Supreme Court Case Study

Madison Allen

PS 3370

Mid-Term Exercises

1. Article III of the Constitution states that, § “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.” In the Federal Magistrate Act (28 U.S.C. § 631 et seq (2014)), it provides that “magistrate judges” who are appointed for fixed terms can perform certain judicial functions. Judges and magistrates hold two different positions; thus each has their own meaning, along with a different amount of authority and power bestowed upon each position. A Judge presides over court proceedings, either alone, with a panel of judges, or a jury. According to Merriam Webster, a judge must “form an opinion through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises.” So

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” states Chief Justice John Marshall, in his opinion in Marbury v. Madison (1803). In the case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court asserted the power to review acts of Congress (and the President) and to hold them as unconstitutional, if need be. This created a precedent for the process of judicial review in American courts. Marshall’s opinion stated that Marbury had the right to his appointment of Justice of the Peace, faulted Jefferson for not having it delivered to Marbury, and then explained why the Supreme Court was unable to provide a remedy to the case. Marshall states that The Judiciary Act of 1789, which gave the S.C. power to issue orders to members of the government, was unconstitutional because it extended the court’s role past what it was permitted in the Constitution. So, the Supreme Court was not able to act on Marbury’s behalf. Thus, the Supreme Court has the power to review laws or executive decisions, and to overturn those that are deemed to be

There are different types of jurisdiction: subject matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdictions, and appellate jurisdiction are a few types. Ruhrgas AG v Marathon Oil Co. 526 U.S. 574 (1999).

b) Justiciability: The federal court’s judicial power is restricted to cases and controversies, meaning that litigation must be justiciable (appropriate or suitable for a court to hear or solve). Flast v. Cohen 392 U.S. 83

c) Standing: a person’s ability to bring their suit to court; each state has their own laws regarding “standing”. County of Riverside v McLaughlin 500 U.S. 44, Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife 504 U.S.