Magruder's American Government: 7. The Judicial Branch

Jurisdiction is defined as the authority of a court to hear (to try and to decide) a case. The term means, literally, the power “to say the law.”

Some cases may be tried in either a federal or a State court. Then, the federal and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction, meaning they share the power to hear these cases.

In such a case, the plaintiff—the person who files the suit—may bring the case in the proper State or federal court, as he or she chooses.

If the plaintiff brings the case in a State court, the defendant—the person against whom the complaint is made—can have the trial moved, under certain circumstances, to the federal district court.

A court that hears a case on appeal from a lower court exercises appellate jurisdiction over that case.

The higher court—the appellate court—may uphold, overrule, or in some way modify the decision appealed from the lower court.

Although the line between the two judicial philosophies can become blurred, the proponents of judicial restraint believe that judges should decide cases on the basis of (1) the original intent of the Framers or those who enacted the statute(s) involved in a case, and (2) precedent—a judicial decision that serves as a guide for settling later cases of a similar nature.

Although the line between the two judicial philosophies can become blurred, the proponents of judicial restraint believe that judges should decide cases on the basis of (1) the original intent of the Framers or those who enacted the statute(s) involved in a case, and (2) precedent—a judicial decision that serves as a guide for settling later cases of a similar nature.

Those who support judicial activism take a much broader view of judicial power.

Remember, most courts in this country, both federal and State, may exercise the critically important power of judicial review. They have the extraordinary power to decide the constitutionality of an act of government, whether executive, legislative, or judicial.

Most cases reach the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari (from the Latin, meaning “to be made more certain”). This writ is an order by the Court directing a lower court to send up the record in a given case for its review.

A few cases do reach the Court in yet another way: by certificate. This process is used when a lower court is not clear about the procedure or the rule of law that should apply in a case. The lower court asks the Supreme Court to certify the answer to a specific question in the matter.

Each party files detailed written statements—briefs—with the Court before they present their oral arguments.

The majority opinion, officially called “the Opinion of the Court,” sets out the facts in a case, identifies the issues it presents, and details the reasons that underpin the majority’s decision.

One or more of the justices on the majority side may write a concurring opinion, usually to make some point not made or not emphasized in the majority opinion. In effect, a justice who writes a concurring opinion agrees with (concurs in) the majority decision as to the winner of a case but offers different reasons for reaching that conclusion.

One or more dissenting opinions may be written by those justices who do not agree with the Court’s majority decision. Those dissents do not become precedent.

A federal civil case involves some noncriminal matter—say, a dispute over the terms of a contract or a suit in which the plaintiff seeks damages (money) for some harm done by the defendant.

Those appeals had become so numerous that the High Court was more than three years behind on its docket—its list of cases to be heard.

Instead, they review the record, the transcript of proceedings made in the trial court, and they ponder the oral and written arguments (the briefs) submitted by attorneys representing parties to a case.

These military courts—courts-martial—serve the special disciplinary needs of the armed forces and are not a part of the federal court system.

In 1950, Congress created the Court of Military Appeals, now titled the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, to review the more serious court-martial convictions of military personnel. This appellate court is a civilian tribunal, a part of the judicial branch, entirely separate from the military establishment.

Originally, any person with a money claim against the United States could secure redress—satisfaction of a claim, payment—only by an act of Congress.