12th grade How the court system is organized, and how a case reaches the Supreme Court worksheet

How the court system is organized, and how a case reaches the Supreme Court

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Marbury v. Madison (1803), quoted from the Court's opinion: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, background (our words). Marbury asked the Supreme Court itself, as a first court, to order the Secretary of State to deliver his commission as a judge. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 seemed to let the Court do that. The Court held that Article III does not allow Congress to add to the Court's original cases, so that part of Section 13 could not be applied, and Marbury got no order.

2. 1.

   Esme reads cards M1 and M3. A student writes: "Marbury shows the Court may strike down any law it dislikes." What do the cards support?

   • The Court set aside one section for conflicting with Article III, so the power rests on that conflict
   • Article III's own words, which say that courts may declare acts of Congress void, with Marbury just applying them
   • The student is right, since the Court said it is the province of courts to say what the law is
   • Nothing lasting, since Marbury lost his case and a loser's case cannot establish a power or change the law

3. Use this

   Ex parte McCardle (1869), background (our words). McCardle, held by military authorities, appealed to the Supreme Court under a law that allowed such appeals. After the case was argued, Congress repealed that law. In 1869 the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and noted Congress's power over the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Later in 1869, in another case, the Court heard a similar claim by a different route that the repeal did not close. Cobalt Act clause (made-up): Congress passes the Cobalt Safety Act and adds: "No court of the United States, including the Supreme Court, shall have jurisdiction to hear any appeal or any other case about this Act."

4. 2.

   Luz reads cards M4 and M5. Which fact best supports Congress's right to pass the Cobalt clause?

   • In Marbury, the Court treated Article III's list of original cases as binding on Congress
   • In Marbury, the Court said Congress may regulate any part of the courts' work
   • In McCardle, the Court dismissed an appeal after Congress repealed the law that allowed it
   • In McCardle, the Court finished the case because it had been argued before Congress repealed the law

5. Use this

   Marbury v. Madison (1803), quoted from the Court's opinion: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Ex parte McCardle (1869), background (our words). McCardle, held by military authorities, appealed to the Supreme Court under a law that allowed such appeals. After the case was argued, Congress repealed that law. In 1869 the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and noted Congress's power over the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Later in 1869, in another case, the Court heard a similar claim by a different route that the repeal did not close. Cobalt Act clause (made-up): Congress passes the Cobalt Safety Act and adds: "No court of the United States, including the Supreme Court, shall have jurisdiction to hear any appeal or any other case about this Act."

6. 3.

   Milo reads cards M1, M4 and M5. Which objection to the Cobalt clause is strongest?

   • Marbury shows Article III's list of appellate cases cannot be reduced by Congress
   • McCardle was later overruled by the Court, so no case now supports Congress's position
   • McCardle left another route open; this clause closes every route and tests the limit
   • Congress has no power over appeals, because Article III vests appellate power in the Court

7. Use this

   Marbury v. Madison (1803), quoted: "If congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction, where the constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original; and original jurisdiction where the constitution has declared it shall be appellate; the distribution of jurisdiction made in the constitution, is form without substance." Ex parte McCardle (1869), background (our words). McCardle, held by military authorities, appealed to the Supreme Court under a law that allowed such appeals. After the case was argued, Congress repealed that law. In 1869 the Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and noted Congress's power over the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Later in 1869, in another case, the Court heard a similar claim by a different route that the repeal did not close. Cobalt Act clause (made-up): Congress passes the Cobalt Safety Act and adds: "No court of the United States, including the Supreme Court, shall have jurisdiction to hear any appeal or any other case about this Act."

8. 4.

   Noah reads cards M2, M4 and M5. The Cobalt clause bars every court from hearing Cobalt Act cases. What is the strongest reply from Congress's side?

   • Marbury says that Congress may add cases to the Court's original list, so it may also remove them
   • Article III lets Congress make exceptions to appeals, and the Court accepted that in McCardle
   • McCardle shows Congress may bar any court from any case, including original ones, whenever it likes
   • Marbury shows courts defer to Congress when a law mentions the Constitution

9. Use this

   Wells v. Garner (made-up): With one seat empty, eight justices heard this case and split 4 to 4. The Court announced that the lower court's decision was affirmed by an equally divided Court, with no opinion.

10. 5.

    Pia reads card V1. Wells v. Garner ends 4 to 4. What does the tie settle?

    • The lower court's ruling stands for the parties in Wells, but sets no national rule
    • Nothing yet; the case is held until the empty seat is filled and then decided
    • The lower court is reversed, since a tie means the Court rejects the lower ruling
    • The lower court's reasoning becomes the national rule, since the Court affirmed it

11. Eastport Records Act case (made-up)

    Six justices voted to strike the Act. Five of them joined an opinion holding that a search without a warrant is not allowed here. The sixth agreed the Act must go, but only because it has no time limit, and would not decide the warrant question. Three justices dissented, saying the Act is a reasonable rule for a licensed trade.

12. 6.

    Tala reads card V2. How far does the Court's rule on warrants reach?

    • There is no rule, since a concurrence splits the Court's reasoning and leaves nothing binding
    • The dissent's view is the rule for licensed trades, since three justices wrote it and it addresses that trade
    • Six justices set the warrant rule, since six voted to strike the Act and the six agreed on the reasons
    • Five justices set the warrant rule; the sixth agreed on the result but not that rule, so it may be tested
13. 7.

    Zee reads card V2. An official agrees with the dissent. What must the official still do about the Act?

    • Enforce it against anyone who was not a party to the case, since the ruling reaches just the parties
    • Ask Congress to confirm the ruling first, and keep enforcing the Act until Congress has done so
    • Stop enforcing it, since the judgment striking it stands whatever the dissenters thought
    • Keep enforcing it until at least three more justices come to share the dissenters' view

14. Rule (our words)

    The US Supreme Court does not review a state court's ruling when a state-law ground, separate from federal law, is enough by itself to support the result. It does review when the result depends on a federal question. Case file G2 (made-up): The Linden supreme court struck down a city curfew and cited only the US Constitution. The Linden constitution has no clause on curfews. The city asks the US Supreme Court to review.

15. 8.

    Ren reads cards G1 and G2. The city asks for review of the curfew ruling. Is review likely to be possible?

    • No; a state supreme court's ruling is final on each question it decides, federal or state
    • Yes, because the Court may review any state ruling that it thinks is wrong on the merits
    • No; curfews are a purely local matter, so no federal question can ever arise from them
    • Yes; the ruling rests only on the US Constitution, so a federal question decides the result

16. Rule (our words)

    The US Supreme Court does not review a state court's ruling when a state-law ground, separate from federal law, is enough by itself to support the result. It does review when the result depends on a federal question. Case file G3 (made-up): The Linden supreme court struck down a county noise rule for two reasons: the First Amendment, and a clause of the Linden constitution. Each reason alone is enough. The county asks the US Supreme Court to review.

17. 9.

    Ari reads cards G1 and G3. Which change would make US Supreme Court review possible in the noise rule case?

    • If the Court itself held the state ground wrong and wished to correct it
    • If the state ground were dropped, the federal ground alone would decide the result
    • If the opinion were published, since just published opinions can be reviewed
    • If the Linden court had cited more federal cases, since stronger federal reasoning opens review

18. Rule (our words)

    The US Supreme Court does not review a state court's ruling when a state-law ground, separate from federal law, is enough by itself to support the result. It does review when the result depends on a federal question. Case file G3 (made-up): The Linden supreme court struck down a county noise rule for two reasons: the First Amendment, and a clause of the Linden constitution. Each reason alone is enough. The county asks the US Supreme Court to review. Case file G4 (made-up): The Linden supreme court struck down a county noise rule and wrote: the rule violates the Linden constitution, and "the First Amendment would also forbid it." Nothing in the opinion says the state ground could not stand alone.

19. 10.

    Bo compares cards G3 and G4 with the rule in G1. What do they show together?

    • Review turns on what decided the result, not on whether the opinion mentions the US Constitution
    • A state's own constitution cannot protect more than the US Constitution does, so it does not count
    • Review turns on whether the state court mentioned the US Constitution anywhere in its opinion
    • Review is possible solely when a state court rules against a city, county or state government