The U.S. judicial system is typified by individualism, decentralization, and independence. It highlights a small group and allows them to sometimes diverge from major public opinion and rule based on the Constitution. The impact of higher-court decisions on lower courts can sometimes be ambiguous. With Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka the Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges must enforce the policy that public schools must be desegregated with “all deliberate speed.” This vague demand left federal district judges, in all their diversity, scrambling to justify their interpretations of the policy because the Supreme Court did not provide specific answers to what exactly a “reasonable” start of desegregation was. The reasoning for this ambiguity is that to obtain unanimity and accommodate all the judges an imprecise precedent is set. Additionally, some lower courts are not aware of higher-court rulings because of lack of publicity and attention. If they do, however, then they first interpret according to their discretion the meaning of higher-court rulings. Obviously, this leads to various viewpoints from different judges. There are certain strategies employed by lower courts to reject or accept certain higher-court rulings. Those in favor will vow to enforce it and perhaps broaden the ruling. Some have even accepted ostracism to enforce certain policy they believe strongly in but is opposed in their local communities. Complete defiance is a rare approach. Instead, some choose to just avoid the policy but ridding the case on technical or procedural grounds. Another option is just to apply it very narrowly. There are several congressional influences on implementation. They can aid or hinder enforcement, change a court’s perception of the law, or execute an attack on an individual judge. Usually though, Congress doesn’t alter judiciary decisions. The executive branch may be asked directly to implement a judicial decision as in U.S. v. Nixon. Also, because of the high publicity on the president, they can through actions and expressions rally support or resistance to new policy. They can also suggest legislation that affects the court, such as FDR’s attempt to pack the courts. Both states and federal officals implement judicial policies. Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, for example, are enforced by by both. Police officers play a paramount role in enforcing Miranda rights. The Gideon rule is implemented by local bar associations, public defenders, and individual court-appointed lawyers. Governors also contribute as they are so involved in state budgeting and singing/vetoing laws.
Part of the Supreme Court's role is deciding when and how its decisions must be followed. This mandatory application of court orders is a process that assures that every citizen of the United States follows the Supreme Court's Constitution-based decision. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Court ruled that all public schools must be desegregated. Lower court judges were not sure how to properly apply Brown v. Board to public school systems as the High Court gave no instructions for them to follow. More conservative areas within the country did not integrate their schools immediately, under the guise of not having any official guidelines from the federal government. However, Brown II, which stated that public schools must be desegregated quickly and efficiently, gave them more specific instructions. With a precedent set, the states had to develop their own desegregation laws, but not without approval from the federal government. (All school districts had to submit desegregation plans before school opened in the fall.) Both the legislative and executive branches aid in judicial implementation: Congress can make laws that will aid the implementation of a ruling, while the president can publicly, and even authoritatively, support the decision. For instance, President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas when the state's governor prevented black students from attending Little Rock High School, and President Kennedy sent the National Guard to Alabama when mobs protested the integration of the University of Alabama. Judicial implementation is started by the Supreme Court, but is finished by the other branches, as part of the system of checks and balances.
The court does not have the power of the purse or the sword and must depend on other branches to implement decisions.
When the court rules on an issue such as Miranda, Gideon, Roe, the lower federal courts will order areas under their jurisdiction to follow the Supreme Court rulings.
Legislation by Congress can promote implementation. The Civil Rights Act 1964 gave the Justice Department authority to promote school integration.
The Supreme Court ruled that public schools would violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment if they had prayers at graduation. However, if a school is in an area where there would be no complaints, they might have a prayer. But is anyone did complain they would win their case in federal district court.
The U.S. judicial system is typified by individualism, decentralization, and independence. It highlights a small group and allows them to sometimes diverge from major public opinion and rule based on the Constitution. The impact of higher-court decisions on lower courts can sometimes be ambiguous. With Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka the Supreme Court ruled that federal district judges must enforce the policy that public schools must be desegregated with “all deliberate speed.” This vague demand left federal district judges, in all their diversity, scrambling to justify their interpretations of the policy because the Supreme Court did not provide specific answers to what exactly a “reasonable” start of desegregation was. The reasoning for this ambiguity is that to obtain unanimity and accommodate all the judges an imprecise precedent is set. Additionally, some lower courts are not aware of higher-court rulings because of lack of publicity and attention. If they do, however, then they first interpret according to their discretion the meaning of higher-court rulings. Obviously, this leads to various viewpoints from different judges. There are certain strategies employed by lower courts to reject or accept certain higher-court rulings. Those in favor will vow to enforce it and perhaps broaden the ruling. Some have even accepted ostracism to enforce certain policy they believe strongly in but is opposed in their local communities. Complete defiance is a rare approach. Instead, some choose to just avoid the policy but ridding the case on technical or procedural grounds. Another option is just to apply it very narrowly. There are several congressional influences on implementation. They can aid or hinder enforcement, change a court’s perception of the law, or execute an attack on an individual judge. Usually though, Congress doesn’t alter judiciary decisions. The executive branch may be asked directly to implement a judicial decision as in U.S. v. Nixon. Also, because of the high publicity on the president, they can through actions and expressions rally support or resistance to new policy. They can also suggest legislation that affects the court, such as FDR’s attempt to pack the courts. Both states and federal officals implement judicial policies. Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona, for example, are enforced by by both. Police officers play a paramount role in enforcing Miranda rights. The Gideon rule is implemented by local bar associations, public defenders, and individual court-appointed lawyers. Governors also contribute as they are so involved in state budgeting and singing/vetoing laws.
ReplyDeletePart of the Supreme Court's role is deciding when and how its decisions must be followed. This mandatory application of court orders is a process that assures that every citizen of the United States follows the Supreme Court's Constitution-based decision. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the Court ruled that all public schools must be desegregated. Lower court judges were not sure how to properly apply Brown v. Board to public school systems as the High Court gave no instructions for them to follow. More conservative areas within the country did not integrate their schools immediately, under the guise of not having any official guidelines from the federal government. However, Brown II, which stated that public schools must be desegregated quickly and efficiently, gave them more specific instructions. With a precedent set, the states had to develop their own desegregation laws, but not without approval from the federal government. (All school districts had to submit desegregation plans before school opened in the fall.) Both the legislative and executive branches aid in judicial implementation: Congress can make laws that will aid the implementation of a ruling, while the president can publicly, and even authoritatively, support the decision. For instance, President Eisenhower sent troops to Arkansas when the state's governor prevented black students from attending Little Rock High School, and President Kennedy sent the National Guard to Alabama when mobs protested the integration of the University of Alabama. Judicial implementation is started by the Supreme Court, but is finished by the other branches, as part of the system of checks and balances.
ReplyDeleteThe court does not have the power of the purse or the sword and must depend on other branches to implement decisions.
ReplyDeleteWhen the court rules on an issue such as Miranda, Gideon, Roe, the lower federal courts will order areas under their jurisdiction to follow the Supreme Court rulings.
Legislation by Congress can promote implementation. The Civil Rights Act 1964 gave the Justice Department authority to promote school integration.
The Supreme Court ruled that public schools would violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment if they had prayers at graduation. However, if a school is in an area where there would be no complaints, they might have a prayer. But is anyone did complain they would win their case in federal district court.