AP Review Quiz Chapter 14

Marbury v. Madison is a landmark case in American constitutional law. It established the principle of judicial review, which grants the Supreme Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional. This case solidified the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution and affirmed its role in checking the power of the other branches of government. Therefore, the statement that Marbury v. Madison helped establish the powers of the early Supreme Court is true.

Some cases can be tried in either federal or state courts because certain types of cases fall under the jurisdiction of both systems. This means that plaintiffs or defendants have the option to choose which court system they want to bring their case to. Factors such as the nature of the case, the parties involved, and the laws applicable can influence this decision. Therefore, it is true that some cases can be tried in either federal or state courts.

A political litmus test refers to the evaluation of a candidate's political ideology or beliefs as a determining factor for their suitability for a particular position. Nominees to the Supreme Court hold significant power and influence over legal decisions that shape the nation's laws and policies. Therefore, a political litmus test would have the greatest impact on these nominees as their appointment can potentially tilt the balance of the court and impact the interpretation and application of the Constitution.

Certiorari is a legal term used to describe the process by which the Supreme Court reviews a case on appeal. It is a discretionary writ, meaning the Court has the choice to accept or deny the review of a case. When the Court grants a writ of certiorari, it agrees to hear the case and review the lower court's decision. This process allows the Supreme Court to exercise its power of judicial review and make a final determination on the case.

The dual-court system of the United States refers to the existence of two separate court systems: federal courts and state courts. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases involving the Constitution. State courts, on the other hand, have jurisdiction over cases involving state law, disputes between individuals or businesses within the state, and most criminal cases. This dual-court system allows for the division of powers between the federal and state governments and ensures that both federal and state laws are upheld.

The statement suggests that impeachment, which is the process of removing a federal judge from office, is not frequently utilized. As a result, it implies that federal judges are not significantly influenced or deterred by the threat of impeachment, leading to minimal impact on their behavior. Therefore, the correct answer is true.

Per curiam decisions are brief and unsigned. This means that they are not attributed to any specific judge or justice, and are typically short in length. These types of decisions are often used for routine or uncontroversial matters, where the court's reasoning does not require a lengthy explanation. The lack of attribution and brevity in per curiam decisions allows for a more efficient and streamlined decision-making process within the court system.

The statement is false because the president does not have the sole authority to change the number of judges sitting on the Supreme Court. The number of judges on the Supreme Court is determined by Congress, specifically through legislation. The president does have the power to nominate judges to the Supreme Court, but the actual change in the number of judges requires an act of Congress.

The correct answer is judicial review. Judicial review is the chief judicial weapon in the government's system of checks and balances. It refers to the power of the courts to review and invalidate laws or actions that are found to be unconstitutional. This allows the judiciary to ensure that the other branches of government do not exceed their constitutional authority. Judicial activism and judicial interpretivism are different concepts that refer to the approach or philosophy of judges in interpreting the law. Judicial standing and judicial bypass are not directly related to the government's system of checks and balances.

The majority of cases heard by federal courts begin in district courts. District courts are the trial courts of the federal system and have original jurisdiction over most federal cases. They handle a wide range of civil and criminal cases, including federal law violations, constitutional issues, and disputes between parties from different states. Appellate courts, on the other hand, review decisions made by lower courts and do not handle the initial proceedings of a case. State and municipal courts have jurisdiction over cases that involve state or local laws, but federal cases typically start in district courts. Circuit courts are intermediate appellate courts within the federal system.

Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret and apply the law in a way that promotes social and political change. This approach is often favored by judges who believe in using their position to address social issues and advance the principles of justice. The statement suggests that many judges, regardless of their political leanings, support and accept judicial activism. Therefore, the correct answer is true.

The statement suggests that the Court is more inclined to overturn its own precedents rather than exercise judicial review on federal laws. This implies that the Court is more willing to reconsider and change its previous decisions than to challenge the constitutionality of laws passed by the federal government. This could be because the Court acknowledges the importance of stability and consistency in the legal system, while also recognizing the need for flexibility and adaptability in response to changing societal values and circumstances.

Senatorial courtesy does not refer to the selection of Supreme Court justices. Instead, it is a long-standing tradition in the United States Senate where senators have the ability to block the confirmation of a presidential nominee for a federal position in their home state. This tradition allows senators to have a say in the appointment of federal officials within their state. Therefore, the given statement is false.

The Dred Scott case involved a slave owner's property rights to an escaped slave. Dred Scott, a slave, had lived in a free state and a free territory before returning to a slave state. He sued for his freedom, arguing that his residence in free territories should have made him free. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that enslaved people were property and could not become free by residing in free territories. This decision further solidified the rights of slave owners and contributed to the tensions that eventually led to the American Civil War.

Class-action suits are more advantageous than single-party suits because they allow large groups of people to receive relief. In a class-action suit, multiple individuals who have suffered similar harm can join together and file a lawsuit as a group. This enables them to pool their resources and increase their chances of success. It also ensures that all affected individuals receive compensation or relief, rather than just one person. Class-action suits are particularly beneficial in cases where the harm is widespread, such as consumer fraud or product liability, as they provide a more efficient and equitable way to address the issue.

Standing is not automatically accorded to any party who wishes to bring a case in federal court. In order to have standing, a party must show that they have suffered a concrete injury, that the injury is directly caused by the defendant, and that a favorable court decision can redress the injury. Therefore, not every party is granted standing to bring a case in federal court.

The statement is false because the Constitution does not specifically require the existence of the U.S. Court of Appeals. While the Constitution does establish the Supreme Court, it does not mandate the creation of any other federal courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals was created by Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1891. Therefore, the Constitution only requires the existence of the Supreme Court, not the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The question asks for the type of written opinions issued by the Supreme Court that is NOT included among the given options. The options provided include majority, per curiam, concurring, and dissenting. These are all types of written opinions that can be issued by the Supreme Court. However, mandatory is not a type of written opinion, but rather refers to something that is required or obligatory. Therefore, the correct answer is mandatory.

Amicus curiae briefs are legal documents filed by individuals or organizations who are not directly involved in a case but have an interest in its outcome. These briefs provide additional information or arguments to assist the court in making a decision. By filing these briefs, the individuals or organizations are essentially engaging in judicial lobbying, as they are attempting to influence the court's decision-making process.

Supreme Court decisions can sometimes be ignored without fear of prosecution because the Supreme Court does not have its own enforcement mechanism. While its decisions are binding, it relies on other branches of government, such as the executive branch, to enforce its rulings. Therefore, if the executive branch or other relevant authorities choose not to enforce a Supreme Court decision, there may be no legal consequences for ignoring it.

Most cases heard by federal courts do not begin in appellate courts. The majority of cases start in the district courts, where they are initially heard and decided. Appellate courts come into play only after a decision has been made in the district court and one of the parties involved decides to appeal the decision. Therefore, the statement that most cases heard by federal courts begin in appellate courts is false.

Stare decisis is a legal principle that means "to stand by things decided." It is the doctrine of precedent, which means that courts should follow the rulings of previous cases when deciding similar issues. This principle is used to ensure consistency and predictability in the law. When a court follows stare decisis, it is unlikely to overturn earlier decisions unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Therefore, the statement that stare decisis is a principle used in the overturning of earlier court decisions is false.

Fee shifting refers to the practice of getting the loser to pay court costs. In a legal case, if one party is unsuccessful, they may be required to pay the court costs of the winning party. This is done to discourage frivolous lawsuits and to ensure that the party who brings a meritless claim or defense bears the financial burden of the litigation. Fee shifting promotes fairness and discourages parties from bringing baseless claims or defenses.

The correct answer is civil rights. The explanation for this is that civil rights cases involve the protection of individual rights and freedoms, such as equal treatment, freedom of speech, and voting rights. These cases often involve issues of discrimination and inequality, which are important and pressing matters in society. As awareness and advocacy for civil rights continue to grow, it is likely that the federal courts will see an increase in civil rights cases, making it the fastest growing portion of their civil workload.

A strict constructionist would not apply a moral or economic philosophy to constitutional principles when deciding a case. Instead, they would interpret the constitution based on its original meaning and intent, without considering personal beliefs or economic considerations. This approach focuses on adhering to the text of the constitution as closely as possible, rather than applying subjective interpretations or external factors. Therefore, the correct answer is false.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that the federal government could pass any laws necessary and proper to the attainment of constitutional ends. This decision established the doctrine of implied powers, which allows the federal government to exercise powers that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution but are necessary to carry out its enumerated powers. The case involved a dispute over the constitutionality of a state tax on a federal bank, and the Court ruled that the federal government had the authority to create the bank and that states could not interfere with its operations. This decision strengthened the power of the federal government and expanded its authority to legislate in areas not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The statement is false because the approval of a petition for certiorari requires the votes of four out of the nine justices, not a simple majority. This is known as the "Rule of Four" and is designed to ensure that cases with significant legal implications receive the attention of the Supreme Court.

Federal judges do not serve for life on legislative courts. While federal judges do serve for life on constitutional courts, such as the Supreme Court, they do not have lifetime appointments on legislative courts. Legislative courts, which include specialized courts like the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims or the Court of Federal Claims, have judges who serve for fixed terms, rather than for life. Therefore, the statement that federal judges serve for life on both constitutional and legislative courts is false.

Standing refers to the legal right of an individual or party to bring a case to court. It requires a direct and personal stake in the outcome of the case. Resources, on the other hand, refer to the financial means and access to legal representation that are necessary to navigate the complex legal process and present a strong case. Therefore, having both standing and resources is crucial for getting a case to the Supreme Court as it ensures that the party has the legal right to bring the case and the ability to effectively present their arguments.

The U.S. solicitor general is responsible for approving every case that the federal government presents to the Supreme Court. This means that they review and give their consent to the cases that the government wants to bring before the Court. They play a crucial role in determining which cases are pursued and have the potential to shape the legal landscape of the country.