How the court system is organized, and how a case reaches the Supreme Court
Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet
Circle the best answer.
Read this first
Article III, Section 2, clause 2 (quoted)
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
Bo reads Article III, Section 2, clause 2. Which part of the Court's jurisdiction may Congress make exceptions to?
- Its original jurisdiction, since the clause ends by saying Congress makes the regulations
- Its appellate jurisdiction; the original cases are listed in the clause itself
- Its original jurisdiction but not its appellate, since appeals are 'as to Law and Fact'
- Neither part, since Article III vests the whole judicial power in the courts
Article III, Section 2, clause 1 (quoted in part)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; … to Controversies between two or more States; … between Citizens of different States, …" Statutes (our words). Congress has set two rules: a federal district court may hear a case between citizens of different states only if more than $75,000 is at stake; and only the Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit between two states. Case 2 (made-up): Pruitt, a citizen of Harlan, sues Okafor, a citizen of Corvin, over a broken contract worth $60,000. No federal law is involved.
Jun reads clauses and statutes for case 2. Which court may hear Pruitt's suit against Okafor?
- The Supreme Court alone, since it decides how Article III applies
- Only a state court; the clause allows federal hearing, but the statute's floor is not met
- A US district court, since Article III extends to citizens of different states and no statute can narrow it
- No court, since the amount is under the limit that applies to each court
Article III, Section 2, clause 1 (quoted in part)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; … to Controversies between two or more States; … between Citizens of different States, …" Statutes (our words). Congress has set two rules: a federal district court may hear a case between citizens of different states only if more than $75,000 is at stake; and only the Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit between two states. Case 2 changed (made-up): the broken contract is worth $120,000; Pruitt is still a citizen of Harlan, Okafor of Corvin, and no federal law is involved.
Kira reads the clause, the statutes and case 2 changed. Which statement is right now that $120,000 is at stake?
- A US district court may hear it, but solely if a federal law is also involved in the contract dispute
- A US district court may hear it: citizens of different states, and the sum clears the statute's floor
- A state court alone may hear it, since a contract is a matter of state law and not federal law
- The Supreme Court must hear it first, since the parties come from two different states and the sum is large
Article III, Section 2, clause 1 (quoted in part)
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; … to Controversies between two or more States; … between Citizens of different States, …" Case 3 (made-up): Mendez, a citizen of Harlan, sues a Harlan transit authority, another citizen of Harlan, and says a Harlan law breaks the US Constitution.
Luz reads the clause and case 3. Mendez and the transit authority are both Harlan citizens. Can a federal court hear the case?
- No; a challenge to a state law is a state matter until the Supreme Court takes it
- Yes, but solely after each Harlan court has finished, since states invariably go first
- No; both parties are citizens of one state, so just Harlan's courts may hear it
- Yes; the claim arises under the US Constitution, so different citizenship is not needed
Article III, Section 2, clause 2 (quoted)
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Statutes (our words). Congress has set two rules: a federal district court may hear a case between citizens of different states only if more than $75,000 is at stake; and only the Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit between two states. Case 1 (made-up): The state of Harlan sues the state of Corvin over where a river boundary lies.
Milo reads clause 2, the statutes and case 1. What does the statute add to the clause for Harlan v. Corvin?
- It adds nothing, since the clause already bars each lower court from hearing such state suits
- It lets Congress shrink the Court's original power, as the clause lets it limit appeals
- It creates the Court's original power, which the clause lacked without it
- It makes the Supreme Court the only court for such suits, which the clause alone does not do
Case file TP (made-up)
A Linden trial court convicted Alvarez under a Linden speech law. The Linden court of appeals reversed, ruling that the law violates the First Amendment. The Linden supreme court then reversed that ruling, holding the law valid, and no higher state court remains.
Noah reads case file TP. Alvarez asks for US Supreme Court review. Which ruling is under review, and why can it be?
- The Linden court of appeals' ruling, since it was the one that favored Alvarez
- The trial court's verdict, since just a trial court's verdict can be reviewed by the US Supreme Court
- The Linden supreme court's ruling: it is the last state court and decided a First Amendment question
- The Linden supreme court's ruling, since any ruling by a state supreme court may be reviewed
Case file TQ (made-up)
The Linden supreme court struck down an Eastport city sign ordinance and gave two reasons. Reason one: it violates the First Amendment. Reason two: it violates a clause of the Linden constitution. Each reason alone is enough to strike the ordinance. Eastport asks the US Supreme Court to review.
Pia reads case file TQ. Eastport asks for review. What is the main obstacle?
- The Linden constitution ground alone supports the result, so a federal ruling changes nothing
- Eastport is a city government, and governments cannot ask the Supreme Court for review
- The Supreme Court reviews just criminal cases from state courts, not city ordinances or civil suits
- A state supreme court's ruling on the First Amendment cannot be reviewed
Case file TP (made-up)
A Linden trial court convicted Alvarez under a Linden speech law. The Linden court of appeals reversed, ruling that the law violates the First Amendment. The Linden supreme court then reversed that ruling, holding the law valid, and no higher state court remains. Case file TR (made-up): The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Linden speech law in Alvarez's case violates the First Amendment. A second state, Corvin, has a speech law with nearly the same words.
Tala reads case files TP and TR. The Court has ruled for Alvarez. What does that ruling mean for Corvin's similar law?
- Corvin's law is in doubt, since the ruling says what the First Amendment requires of courts
- Nothing, since a ruling binds just the parties to Alvarez's case and says nothing to anyone else
- Corvin must repeal its law within a year, since the Court's order to Linden says so to other states
- Just Linden's courts are bound, so other states' laws stand until the Court rules on them
Article III, Section 1 (quoted)
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."
Ari reads Article III, Section 1. Congress cannot abolish the Supreme Court by statute. Why?
- Congress cannot change the Court, including how many justices sit on it
- Congress would need two-thirds of both houses to abolish any federal court
- The Constitution itself vests judicial power in "one supreme Court"
- Article III created the Supreme Court and each lower court directly
Article III, Section 2, clause 2 (quoted)
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Statutes (our words). Congress has set two rules: a federal district court may hear a case between citizens of different states only if more than $75,000 is at stake; and only the Supreme Court may hear a lawsuit between two states.
Bo reads clause 2 and the statutes. Congress raises the diversity amount from $75,000 to $150,000. Which statement is right?
- Allowed; Article III sets an outer limit, and Congress decides how much the lower courts get
- Allowed, because clause 2 lets Congress make exceptions to the lower courts' power
- Not allowed, because Congress may regulate just the Supreme Court, not lower courts
- Not allowed; the amount comes from Article III itself, so just an amendment could change it