Supreme Court of the United States Procedures: Crash Course Government and Politics #20

Summary

In this episode of Crash Course Government and Politics, Craig discusses how the U.S. Supreme Court functions, outlining the process of bringing a case to the court. From appealing lower court decisions to filing writs of certiorari, the episode covers the steps involved in getting a case heard. The 'rule of four' determines if justices will hear a case, followed by briefs, oral arguments, and majority opinions. Craig also explains the roles of dissenting and concurring opinions, and how these rulings impact the law. A humorous yet informative take on a complex legal process.

Takeaways

• ⚖️ The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) hears cases that have already been decided in lower courts and appealed.
• 📜 To bring a case to the Supreme Court, one must file a petition for a writ of certiorari (commonly called 'the cert'), but it's not guaranteed to be accepted.
• 👨‍⚖️ The Rule of Four states that at least four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case.
• 📝 Briefs are written legal arguments submitted by both sides in a case. Additional briefs can be filed by third parties in the form of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs.
• 📢 Oral arguments are presented by each side in court, with justices asking questions during the limited time.
• 🗳️ A majority of five justices is needed to make a binding decision in a case.
• 🖋️ The majority opinion is written by a justice assigned by the Chief Justice, and this decision becomes the precedent for lower courts.
• 💬 Justices who agree with the majority but for different reasons can write a concurring opinion, which is not binding on lower courts.
• ✍️ Justices who disagree with the majority can write dissenting opinions, which hold no legal power but can influence future cases.
• 📊 The Supreme Court only hears about 80 cases out of 8,000 petitions each year, with the majority opinion setting binding precedents.

Q & A

What is required to bring a case to the Supreme Court?

To bring a case to the Supreme Court, you need a case or controversy, and in most situations, it must have been heard and decided by a lower court before being appealed. The appeals must be exhausted at the state or federal levels before the case can reach the Supreme Court.

What is a 'writ of certiorari' and why is it important?

A writ of certiorari is a formal request for the Supreme Court to hear a case. Petitioning for this writ is necessary to have the case reviewed by the court, but it is not guaranteed that the court will accept the case.

What is the role of the solicitor general in Supreme Court cases?

The solicitor general acts like a 'bouncer,' screening petitions for the Supreme Court. They can reject cases that do not raise significant federal law questions or have already been settled by previous rulings.

What is the 'rule of 4' in the Supreme Court?

The 'rule of 4' refers to the requirement that four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to hear a case before it is granted certiorari.

What is the purpose of briefs in a Supreme Court case?

Briefs are written legal arguments submitted by each side of a case. The petitioner submits a brief seeking to overturn a lower court decision, while the respondent submits a brief to uphold the decision. Additional briefs, like amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs, can also be submitted by interested parties.

What happens during oral arguments at the Supreme Court?

During oral arguments, each side gets 30 minutes to present their case to the justices. However, much of this time is spent answering questions from the justices, making it a highly interactive and intense process.

How does the Supreme Court reach a decision after oral arguments?

After oral arguments, the justices meet in a conference to discuss the case. A majority of at least five justices must agree on one legal argument to affirm or overturn the lower court's decision. The chief justice assigns someone to write the majority opinion, which becomes the court's official decision.

What is the difference between a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion?

A majority opinion is the court's official decision, supported by at least five justices. A concurring opinion agrees with the majority's decision but for different legal reasons. A dissenting opinion is written by justices who disagree with the majority, although it does not have legal force.

What is the significance of a unanimous decision like in Brown v. Board of Education?

A unanimous decision, where all justices agree on the ruling and its rationale, is considered a very strong statement of unified agreement. In cases like Brown v. Board of Education, it added significant weight to the ruling.

What happens to the decisions made by the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court's decisions set a legal precedent that lower courts must follow. However, only the holding and the rationale supported by at least five justices are binding. Dissents and concurrences, while important for legal discussion, do not have binding force on lower courts.

Outlines

00:00

⚖️ Introduction to the Supreme Court and Case Process

Craig introduces himself and the topic of the video, which is about the workings of the U.S. Supreme Court. He humorously mentions trying out for the Cubs and shares a light-hearted take on the court's nickname, S.C.O.T.U.S., which he prefers not to use. He explains how to bring a case to the Supreme Court, emphasizing that a case must first go through lower courts and appeals. Only after exhausting appeals can a petitioner request the Supreme Court's review by filing a 'writ of certiorari.'

05:01

📜 The Certiorari Process and the Role of the Solicitor General

Craig dives into the process of how the Supreme Court selects cases, beginning with the petition for a writ of certiorari. He compares the solicitor general to a bouncer who filters cases, making sure only those involving important federal questions proceed. He explains the 'rule of four,' where four of the nine justices must agree to hear a case. This section also humorously introduces the 'cert pool,' where cases are considered for the 'discussion list' before the justices decide which cases to hear.

📚 Filing Briefs and Amicus Curiae

Once the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case, the petitioner and respondent file written legal arguments called 'briefs.' Craig clarifies the roles of the petitioner (the one challenging the lower court decision) and the respondent (defending the lower court decision). He adds that other interested parties can submit 'amicus curiae' or 'friend of the court' briefs to influence the justices. The section continues with a lighthearted discussion about 'boxer briefs' and how briefs are not just underwear.

🎤 Oral Arguments and Court Procedures

Craig describes the process of oral arguments, where each side gets 30 minutes to present their case before the justices. He humorously compares the experience to being grilled by nine intense teachers, noting that most of the time is spent answering questions from the justices. He also mentions that Justice Clarence Thomas is usually silent during these proceedings. After oral arguments, the justices meet to discuss and decide the case, and a majority of five justices must agree on a decision.

📝 Writing the Court’s Opinion

The chief justice assigns the task of writing the majority opinion once a decision has been reached. Craig explains that sometimes the court issues a single, strong opinion, as in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, while at other times multiple opinions are issued. The opinion that holds the majority is legally binding on lower courts, and the justices who disagree may write concurring or dissenting opinions. These separate opinions are interesting but not binding.

📖 The Importance of Dissenting Opinions

Craig highlights the role of dissenting opinions in Supreme Court decisions. Although dissents do not set legal precedent, they are often eloquent and can provide the foundation for future rulings. He uses the example of the dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, which later became the basis for overturning segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. Dissenting opinions, while not immediately influential, can shape the course of legal history.

🏛️ Final Thoughts on Supreme Court Decision-Making

Craig wraps up the discussion by summarizing key points about Supreme Court decision-making. He reminds viewers that most cases never make it to the court, as there are numerous procedural hurdles. He reiterates that only the majority opinion sets a binding precedent, while dissents and concurrences, though interesting, are not legally enforceable. He closes by teasing a future episode focused on judicial reasoning and thanks the sponsors and contributors who helped produce the episode.

Keywords

💡Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States. It plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and federal law. In the video, the Court is described as the final place where cases can be appealed after going through lower courts. The Supreme Court’s decisions set binding precedents for lower courts to follow.

💡Writ of Certiorari

A 'writ of certiorari' is a formal request for the Supreme Court to hear a case. The video refers to it as 'the cert,' explaining how it is a crucial procedural step in bringing a case to the Court. Petitioning for a writ of certiorari does not guarantee that the Court will hear a case; only a small number of requests are accepted each year.

💡Rule of 4

The Rule of 4 refers to the requirement that at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices must agree to hear a case. This rule is an important step in determining which cases the Court will accept. In the video, it highlights how this is part of the decision-making process for which cases make it to the discussion list.

💡Petitioner

The petitioner is the party that brings a case to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn a lower court’s decision. The video explains that the petitioner submits briefs to argue their case, along with a reply to counter the respondent’s arguments. The petitioner is a key figure in the legal process, representing the side looking for a different legal outcome.

💡Respondent

The respondent is the party in a Supreme Court case that seeks to uphold the lower court's ruling. This party submits briefs defending the original decision. The video emphasizes that the respondent and petitioner present their legal arguments through briefs, which are central to the Court's review of the case.

💡Amicus Curiae

Amicus curiae, or 'friend of the court,' refers to briefs submitted by individuals or organizations that are not direct parties in a case but have a vested interest in the outcome. These briefs provide additional perspectives, and the video explains that they often present economic, legal, or historical arguments that can influence the justices' decisions.

💡Majority Opinion

The majority opinion is the official written decision of the Supreme Court, representing the views of the majority of justices. It becomes binding precedent for lower courts. The video explains that the majority opinion, written by one of the justices, is the Court’s final ruling on a case and sets the rationale that must be followed.

💡Concurring Opinion

A concurring opinion is written by a justice who agrees with the majority’s decision but for different legal reasons. In the video, it’s noted that while concurring opinions may provide important legal ideas, they are not binding on lower courts. Justices can join concurring opinions if they agree with the reasoning presented.

💡Dissenting Opinion

A dissenting opinion is written by justices who disagree with the majority’s decision. While it does not have the force of law, a dissent can be influential, offering alternative legal arguments. The video discusses how dissenting opinions can sometimes lead to future changes in the law, as seen with Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education.

💡Precedent

A precedent is a legal principle established by a Supreme Court decision that must be followed by lower courts in future cases. The video highlights how the Court's majority opinion sets a binding precedent. It also mentions that while dissents and concurrences are interesting, only the majority opinion establishes a precedent for future cases.

Highlights

Introduction to how the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) works in practice.

Explanation that a case must go through lower courts and appeals before reaching the Supreme Court, except in rare cases of original jurisdiction.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is necessary to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case.

The Solicitor General acts as a gatekeeper, screening out petitions that don’t raise substantial federal law questions.

For a case to be heard by the Supreme Court, four of the nine justices must agree to grant certiorari, known as the 'rule of four.'

Once a case is accepted, both parties submit briefs, which are written legal arguments for their positions.

Amicus curiae briefs, or 'friend of the court' briefs, are submitted by individuals or groups with an interest in the case but are not directly involved.

Oral arguments follow, where justices ask questions, and both parties have 30 minutes to present their case.

Justices deliberate in a conference and require a majority of five out of nine justices to agree on a decision.

The majority opinion, written by one of the justices, outlines the court's legal reasoning and becomes the binding precedent.

Justices who agree with the majority's decision but for different reasons may write a concurring opinion.

Dissenting opinions are written by justices who disagree with the majority decision, and while they don’t hold legal power, they can influence future cases.

Dissents can provide arguments that later become the foundation for overturning past rulings, such as in the transition from Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board of Education.

The Supreme Court hears about 80 cases out of roughly 8,000 petitions each year.

Only the holding and rationale of the majority opinion are binding on lower courts, while dissents and concurrences are not.

Transcripts

Hi, I'm Craig, and this is Crash Course Government and Politics and today, finally, we are stepping

into the big leagues. That's right, I'm trying out for the Cubs. No, we're gonna talk about

how the Supreme Court of the United States actually works! I could try out for the Cubs right, Stan?

Sometimes people refer to it by the unfortunate nickname S.C.O.T.U.S but I'm not gonna do

it, I'm gonna call it the supreme cocoa, or cocoa supreme. Now, let's just be respectful.

So strap in and get ready for some highly technical discussion of procedure as we learn

how you, yes you, probably not you, can bring a case to the Supreme Court.

[Theme Music]

The first thing you need to take a case to the Supreme Court is a case, or controversy,

and except in certain rare situations where the court has original jurisdiction, that

case has to have already heard and decided by a lower court and appealed. And not just

once; before a case gets to the Supreme Court you have to have exhausted your appeals at

lower levels of the state or federal system. If you've lost your previous appeals but still

think that you have an issue worthy of the court's attention, you can petition for a

writ of certiorari, which people in the know call "the cert" 'cause they're keepin' it cash...which is short for casual.

For a look at how the court chooses its cases, let's go to the Thought Bubble, or the thobub.

Lot of nicknames today, Stan! Or ST. Certiorari is a formal request that the Supreme Court

hear your case, but petitioning for a writ is no guarantee of anything. The federal government's

chief lawyer, the solicitor general, is basically like a bouncer at a hot club, if you're old

enough to get into a hot club. They screen out a lot of petitions because those cases

don't raise a lot of federal law questions or because they've already been decided in

other cases, or they're not wearing good enough shoes to get into the club.

If, and it's a big if, your petition is granted, it goes into the cert pool - the first round

in which the justices decide which cases they're actually going to decide. The list of cases

that will be decided is called the discussion list. For the judges to actually hear the

case, called granting certiorari, 4 of the 9 justices have to agree to hear it. This

is called the rule of 4. The discussion of the discussion list and decision about whether

or not to grant certiorari happens at the conference, which is like the back of the

club where the really well-dressed people go.

So the judges have read your petition and 4 of them have decided that your case is one

of about 80 that they will hear, congratulations! Now you, and the side that disagrees with

your position, have to submit briefs. Briefs are not underwear; briefs are written legal

arguments from each side explaining why the law favors their position. The party bringing

the case seeking to overturn the lower court decision is the petitioner. The party that

wants the court to uphold or affirm the lower court's decision is called the respondent.

The petitioner also files a reply, which attempts to rebut the respondent, which is not a euphemism.

After filing all this, you're finally on your way out of the Thought Bubble. I mean you're

on your way to court. Thanks thobub.

You might think that there would only be two briefs in a case, one from each side, and

it's true that there must be at least two. But often there are many, many more briefs,

and even boxer briefs! That's what Stan wears. Stan put your pants on! All undergarments

aside, individuals or groups who are not actually parties to the case, but have an interest

in the outcome can also file amicus curiae, or friend of the court briefs. Amicus briefs

often contain different legal, economic, or historical arguments that can sometimes persuade

justices and appear in their opinions. They are also one way that interest groups can

attempt to influence the Supreme Court.

After the briefs have been filed, the court schedules oral arguments, giving them time

to read and consider the briefs. Each side gets half an hour to make its case, but this

time includes questions from the justices, so most of the time it's usually spent answering

questions. Imagine a presentation with the most intense teacher you've ever had bombarding

you with questions, except that there 9 teachers! Well, 8 because Clarence Thomas never speaks.

After oral arguments, you wait for a decision. The justices then meet in another conference

which is held on a Wednesday or a Friday, 'cause there's good TV the other days. In

order for the court to render an official decision, 5 of the 9 justices, a majority

must agree on at least one of the legal arguments that either affirms or overturns the lower

court's decision. Although they can also send a case back down to the lower court for another

decision, which is called a remand. Although, you might call it... a punt!

Woo! That was like 30 yards.

The chief justice presides over the conference and assigns the task of writing the court's

decision, called the majority opinion. The opinions are given in writing, although sometimes

justices will read them from the bench. Sometimes the court will issue a single majority opinion

which is a very strong statement of unified agreement. In the key civil rights case of

Brown v. Board of Education, the court issued a single opinion that was even stronger because

it was unanimous. But sometimes the court will issue multiple opinions on the same case.

The decision of the court either to affirm or overturn the lower court's ruling is called

'the holding', and this is the first thing you need to know in any Supreme Court decision.

The second thing that matters is the legal reasoning, or rationale, behind the holding.

If a justice agrees with the holding in the majority opinion, but for different legal

reasons, they write a concurring opinion. The rationale in this concurrence is cool

and everything, but the lower courts do not need to follow it. Only the holding of the

majority and its rationale are binding on lower courts. A single justice writes a concurrence,

but other justices can sign onto it if they agree with its logic. For instance, the eagle

and I both agree that fish are delicious, but I would write a concurrence that the scales

and the eyeballs are gross. It's unlikely this will go to the Supreme Court though.

Let's solve it now. Problem solved.

Many Supreme Court cases are not unanimous. In fact, in an ideologically divided court,

you are likely to find a lot of cases decided by 5 to 4 margins. The judges who are on the

losing side who didn't support the majority decision can write a dissenting opinion. A

dissent does not set a precedent for a lower court and has no force of law, but often dissents

are very eloquent and they can provide arguments that might persuade later courts in similar

decisions. Sometimes, as with the famously bad case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the arguments

in a dissent can form the foundation for the majority opinion in a later case, even though

it can take 50 years to get from a case like Plessy to Brown v. Board of Education.

So that's the nuts and bolts of how Supreme Court decisions are made. But before we wrap

this up, here are a few key things to remember. First, there are a lot of hurdles you need

to jump over before a court makes a decision in a case. Most certiorari petitions, there

are usually about 8,000 each year, don't make it past the clerks or the solicitor general,

and don't get granted. It takes 4 judges to agree to hear a case, but 5 to render a majority

opinion. Only the holding and the rationale supported by at least 5 of the 9 justices

becomes binding precedent for lower courts. Dissents and concurrences may be fun and interesting

to read, especially if there are pictures, and they may include important legal ideas,

but lower courts don't need to follow them. So that's how to court works procedurally,

but there's another way to think about Supreme Court decision-making. To really understand

the Supreme Court, we need to consider the thinking behind judicial decisions, but that's

for another episode. Thanks for watching.

Crash Course Government and Politics is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios. Support

for Crash Course U.S. Government comes from Voqal. Voqal supports non-profits that use

technology and media to advance social equity. Learn more about their mission and initiatives

at voqal.org. Crash Course was made with the help of these cocoa supremes. Thanks for watching.