Federal Courts - AP Government and Politics

The Rule of Four is a rule that is used in Supreme Court practice to decide which cases to hear. It states that if four or more judges agree that a case should be heard, then it must be heard. This is not a rule codified into law, but rather a precedent established throughout Supreme Court history.

In the United States Court system, the losing party in a court case has the right to appeal to a higher court about the nature and fairness of the verdict. The ability of the a Federal court, particularly the Supreme Court, to review a court decision made by a lower court is called appellate jurisdiction—as in "appeals."

A Writ of Mandamus is a court order directed at a lesser government official requiring that official to carry out the duties and responsibilities of his or her office.

A writ of certiorari is issued by a higher court when it wants to review a lower court's decision. A writ of mandamus is an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering him or her to properly fulfill his or her official duties. A writ of habeas corpus is a court order to a person or institution holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned person to the court. A writ of assistance is a court order instructing a law enforcement official to perform a certain task. A writ of body attachment is a court order directing the U.S. Marshal to bring a person who has been found in civil contempt to the court.

is the most common length of oral arguments. For more controversial cases, it may be extended. This a procedural arrangement determined by the Justices. They may hear many cases, and thus oral arguments must be concise.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case is the correct answer. Remember that “certiorari” is Latin for “to be informed of” which helps us because that is exactly what the Supreme Court is trying to do here. In other words, once the Supreme Court grants cert, they’ll schedule oral argument (over the merits of the case), and then read numerous briefs (essentially written arguments saying why one side should win/lose) in order to get an understanding of the case and thus render a decision.

Nothing cannot be the correct answer because of all of the reasons above. It is likely true that the Supreme Court is interested in the case, but that is only part of the answer.

The petitioner wins/loses cannot be correct because the Supreme Court has only agreed to HEAR the case; they cannot render a decision until after they do so.

The lower court(s) being reversed cannot be true because the Supreme Court may not in fact reverse the lower court: they can affirm (that is, uphold) it. Indeed, oftentimes the Supreme Court will take a case and affirm the reasoning of the lower court in order to clarify a point of law.

Stare decisis is latin for "let the decision stand" (or thereabouts). It is more than just legal jargon, however, as it is a doctrine on which every common law system rests. More specifically, as a common law system, our courts rely on "precedent" which is a technical term for (similar) cases that have been decided by an earlier court. Reliance on precedent is motivated by more than pure laziness or convenience; it's incredibly important from a stability standpoint.

Take, for example, a case that was over the proper definition of an apple. Imagine that court 1 decided the case in 1800 and held that an apple was "a fleshy fruit, encasing a core with seeds, with a waxy skin that can be any number of colors, but is most commonly red, green, or yellow." Great! Makes sense so far. Imagine further, however, that court 2 heard a case involving the same issue (the definition of the apple) in 1805 and decided that it was "a round pulpy fruit with easily divisible segments, each of which holds seeds." Wait a minute. That sounds more like an orange than an apple, and, more importantly, everything the first court worked for has been turned on its head in 5 years! Now imagine that this scenario repeated itself--litigants and courts would never be certain what the definition of an apple was going to be! Thus, stare decisis, which councils courts to rely on precedent when they can, is of utmost importance to a common law system.

All of the other answers are incorrect either because the translation is wrong, or because the reason behind the importance is wrong.

The correct answer is “the process by which the Supreme Court decides if it will hear a case.” Before getting into the meat of the answer, remember that, in regards to the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction, it has “discretionary authority.” In other words, the Supreme Court has near-complete control over its docket—it can determine which cases it wants to hear.

Moving on. When a party appeals to the Supreme Court, they petition for a ‘writ of certiorari.’ All of these petitions go into (essentially) a gigantic pile called the ‘cert pool.’ In order to determine which cases will be docketed (and thus heard), the Justices vote. As long as four Justices vote “yes” on a case, the Supreme Court will hear it, hence the “rule of four. “

As for the other answers:

Senatorial courtesy has nothing to do with case selection. Senatorial courtesy is an informal process—a gentleman’s agreement, if you will—in between the President and Congress when selecting district court judges. This also applies to the answer “the process by which the Senate confirms Article III judges/justices.”

“The number of Supreme Court justices . . . to render a majority decision” is obviously incorrect because there are 9 sitting justices, and 4 is NOT a majority.

“A rule of statutory construction . . . “ is incorrect for a plethora of reasons. For one, statutory construction is not a topic for AP US Gov students. More importantly, it’s completely made up and not true!

Amicus = “friend,” curiae = “court.” Thus, amicus curiae means “friend of the court.” As for the filing party, it must be a \[presumably interested\] third party. The two involved parties do not file “amicus” briefs: they file merit briefs (and responses). In order to file an amicus brief, the amici (person or organization seeking to file a brief) must either obtain approval of the parties or of the court. Generally speaking, these interested parties tend to be organizations on one side or the other. In a firearms case, for example, you’ll generally see the Brady Center on one side, and the NRA on the other.

All of the other answers are incorrect for the above reasons.

This is a straightforward question, no tricks or gimmicks. It also requires relatively little explanation, due to its directness, but we’ll go through what each of the barriers is/what it means.

Mootness: This means, essentially, that no matter what the Supreme Court decides, the particular outcome will not change. For example, there was a question of mootness in Roe v. Wade (by the time the case was decided, she already gave birth). Thus, some argued that the case was moot, because no matter what the court decided, Roe could not abort the child (it was already born). The Court reasoned, however, that Roe could become pregnant again, thus the case was not moot. A better example is a case involving racial discrimination and acceptance to, say, law school. By the time the case reaches the Supreme Court, it is likely that the student has been accepted to a different law school, and graduated. Thus his case is likely moot.

Ripeness: This is the opposite of mootness. The Supreme Court will not decide a case that is not yet ripe. In other words, the case has not proceeded far enough along in terms of the litigation stream to allow the court to render a decision.

Standing: This is, arguably, one of the more important barriers to entry. Standing refers to a particularized entity being “injured” (not necessarily physically) by the particular statute at hand. Take, for example, several of the plaintiffs in Heller v. DC. Originally, there were multiple plaintiffs in the case, however, Anthony Heller was the only plaintiff who had applied for a handgun permit, and been denied_._ The other several plaintiffs attempted to assert that they considered applying, but were too scared/didn’t for whatever reason. The other plaintiffs failed to suffer a redressable injury—they had not been denied of anything! Thus they lacked standing.

Political Question(s): This is probably the most interesting and nebulous one. Essentially, the Court will not render decisions that are better left to the other two branches to decide. A classic example (although now unfortunately no longer applicable) is that of the political division of states into voting units (redistricting). Frankfurter (a Supreme Court justice) wrote a majority opinion in Colgrove v. Green in which the Supreme Court refused to decide a case re: redistricting, saying that the Court “ought not to enter into this political thicket.” 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946). Frankfurter believed that redistricting was a question better left in the capable hands of the state legislature.

Again, relatively straightforward question. There are technically additional opinions, like plurality opinions, but these three are the most common.

Majority: A majority opinion, by definition, is written on behalf of the majority of the court (so at least voting members). Majority opinions set “precedent”—a rule of law that lower courts must follow, and that the issuing court owes deference to under the doctrine of stare decisis. Moreover, majority opinions decide who “wins” the case.

Dissenting: A dissenting opinion, by contrast, is written on behalf of a justice or justices that disagree with the majority opinion. Dissenting opinions disagree with the outcome—that is who “won” and, often, how they won. Dissenting opinions are NOT precedential, that is, they do not set a rule of law that must be followed.

Concurrence: A concurring opinion is a somewhat broad term, but most often is used to refer to a justice or justices who agree with the outcome (that is who “won”) but would advocate a different way (rule of law) to get there. Similarly to dissenting opinions, concurrences are NOT precedential.

Once a case reaches the Supreme Court, the evidence from the lower court trials is no longer used to determine if the judgment was correct or incorrect. The Supreme Court simply determines if the outcome of a case violates the constitution or not. If they determine it to be constitutional, then the decision stands. Therefore, the correct answer is false.

In the American legal system, there are two basic types of court cases: criminal law cases and civil law cases. This is true regardless of the level of court involved – whether the case is tried in the local, state, or federal court systems. Criminal law cases are those in which an individual(s) is charged with violating a specific law, thus rendering themselves open to punishment (typically a fine or a jail term). Civil law cases involve a conflict between two groups, which can arise over a variety of issues, such as a breach of contract, child custody arrangements, or property damage. In turn, civil law is further comprised of two sub-elements: statutes (laws issued by legislative bodies) and common law (a compendium of decisions reached over time by judiciary bodies about legal affairs).

There are certain standards which every case must meet in order to be successfully brought before any type of court; it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply be a relevant litigant or to have an accredited lawyer. First, the litigant in question (aka the plaintiff) must have standing – this is defined as a legitimate interest which the plaintiff has at stake. Usually, this legitimate interest stems from a serious injury which the plaintiff has either directly suffered or has reason to fear is immediately and likely pending. This injury must have been caused by another individual or group (such as a company or business). In recent years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have loosened the rules that determine standing, so that it has become easier for a plaintiff to legitimately challenge an entity in court, especially large corporations or even the government itself. Secondly, the matter of contention which the plaintiff wants to bring before the court must be a justiciable dispute – an issue which is able to be assessed and solved through legal means. In order for a conflict to be justiciable, there must be an appropriately relevant law(s) that can be considered and/or applied.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases which come before the Supreme Court involve appellate jurisdiction – aka the authority to hear cases that have been appealed from lower courts. In matters of appellate jurisdiction, the justices may only review pertinent legal issues, not the facts of the case itself (for example, the justices can decide whether a law was properly defined or applied to a case, but not the question of an individual plaintiff’s guilt). On the contrary, original jurisdiction applies in whichever court first handles a case (typically a trial is also involved). Courts with original jurisdiction must figure out the facts of a case, creating a record and determining whether the case is criminal or civil in nature. The Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction as well, but rarely is called upon to exercise it (when applied, it usually involves cases concerning foreign diplomats or contention between a state and the federal government).

Most Supreme Court cases are decided according to the principle of stare decisis – this practice (which is Latin for “let the decision stand”) upholds the ruling of a lower court. Every Supreme Court ruling is decided by majority vote, with at least six justices required to be preside over a case, and any precedent(s) set by a ruling must receive consent from at least five of the justices. When a case has been decided, justices may write and issue their own concurring opinions, either explaining their support for the ruling or justifying their support based on a different or additional legal reasoning than that used by their fellow justices. Any justice who disagrees is free to write a dissenting opinion, explaining their reasons for objecting to all or part of the majority’s ruling. Like all other federal courts, the Supreme Court depends heavily on precedents set by past cases; for example, if a case before the Court involves interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the Court will rely quite deeply on past interpretations and past rulings on this Clause in order to decide their current case.

This is an interesting question, and one that was recently rendered more relevant (Justice Scalia’s untimely death created a vacancy on the court). Both of the answers reading “the lower court decision is affirmed” and “the decision does not create binding precedent” are correct. Many of you are probably wondering about the likelihood of this happening, given the fact that we have 9 Justices, which, mathematically, renders impossible a tie. That, of course, is true, however it overlooks four possibilities: (1) A Justice may die on the bench (e.g. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia); (2) a Justice may resign; (3) a Justice may be impeached; (4) a Justice may have to recuse himself. Any of these four possibilities will render a vacancy on the bench and thus create the possibility of a 4-4 split. You should be familiar with the concepts in 1-3, but you may not know what recusal is (and that’s completely fine!). Broadly, recusal is when justice (or a judge) must remove herself from presiding over a particular case because of some kind of conflict of interest. The specifics are beyond the scope of your course.

This should have been an easy question. If the Supreme Court declines to hear a case—which is the rule, rather than the exception—the ruling of the lower court stands. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court hears only 1% (on average) of the cases requesting cert, the courts of appeals are the often the ultimate authority on the matter.

This is an interesting and practical question. The American Rule refers to the American practice of requiring each side to bear their own attorney’s fees regardless of whether you win or lose! This is in direct contradiction to the European or English Rule that places attorney’s fees on the shoulders of the loser (talk about adding insult to injury). There are a variety of reasons for the American Rule, but the most articulated is that it removes a significant barrier to litigation: money. If people went to court terrified that they may have to pay (1) their attorney’s fees, (2) a judgment (if they lost), and (3) their opponent’s attorney’s fees, they may refuse to bring a meritorious case to court.

“Voir dire” roughly translates to “to see to speak” and it refers to the process of selecting a jury—in both criminal and civil cases, and at both a state and federal level. Without going into detail that is far beyond the scope of your course, jury selection is an important part of every case. Take, for example, a criminal case involving the alleged theft of a pair of diamond earrings from a jewelry store. If you were the defendant, would you want a jury box full of jewelry store owners? Probably not.