356 CHAPTER 12|THE COURTS
CHAPTER goals
Explain how the power
of judicial review was
established.
¾ PAGES 357–61
Outline the structure of the
court system.
¾ PAGES 361–72
Describe how cases reach
the Supreme Court.
¾ PAGES 372–75
Describe the Supreme
Court’s procedures for
hearing a case.
¾ PAGES 376–78
Analyze the factors that
infl uence Supreme Court
decisions.
¾ PAGES 378–82
compromises. The health care case upheld the most important part of the
Affordable Care Act—the so-called individual mandate, requiring people to
obtain insurance—but did so on narrower constitutional grounds than liberals
wanted, while striking down the expansion of Medicaid as an unfair example of
coercive federalism, which made conservatives happy. The immigration case
struck down three part of Arizona’s immigration law while upholding the most
controversial “show your papers” part of the law, allowing both liberals and
conservatives to claim victory in the case.
Although we certainly expect them to be fair and objective, judges have their
own political views and opinions, and these often shape their views of cases,
in part because there are usually multiple legal justifi cations for any case. For
example, there is no simple or clear-cut way to determine objectively the relative
legal merits of Justice Scalia’s dissenting view in the immigration case that “the
federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws” opens
the door for states to enforce the law or the majority’s view that Congress has
the power to dictate immigration policy because of the supremacy clause of the
Constitution. To a large extent, this depends on the justices’ views of whether the
supremacy clause applies in this context.
For those who resist the view that the courts are a policy-making institution,
at least in the same way that Congress is, the theme “political process matters”
may not seem to apply in this chapter. However, the courts often do make policy,
and the manner in which they make decisions has an impact on outcomes. To
see how political process matters for the courts, it is important to answer the
following questions: What are the different roles of the courts? What is the
structure of the judicial system? How do court decisions shape policy? In a
nutshell, what is the nature of judicial decision making?
The role of the Supreme Court as a policy-making and political institution
also illustrates the third theme of this book. On the one hand, the courts seem
to resist our characterization that politics is everywhere. There is an aura of
mystery and prestige to the courts that seems to isolate them from the rest
of the political process. However, most Americans will come into contact with
the court system at some point in their lives, whether it is to contest a traffi c
ticket, fi ght a local zoning change, or serve on a jury (we assume that you will
not be on the “wrong side” of the law). The relevance of the courts in national
politics is similarly self-evident. Dramatic moments, such as the Bush v. Gore
decision that determined the 2000 presidential election and the health care
reform case, are the most obvious examples of the relevance (and political
nature!) of the courts. Less visible decisions that are handed down every day
in the federal courts affects the lives of millions of Americans across a broad
range of areas, including environmental policy, employment law, tax policy,
civil rights, and civil liberties. In fact, some critics of the courts complain about
and “imperial judiciary” that has become too powerful in the political system.
This chapter examines the issues centered on the proper place of the courts
within our political system. How much power should unelected judges have?
Are they a necessary check on the other branches of government or a source of
unaccountable power that contradicts core principles of democracy? How do the
courts interact with the other branches? Before addressing these questions, we
discuss how the Founders viewed the judicial system.