThe Constitution Common lawCommon law StatutesStatutes TreatiesTreaties

Dual Structure of CourtsDual Structure of Courts

State and federalState and federal Jurisdiction often overlaps: a single act Jurisdiction often overlaps: a single act

can violate both federal and state lawcan violate both federal and state law 5th Amendment prohibits double 5th Amendment prohibits double

jeopardy – retrial on the same charge jeopardy – retrial on the same charge after an acquittal; trial in both a state after an acquittal; trial in both a state and a federal court has not ben and a federal court has not ben interpreted as constituting double interpreted as constituting double jeopardyjeopardy

State courtsState courts

Inferior or Petty Trial Courts (minor Inferior or Petty Trial Courts (minor civil or criminal matters; JPs)civil or criminal matters; JPs)

General Trial Courts (criminal and General Trial Courts (criminal and civil cases)civil cases)

State Courts of AppealState Courts of Appeal State Supreme courtState Supreme court

FEDERAL COURT SYSTEMFEDERAL COURT SYSTEM

District CourtsDistrict Courts Courts of AppealsCourts of Appeals The Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court

District courtsDistrict courts

94 district courts94 district courts Trial courts of the federal judiciaryTrial courts of the federal judiciary Jurisdiction where a federal law, the Jurisdiction where a federal law, the

Constitution or treaties applyConstitution or treaties apply Civil and criminal federal cases at Civil and criminal federal cases at

first instancefirst instance

FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALSFEDERAL COURTS OF APPEALS

Cases on appeal from district courts; no Cases on appeal from district courts; no jury, no witnessesjury, no witnesses

1) irregularities such as prejudice by the 1) irregularities such as prejudice by the court, use of illegal evidence, or other court, use of illegal evidence, or other violations of Constitutional rights, 2) violations of Constitutional rights, 2) constitutionality of a lawconstitutionality of a law

Decisions made by a panel of three or Decisions made by a panel of three or more judgesmore judges

In most cases, decisions are accepted as In most cases, decisions are accepted as final, thereby ending the casefinal, thereby ending the case

The Supreme Court’s Threefold The Supreme Court’s Threefold RoleRole

To maintain the supremacy of the To maintain the supremacy of the ConstitutionConstitution

To ensure the uniform interpretation To ensure the uniform interpretation of federal lawof federal law

To resolve controversies between To resolve controversies between states or between a state and the USstates or between a state and the US

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATESUNITED STATES

Apellate jurisdiction: considers only Apellate jurisdiction: considers only cases involving new or important cases involving new or important legal principleslegal principles

Original jurisdiction: cases involving Original jurisdiction: cases involving ambassadors, foreign ministers, and ambassadors, foreign ministers, and consuls, disputes between statesconsuls, disputes between states

Judicial reviewJudicial review

JUDICIAL REVIEWJUDICIAL REVIEW

The power of the Supreme Court:The power of the Supreme Court: 1) to determine whether laws are in 1) to determine whether laws are in

harmony with the Constitution and harmony with the Constitution and 2) for such laws as are in conflict 2) for such laws as are in conflict

with the Constitution, to declare with the Constitution, to declare them invalid, void, and them invalid, void, and unconstitutionalunconstitutional

The American JudiciaryThe American Judiciary

Selected by appointment or electionSelected by appointment or election Federal judges: nomination by the Federal judges: nomination by the

President, confirmation by the SenatePresident, confirmation by the Senate All federal judges are appointed to All federal judges are appointed to

serve during “good behavior” – life-serve during “good behavior” – life-time appointmenttime appointment

Impeachment – the only means of Impeachment – the only means of removalremoval

Judicial appointmentsJudicial appointments

Franklin Roosevelt: 9Franklin Roosevelt: 9 Richard Nixon: 4Richard Nixon: 4 Gerald Ford: 1Gerald Ford: 1 Ronald Reagan: 3Ronald Reagan: 3

ArticlesArticles

Article I: The Legislative BranchArticle I: The Legislative Branch Article II: The Executive BranchArticle II: The Executive Branch Article III: The Judicial Branch (1. The Article III: The Judicial Branch (1. The

Federal Courts: Supreme and Lower Federal Courts: Supreme and Lower Courts; Tenure and Salary of Judges, Courts; Tenure and Salary of Judges, 2. Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 3. 2. Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, 3. Treason)Treason)

Article IV: Relations Among the States Article IV: Relations Among the States and with the Federal Governmentand with the Federal Government

ArticlesArticles

Article V: Proposing and Ratifying Article V: Proposing and Ratifying Amendments to the ConstitutionAmendments to the Constitution

Article VI: Miscellaneous ProvisionsArticle VI: Miscellaneous Provisions Article VII: Ratification of the Article VII: Ratification of the

Constitution: Assent Required of Nine Constitution: Assent Required of Nine StatesStates

AmendmentsAmendmentsThe Bill of Rights (1791)The Bill of Rights (1791)

I : Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, I : Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and PetitionAssembly, and Petition

II : Right to a State Militia and to Bear II : Right to a State Militia and to Bear ArmsArms

III : Regulations for Quartering of III : Regulations for Quartering of TroopsTroops

IV : No Unreasonable Searches and No IV : No Unreasonable Searches and No Vague Search WarrantsVague Search Warrants

V : Rights of Accused Persons; V : Rights of Accused Persons; Protection of Private PropertyProtection of Private Property

AmendmentsAmendmentsThe Bill of Rights (1791)The Bill of Rights (1791)

VI : Further Rights of Accused PersonsVI : Further Rights of Accused Persons VII : Trial by Jury in Most Civil CasesVII : Trial by Jury in Most Civil Cases VIII : No Excessive Bail or Cruel VIII : No Excessive Bail or Cruel

PunishmentPunishment IX : Unlisted Rights Reserved to the IX : Unlisted Rights Reserved to the

PeoplePeople X: Powers Reserved to the States or X: Powers Reserved to the States or

PeoplePeople

Fifth AmendmentFifth Amendment

A person accused of a crime may not A person accused of a crime may not be tried twice for the sam offence: no be tried twice for the sam offence: no double jeopardydouble jeopardy

He may not be compelled to be a He may not be compelled to be a witness against himselfwitness against himself: no self-: no self-incriminationincrimination

No person may “be deprived of life, No person may “be deprived of life, liberty, or property without liberty, or property without due due process of lawprocess of law

Sixth AmendmentSixth Amendment

Rights of accused persons:Rights of accused persons: Right to a speedy trial, to impartial Right to a speedy trial, to impartial

jury, defense counceljury, defense councel To know the charges against him, To know the charges against him,

confront hostile witnesses, and confront hostile witnesses, and obtain friendly witnessesobtain friendly witnesses

PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIESLIBERTIES

Rights and liberties – duties: Rights and liberties – duties: Freedom of speech: duty to speak honestly and Freedom of speech: duty to speak honestly and

with a full knowledge of the factswith a full knowledge of the facts Freedom of religion: duty to respect the freedom Freedom of religion: duty to respect the freedom

of others whose religion is different of others whose religion is different The right to vote: duty to know the candidates The right to vote: duty to know the candidates

and the issues in an electionand the issues in an election The right to trial by jury: duty to respond willingly The right to trial by jury: duty to respond willingly

when called for jury servicewhen called for jury service

Major Supreme Court RulingsMajor Supreme Court Rulings

CaseCase AmendmentAmendment EffectEffect

Miranda v. Miranda v. ArizonaArizona

(1966)(1966)

5th, 6th5th, 6th Confessions not Confessions not

admissible unlessadmissible unless

warnings givenwarnings given

Klopfer v. North Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)Carolina (1967)

6th6th Speedy trial must be Speedy trial must be

guaranteed in all courtsguaranteed in all courts

Benton v. Benton v. Maryland (1969)Maryland (1969)

5th5th Prohibition against Prohibition against

double jeopardydouble jeopardy

DECLARING FEDERAL LAWS DECLARING FEDERAL LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857)Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857)

IssueIssue: Dred Scott, a negro slave, taken by : Dred Scott, a negro slave, taken by his master to the Minnesota region his master to the Minnesota region (according to the 1820 Missouri (according to the 1820 Missouri Compromise a free territory)Compromise a free territory)

Then brought back to Missouri, a slave Then brought back to Missouri, a slave state. state.

To create a test case, the abolitionists had To create a test case, the abolitionists had Dred Scott sue for his freedom on the Dred Scott sue for his freedom on the grounds that his residence in free territory grounds that his residence in free territory had made him a free manhad made him a free man

Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857))

DecisionDecision: Chief Justice Roger Taney : Chief Justice Roger Taney stated that a Negro slave was not a citizen stated that a Negro slave was not a citizen and could not bring suit for his freedom in and could not bring suit for his freedom in a federal court. a federal court.

This statement would have sufficed to This statement would have sufficed to conclude the case. Taney, however, conclude the case. Taney, however, wanted to end the slavery controversy by wanted to end the slavery controversy by a judicial pronouncement.a judicial pronouncement.

Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857Dred Scott vs. Sanford (1857))

Conclusions: Conclusions: A) slaves are propertyA) slaves are property B) Congress may not deprive any person B) Congress may not deprive any person

of the right to take property into federal of the right to take property into federal territories, and consequently:territories, and consequently:

C) The Missouri Compromise, a federal law C) The Missouri Compromise, a federal law which prohibited slavery in part of the which prohibited slavery in part of the Louisiana Territory, was declared Louisiana Territory, was declared unconstitutionalunconstitutional

CONSEQUENCESCONSEQUENCES

--The South elated, the North indignantThe South elated, the North indignant

- - Northern newspapers: the decision “is the Northern newspapers: the decision “is the Moral Assassination of a Race and Cannot be Moral Assassination of a Race and Cannot be Obeyed”Obeyed”

- The decision:- The decision:

1) blackened Taney’s reputation, 1) blackened Taney’s reputation,

2) did not prevent the Civil War, 2) did not prevent the Civil War,

3) temporarily weakened but did not destroy 3) temporarily weakened but did not destroy the power and prestige of the Supreme the power and prestige of the Supreme Court.Court.

DECLARING STATE LAWS DECLARING STATE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL: UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824)Gibbons vs. Ogden (1824)

IssueIssue: Aaron Ogden, operating under a : Aaron Ogden, operating under a New York State monopoly grant, ran a New York State monopoly grant, ran a ferry on the Hudson River between New ferry on the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey. York and New Jersey.

Thomas Gibbons ran a competing line Thomas Gibbons ran a competing line under a federal license. under a federal license.

Ogden sued to halt Gibbons; won in the Ogden sued to halt Gibbons; won in the New York State court New York State court

The case - appealed to the Supreme CourtThe case - appealed to the Supreme Court

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

Decision:Decision: New York’s grant of a Hudson New York’s grant of a Hudson River monopoly to Ogden declared invalid. River monopoly to Ogden declared invalid.

The grant violated the Constitution’s The grant violated the Constitution’s delegation of interstate commerce to delegation of interstate commerce to federal control. federal control.

The decision prepared the way for federal The decision prepared the way for federal regulation of railroads, buses, airlines, regulation of railroads, buses, airlines, radio and television broadcasting, radio and television broadcasting, business organizations, etc. when engaged business organizations, etc. when engaged in interstate commercein interstate commerce

AMENDMENT XIV AMENDMENT XIV Protection of Civil Liberties Against State Protection of Civil Liberties Against State

Infringment (1868)Infringment (1868) Section 1. Definition of Citizenship: Section 1. Definition of Citizenship:

Due Process of Law and Equal Due Process of Law and Equal Protection of the LawsProtection of the Laws. All persons born . All persons born or naturalized in the United States and or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the lawsprotection of the laws

REVERSALSREVERSALSSegregation: Plessy vs. Ferguson Segregation: Plessy vs. Ferguson

(1896)(1896) The Supreme Court by 8 to 1 held The Supreme Court by 8 to 1 held

constitutional a Louisiana law requiring constitutional a Louisiana law requiring segregation by race of railroad passengers; segregation by race of railroad passengers;

did not violate the “equal protection of the did not violate the “equal protection of the laws”clause in the 14th Amendment (1868) laws”clause in the 14th Amendment (1868) provided that facilities were separate but equalprovided that facilities were separate but equal

The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan: that the separation of citizens on the Harlan: that the separation of citizens on the basis of race is inconsistent with equality basis of race is inconsistent with equality before the law: “our Constitution is color-blind, before the law: “our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”citizens.”

Brown vs. Board of Education of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)Topeka (1954)

Mexican-American children – kept in Mexican-American children – kept in segregated schools with inferior segregated schools with inferior facilitiesfacilities

Chicano leaders demanded Chicano leaders demanded upgrading of facilities, bilingual upgrading of facilities, bilingual teachers: instruction in Spanish, the teachers: instruction in Spanish, the teaching of English as a second teaching of English as a second language, courses in Chicano history language, courses in Chicano history and cultureand culture

Brown vs. Board of Education of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)Topeka (1954)

The Supreme Court unanimously The Supreme Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public held that racial segregation in public schools violated the Fourteenth schools violated the Fourteenth AmendmentAmendment

Southern state legislatures protested Southern state legislatures protested that the Federal Government has no that the Federal Government has no Constitutional power over educationConstitutional power over education

States – control education, but must States – control education, but must provide all children with “equal provide all children with “equal protection of the law”protection of the law”

Brown vs. Board of Education of Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)Topeka (1954)

““We conclude that, in the field of public We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the equal protection of laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” Amendment”

PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIESPROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIESFreedom of Speech and Press: Freedom of Speech and Press:

Feiner vs. New York (1951)Feiner vs. New York (1951) IssueIssue: Irving Feiner, a university student, : Irving Feiner, a university student,

urged Negroes to “rise up in arms and urged Negroes to “rise up in arms and fight for their rights” fight for their rights”

Requested by the police to stop, he Requested by the police to stop, he refused and was arrested. refused and was arrested.

F. appealed his conviction for disorderly F. appealed his conviction for disorderly conduct as a violation of his freedom of conduct as a violation of his freedom of speechspeech

Feiner vs. New York (1951)Feiner vs. New York (1951)

By a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme By a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the convictionCourt upheld the conviction

Speaking for the majority, Chief Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Fred Vinson declared that Justice Fred Vinson declared that Feiner had attempted “incitement to Feiner had attempted “incitement to riot” and created a “clear danger of riot” and created a “clear danger of public disorder”public disorder”

Freedom of ReligionFreedom of ReligionEngel vs. Vitale (1962)Engel vs. Vitale (1962)

Issue: Steven Engel and other Issue: Steven Engel and other parents, representing various parents, representing various religious views, sued to stop the New religious views, sued to stop the New Hyde Park, New York, school board Hyde Park, New York, school board from requiring their children to recite from requiring their children to recite a short, nondenominational prayer. a short, nondenominational prayer. The parents claimed that by the so-The parents claimed that by the so-called “Regents’ Prayer”, New York called “Regents’ Prayer”, New York State was “establishing” a religionState was “establishing” a religion

Engel vs. VitaleEngel vs. Vitale

Majority opinion: that the “Regents’ Majority opinion: that the “Regents’ Prayer” was a religious activity Prayer” was a religious activity sponsored by New York State and that sponsored by New York State and that while not a “total establishment of while not a “total establishment of one particular religious sect to the one particular religious sect to the exclusion of all others,” it was a exclusion of all others,” it was a dangerous step in violation of the First dangerous step in violation of the First AmendmentAmendment

The Supreme Court, by 6 to 1, held The Supreme Court, by 6 to 1, held the “Regents’ Prayer” unconstitutionalthe “Regents’ Prayer” unconstitutional

Rights of Accused PersonsRights of Accused PersonsMiranda vs. Arizona (1966Miranda vs. Arizona (1966))

Issue: Self-Incrimination and Issue: Self-Incrimination and Right to CounselRight to Counsel

Ernesto Miranda - picked up by the Ernesto Miranda - picked up by the police for kidnapping and assaulting police for kidnapping and assaulting a young woman. a young woman.

Placed in a police lineup, identified Placed in a police lineup, identified by the victim and confessed his guilt. by the victim and confessed his guilt.

His confession- used in court and His confession- used in court and helped to convict himhelped to convict him

Miranda vs. ArizonaMiranda vs. Arizona

The case - appealed on the ground that The case - appealed on the ground that the police had denied the suspect his the police had denied the suspect his Constitutional protection against self-Constitutional protection against self-incriminationincrimination

The majority opinion: before questioning, The majority opinion: before questioning, the police must inform the suspect of his the police must inform the suspect of his rights to remain silent and to legal rights to remain silent and to legal counsel, must provide counsel, and must counsel, must provide counsel, and must warn the suspect that his remarks may be warn the suspect that his remarks may be used against himused against him

CONCLUSION: CONCLUSION: JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONJUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

The Supreme Court – a major role in The Supreme Court – a major role in assuring flexibility in the Constitution byassuring flexibility in the Constitution by

A) judicial review of federal and state A) judicial review of federal and state lawslaws

B) the Supreme Court has proved B) the Supreme Court has proved willing to reverse itself with its newer willing to reverse itself with its newer decisions in many cases reflecting more decisions in many cases reflecting more modern interpretations of the vague modern interpretations of the vague terminology in the Constitutionterminology in the Constitution

Legal termsLegal terms

On the meritsOn the merits refers to a legal refers to a legal decision based on the facts in decision based on the facts in evidence and the law pertaining to evidence and the law pertaining to those facts, because the judge those facts, because the judge considers technical and procedural considers technical and procedural defenses to be overcome or defenses to be overcome or irrelevant.irrelevant.

Legal termsLegal terms

A party to a lawsuitA party to a lawsuit LitigantLitigant A case before a courtA case before a court lawsuitlawsuit The power of a court to hear and The power of a court to hear and

decide a casedecide a case jurisdictionjurisdiction

Legal termsLegal terms

The hearing of a civil or criminal case The hearing of a civil or criminal case before a court of competent before a court of competent jurisdictionjurisdiction

TrialTrial An application for judicial An application for judicial

examination by a higher tribunal of examination by a higher tribunal of the decision of any lower tribunalthe decision of any lower tribunal

appealappeal

Put the verbs into the appriopriate Put the verbs into the appriopriate forms:forms:

All federal judges___(appoint, passive), as All federal judges___(appoint, passive), as ___(spell out) in the Constitution, to serve ___(spell out) in the Constitution, to serve during “good behaviour”. This is effectively during “good behaviour”. This is effectively life-time appointment because impeachment life-time appointment because impeachment ___(be) the only means of removal. Eleven ___(be) the only means of removal. Eleven federal judges ___(impeach, passive), and federal judges ___(impeach, passive), and eight others (resign) in the face of imminent eight others (resign) in the face of imminent impeachment; of the thousands who ___(hold) impeachment; of the thousands who ___(hold) office since 1789 only 4 ___(remove, passive) office since 1789 only 4 ___(remove, passive) following impeachment.following impeachment.

Put the verbs into the appropriate Put the verbs into the appropriate formsforms

In addition, the Constitution In addition, the Constitution ___(provide___(provide)) that their salaries may not that their salaries may not ____(reduce, passive) while they serve. ____(reduce, passive) while they serve. Thus, although the judges ____(choose, Thus, although the judges ____(choose, passive) by a political process – passive) by a political process – nomination by the president and nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate – they confirmation by the Senate – they ___ ___ relativelyrelatively ____(isolate, passive) from ____(isolate, passive) from political pressures once on the bench.political pressures once on the bench.

KeyKey

All federal judges All federal judges are appointedare appointed, as , as spelled outspelled out in the Constitution, to serve in the Constitution, to serve during “good behaviour”. This is effectively during “good behaviour”. This is effectively life-time appointment because life-time appointment because impeachment impeachment isis the only means of removal. the only means of removal. Eleven fedral judges Eleven fedral judges have been have been impeachedimpeached, and eight others , and eight others resignedresigned in in the face of imminent impeachment; of the the face of imminent impeachment; of the thousands who thousands who have heldhave held office since 1789 office since 1789 only 4 only 4 have been removedhave been removed following following impeachment.impeachment.

KeyKey

In addition, the Constitution In addition, the Constitution providesprovides that their salaries may not that their salaries may not be reducedbe reduced while they serve. Thus, while they serve. Thus, although the judges although the judges are chosenare chosen by by a political process – nomination by a political process – nomination by the president and confirmation by the president and confirmation by the Senate – they the Senate – they are are relativelyrelatively isolatedisolated from political pressures from political pressures once on the bench.once on the bench.

Fill in the missing words: appellate, Fill in the missing words: appellate, hear, original, suits,hear, original, suits, triedtried

The United States Supreme Court is The United States Supreme Court is primarily the chief ____ court though primarily the chief ____ court though it has ____jurisdiction (i.e., authority it has ____jurisdiction (i.e., authority to ____ cases not yet ___elsewhere) to ____ cases not yet ___elsewhere) as well. Most original ____ involve a as well. Most original ____ involve a state suing another state, which the state suing another state, which the Court must hear. Court must hear.

Key:Key:

The United States Supreme Court is The United States Supreme Court is primariy the chief primariy the chief appellateappellate court court though it has though it has originaloriginal jurisdiction jurisdiction (i.e., authority to (i.e., authority to hearhear cases not yet cases not yet tried elsewhere) as well. Most tried elsewhere) as well. Most original original suitssuits involve a state suing involve a state suing another state, which the Court must another state, which the Court must hear. hear.

ambassadors, citizens, decided, ambassadors, citizens, decided, diplomatic, Suitsdiplomatic, Suits

___ by a state against the United ___ by a state against the United States, suits by one state against States, suits by one state against aliens or ___ of another state, and aliens or ___ of another state, and those involving ___and other those involving ___and other ___personnel may also originate ___personnel may also originate here. Since the founding of the here. Since the founding of the Supreme Court, only about one Supreme Court, only about one hundred original suits have been___.hundred original suits have been___.

KeyKey

SuitsSuits by a state against the United by a state against the United States, suits by one state against States, suits by one state against aliens or aliens or citizenscitizens of another state, of another state, and those involving and those involving ambassadorsambassadors and other and other diplomaticdiplomatic personnel may personnel may also originate here. Since the also originate here. Since the founding of the Supreme Court, only founding of the Supreme Court, only about one hundred original suits about one hundred original suits have been have been decideddecided..

appeals, discretion, federal appeals, discretion, federal Litigants, reviewingLitigants, reviewing

Most of the Court’s work involves ___, Most of the Court’s work involves ___, state and local cases or resolving___ state and local cases or resolving___ from federal decisions. ___ from from federal decisions. ___ from either state or ___courts may request either state or ___courts may request the Court to review any case, and the the Court to review any case, and the Court has ___ to grant or refuse Court has ___ to grant or refuse request.request.

KeyKey

Most of the Court’s work involves Most of the Court’s work involves reviewingreviewing state and local cases or state and local cases or resolving resolving appealsappeals from federal from federal decitions. decitions. LitigantsLitigants from either state from either state or or federal federal courts may request the courts may request the Court to review any case, and the Court to review any case, and the Court has Court has discretiondiscretion to grant or to grant or refuse request.refuse request.