This chapter discusses the federal judiciary and the work of its judges and justices. The chapter describes the role and composition of the American judicial system, and the Supreme Court in particular, while examining the politics of federal court appointments. This chapter also focuses on judicial policymaking and describes how legal and political factors come together to influence the Court’s decisions. In addition, the chapter examines the controversy that surrounds the judiciary’s policy role. These are the main points of the chapter:

At the lowest level of the federal judicial system are the district courts, where most federal cases begin. Above them are the federal courts of appeals, which review cases appealed from the lower courts. The U.S. Supreme Court is the nation’s highest court. Each state has its own court system, consisting of trial courts at the bottom and one or two appellate levels at the top. Cases originating in state court ordinarily cannot be appealed to the federal courts unless a federal issue is involved, and then the federal courts can choose to rule only on the federal aspects of the case.

The Supreme Court is unquestionably the most important court in the country. The legal principles it establishes are binding on lower courts, and its capacity to define the law is enhanced by the control it exercises over the cases it hears. The most important part of the Court’s majority opinion in a case is the legal reasoning underlying the decision: this reasoning guides lower courts in their handling of similar cases. However, it is inaccurate to assume that lower courts are inconsequential (the upper-court myth). Lower courts have considerable discretion in their evaluation of the facts and applicable laws of the cases before them, and the great majority of their decisions are not reviewed by a higher court. It is also inaccurate to assume that federal courts are far more significant than state courts (the federal-court myth). The vast majority of legal cases that arise each year in the United States are decided in state courts.

Federal judges at all levels are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Once on the federal bench, they serve until they die, retire, or are removed by impeachment and conviction. Partisan politics plays a significant role in judicial appointments. Presidents are particularly alert to political philosophy in their selection of Supreme Court justices. The nation’s top court makes broad policy decisions, and presidents have tried to ensure that appointees share their partisan goals.

The courts have less discretionary authority than elected institutions. The judiciary’s positions are constrained by the facts of a case and by what is stated in the Constitution, statutes, and governmental regulations, and legal precedent. Yet existing legal guidelines are seldom so precise that judges have no choice in their decisions. The state of the law narrows a judge’s options in a particular case, but within these confines there is room for considerable discretion.

As a result, political influences have a strong impact on the judiciary. It responds to national conditions, public opinion, interest groups, and elected officials, particularly the president and members of Congress. Another political influence on the judiciary is the political beliefs of judges, who have personal preferences that are evident in the way they decide on issues that come before the courts.

Federal judges are important policymaking officials because of gaps in the law that require interpretation and because of their role in constitutional interpretation. Issues of federalism, separation of powers, majority power, and individual rights are often resolved through the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. In recent decades the Court has issued broad rulings on individual rights, some of which have required government to take positive action on behalf of minority interests. As the Court has crossed into areas traditionally left to lawmaking majorities, the legitimacy of its policies has been questioned. Advocates of judicial restraint claim that the justices’ personal values are inadequate justification for exceeding the proper judicial role. They argue that the Constitution entrusts broad issues of the public good to elective institutions and that judicial activism ultimately undermines public respect for the judiciary. Judicial activists counter that the courts were established as an independent branch and should not hesitate to promote new principles when they see a need, even if this action puts them into conflict with elected officials.