Fiveable
Fiveable
start studying now
start studying now
AP US Government

👩🏾‍⚖️ap us government review

2.10 The Court in Action

Verified for the 2025 AP US Government exam•Last Updated on March 3, 2025

Introduction

The Supreme Court's role as the final arbiter of the Constitution and federal law sometimes puts it in the position of making decisions that are controversial or unpopular. When this happens, other branches of government, as well as the general public, may question the legitimacy of the Court's decisions and take steps to challenge or limit its influence. However, it's important to note that the Supreme Court's decisions are based on its interpretation of the Constitution and the law, rather than on public opinion or the views of other branches of government.

Key Questions

  • What is the jurisdiction of the court?
  • Who are the parties involved in the case?
  • What is the issue at hand?
  • What evidence is presented during the proceedings?
  • What legal principles or laws apply to the case?
  • What is the role of the judge and jury, if applicable?
  • What is the outcome of the case and why was it decided in that way?
  • What is the impact of the court's decision on the parties involved and society as a whole?
  • What is the appeals process, if any?
  • How does the court ensure fairness and impartiality throughout the proceedings?

Key Terms

  • Jurisdiction - The authority of the Supreme Court to hear and make decisions on certain legal cases.
  • Oral Arguments - The opportunity for both sides of a case to present their arguments and answer questions from the justices in an open session.
  • Briefs - Written arguments submitted by both sides of a case before oral arguments, outlining their positions and evidence.
  • Precedent - A previous court decision that provides guidance for future decisions on similar legal issues.
  • Majority Opinion - The decision reached by a majority of the justices in a case.
  • Dissenting Opinion - A written disagreement with the majority opinion by one or more justices who believe the decision was incorrect.
  • Concurring Opinion - A written agreement with the majority opinion by a justice who agrees with the outcome, but for different reasons.
  • Writ of Certiorari - A formal request by one party to have a case heard by the Supreme Court.
  • Writ of Habeas Corpus - A legal order that requires the government to produce a prisoner and show cause for their detention.
  • Amicus Curiae Briefs - Briefs filed by individuals or organizations who are not parties to a case but have a strong interest in the outcome and wish to offer their expertise and perspective.

Tenure

The life tenure of Supreme Court justices provides them with the independence to make decisions based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the law, without needing to worry about the public's opinions or losing their positions. This was intentionally designed by the framers of the Constitution to insulate the Court from political pressures and ensure its impartiality. However, as you mentioned, sometimes the Court's decisions are so controversial or unpopular that other branches of government may take or threaten to take measures to curb its influence.

An example of a Supreme Court justice with a long tenure is Justice Stephen Breyer, who has served on the Court since 1994 and retired in 2022. Another example is the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the Court for 27 years, from 1993 until her death in 2020.

Court-Curbing

Court-curbing measures are ways to limit the power and influence of the Supreme Court. These measures can include:

  • Presidential appointments, where the President can appoint new justices who share their interpretation of the Constitution, potentially changing the ideological composition of the Court.
  • Legislative action, where Congress has the power to determine the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction and pass acts that prevent the Supreme Court from hearing appeals in certain types of cases.
  • Refusal to implement decisions, where the other branches of government may refuse to follow or enforce the Supreme Court's decisions.

It's important to note that these court-curbing measures are rarely taken and can be controversial. The independence and impartiality of the Supreme Court is a cornerstone of the U.S. system of government, and any efforts to limit its power or influence are met with significant resistance from those who support the separation of powers and the rule of law.

An example of court-curbing is the congressional response to the Supreme Court's decision in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which the Court established the principle of judicial review. In response to this decision, Congress considered proposals to limit the Court's power, such as reducing its jurisdiction or limiting its authority to review certain types of cases.

Another example is the debate over court-packing, a proposal to add more justices to the Supreme Court in order to change its ideological balance. This idea has been discussed and proposed by various political leaders in response to perceived imbalances in the Court or frustration with its decisions. However, no such plan has been successful in modern times.

Enforcement of Rulings

The Supreme Court's rulings are considered the law of the land and are expected to be followed and enforced by the President. However, the President has discretion to enforce the decision, and in rare cases, may choose not to enforce a ruling if they disagree with it. In such cases, the enforcement of the ruling may be influenced by other branches of government or by public opinion. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of all branches of government to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.

An example of enforcement of rulings is the implementation of the Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954), in which the Supreme Court declared segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional. The decision was enforced through the actions of federal and state governments, including the use of federal troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Another example is the enforcement of the ruling in Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the Supreme Court declared that the constitutional right to privacy protected a woman's right to have an abortion. Despite ongoing legal and political challenges to this ruling, it has been enforced by federal and state governments and remains the law of the land.

Partisanship

The Supreme Court is expected to be impartial and independent, and its justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, regardless of personal political views. However, some legal scholars argue that the justices are not immune to outside influences, and may take into consideration public opinion and the perception of impartiality when making decisions. This is why the justices are often careful not to appear partisan in their rulings, and to maintain the court's legitimacy and credibility with the public. Nevertheless, there is ongoing debate and discussion about the role of partisanship in the Supreme Court and its impact on the impartiality of its decisions.

An example of partisanship in the Supreme Court is the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Court in 2018. His nomination was highly controversial and was viewed by many as politically motivated, with Republicans pushing for his confirmation and Democrats opposing it. The confirmation hearings were marked by heated political debates, with many Democrats accusing Kavanaugh of being partisan and lacking the impartiality required for a Supreme Court justice.

Another example is the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, which was also seen by many as politically motivated and marked by partisan battles. The confirmation occurred just before the presidential election and was seen by some as an effort by Republicans to solidify their conservative majority on the Court, leading to criticism from Democrats that the confirmation process was overly politicized.

🎥 Watch: AP GOPO - US Supreme Court

Key Terms to Review (26)

Amicus Curiae Briefs: Amicus curiae briefs are legal documents filed in court cases by non-parties, often organizations or individuals, who have a strong interest in the case's outcome. These briefs aim to provide additional information, insights, or perspectives that may assist the court in making its decision. They play a crucial role in influencing judicial outcomes by presenting arguments and evidence that support one side of a case.
Briefs: Briefs are concise legal documents submitted to a court that outline the arguments, relevant laws, and facts pertaining to a case. They serve as a key component in the judicial process, allowing attorneys to present their positions effectively and efficiently to the judges. Briefs can include summaries of case law, factual background, and legal reasoning, which help the court understand the key issues at stake in a case.
Brown v. Board of Education: Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1954 that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. This case played a crucial role in the civil rights movement by overturning the previous 'separate but equal' doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson, setting a precedent for future cases and influencing social movements aimed at achieving equal protection under the law.
Concurring Opinion: A concurring opinion is a legal opinion written by one or more judges or justices who agree with the decision reached by the majority of the court but for different reasons. This type of opinion allows justices to express their individual reasoning and highlight specific aspects of the case that they believe are important, which may not have been fully addressed in the majority opinion. Concurring opinions can help clarify legal interpretations and influence future cases.
Court-Curbing: Court-curbing refers to the efforts made by legislative bodies or political actors to limit the power and influence of the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court. This can involve attempts to alter the composition of the court, change its jurisdiction, or enact legislation that impacts its rulings. These actions reflect broader tensions between branches of government and raise important questions about the balance of power in a democratic system.
Court-packing: Court-packing refers to the strategy of increasing the number of justices on the Supreme Court to influence its decisions and ensure favorable rulings for certain political agendas. This concept is closely tied to attempts to enhance the power of the executive branch over the judiciary, particularly when a president faces opposition in the Senate or seeks to advance controversial policies. The legitimacy of the judicial branch can be challenged when such maneuvers are perceived as undermining judicial independence.
Dissenting Opinion: A dissenting opinion is a statement written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court. This type of opinion serves to highlight differing viewpoints and can provide important insights into legal reasoning and interpretations. Dissenting opinions can influence future cases and public perception, as they often articulate alternative legal perspectives that challenge the prevailing view of the majority.
Enforcement of Rulings: Enforcement of rulings refers to the process by which courts ensure compliance with their decisions, particularly in cases involving judicial orders, laws, or regulations. This concept is crucial in maintaining the rule of law, as it determines how effectively court decisions are implemented and upheld within society. The effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms can significantly influence public trust in the legal system and the overall functioning of government institutions.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and decide cases, which is determined by factors such as the type of case, the geographic area, and the level of government involved. It establishes the legal boundaries within which a court can operate, ensuring that cases are handled in the appropriate venue. Understanding jurisdiction is crucial for grasping how courts function and interact with other branches of government.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett: Justice Amy Coney Barrett is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, appointed by President Donald Trump in October 2020. She is known for her conservative judicial philosophy and has played a significant role in shaping the Court's decisions on various issues, especially during her early tenure amidst a polarized political climate.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh: Justice Brett Kavanaugh is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, having been confirmed in October 2018. He serves as a significant figure in the Court, particularly known for his conservative judicial philosophy and his role in key decisions regarding executive power, healthcare, and individual rights.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, serving from 1993 until her death in 2020. She was known for her strong advocacy for gender equality, civil rights, and social justice, making significant contributions to legal thought and feminist jurisprudence during her tenure. Ginsburg's influence extended beyond her judicial opinions, as she became a cultural icon for her tenacity and commitment to justice.
Justice Stephen Breyer: Justice Stephen Breyer is a former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, who served from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. Known for his pragmatic approach to constitutional interpretation, Breyer emphasized the importance of the practical consequences of legal rulings and often sought to balance competing interests, reflecting a commitment to judicial restraint and moderation.
Legislative Action: Legislative action refers to the formal processes through which a legislative body, like Congress, creates, amends, or repeals laws. This process involves several steps, including proposal, debate, voting, and approval by both chambers. Legislative action is critical in shaping policy and governance, as it reflects the priorities and values of elected representatives.
Majority Opinion: A majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court, typically written to explain the reasoning behind the court's decision on a case. This opinion is crucial because it sets legal precedents that lower courts must follow and helps clarify the interpretation of laws and constitutional provisions. It represents the official stance of the court on an issue and carries significant weight in future legal arguments and decisions.
Marbury v. Madison: Marbury v. Madison is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1803 that established the principle of judicial review, allowing the Court to invalidate laws and executive actions that are found to be unconstitutional. This case significantly shaped the relationship between the judicial branch and the other branches of government, as well as the balance of power between state and federal authorities.
Oral Arguments: Oral arguments are a crucial part of the judicial process where attorneys present their case verbally before a court, typically in front of judges or justices. This stage allows lawyers to summarize the key points of their written briefs, respond to judges' questions, and emphasize critical aspects of their arguments. Oral arguments play an essential role in how cases are decided, as they provide an opportunity for direct interaction between the court and the attorneys.
Partisanship: Partisanship refers to a strong allegiance to a political party, which can influence opinions, policies, and actions in government and politics. This loyalty can lead to polarization, where individuals prioritize party affiliation over common ground, significantly impacting legislative processes and judicial decisions. It is crucial in understanding how parties interact with each other and how public opinion is shaped.
Precedent: A precedent is a legal principle or rule established in a previous court case that is binding or persuasive in future cases with similar circumstances. This concept is crucial for ensuring consistency and predictability in the law, influencing not only judicial decisions but also the functioning of governmental powers and individual rights.
Presidential Appointments: Presidential appointments refer to the authority of the President of the United States to nominate individuals to key positions within the federal government, including cabinet members, judges, and ambassadors. This power plays a crucial role in shaping the executive and judicial branches and influences how effectively government functions, as appointees often reflect the President's policy priorities and philosophies.
Refusal to Implement Decisions: Refusal to Implement Decisions occurs when a governing body, institution, or individual chooses not to enforce or follow the rulings made by a higher authority, such as a court. This resistance can arise from various reasons, including political motives, lack of resources, or disagreement with the ruling. Such refusals can undermine the effectiveness of judicial decisions and raise questions about the rule of law and accountability within government structures.
Roe v. Wade: Roe v. Wade is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1973 that established a woman's legal right to have an abortion under the right to privacy protected by the Constitution. This case fundamentally changed the legal landscape regarding reproductive rights in the United States, impacting legislation and public policy, as well as sparking ongoing debates about women's rights, state authority, and the role of the judicial system in personal health decisions.
Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in the United States, established by the Constitution, responsible for interpreting laws and ensuring justice. It serves as a check on the other branches of government, influencing policy and protecting individual rights through its rulings.
Tenure: Tenure refers to the period during which an individual holds a particular position or office, especially in the context of judicial appointments. In the legal system, tenure is crucial because it establishes the stability and independence of judges, allowing them to make decisions free from political pressure or influence.
Writ of Certiorari: A writ of certiorari is an order issued by a higher court to review the decisions of a lower court. This legal tool allows the Supreme Court to selectively choose which cases it wants to hear, often based on their significance or the need to resolve conflicting interpretations of law among lower courts. It plays a vital role in the judicial process, influencing how justice is administered across the country.
Writ of Habeas Corpus: A writ of habeas corpus is a legal order that requires a person who is holding another person in custody to bring the detainee before a court, ensuring that the detention is lawful. This principle is essential for protecting individual freedom against arbitrary detention and serves as a vital check on government power within the judicial system.
Back
Practice QuizGlossary
Next