Supreme Court's Jurisdiction Case Study

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

The authority of judicial review recognized by Marbury has allowed the court to result revolutionary alteration in our sympathetic of constitutional supplies. This power hasn’t unpredictably, haggard both censure and praise over the court’s antiquity, but it has never been a supremacy totally beyond the jurisdiction of the other divisions of government. Since the President’s authority to appoint and the Senate’s authority to approve Supreme Court Justices to the infrequent great efforts of constitutional alteration, the court remains resolutely entrenched in our Constitution’s system of checks and balances. Meanwhile judicial review has certified that the Supreme Court’s justices, once established, have adequate power to apply their individuality from the political divisions and apply constitutional bounds on their powers. The Court’s power in constitutional clarification rests in part on general

The United States has had its system of government since 1789, but how it works is not clear to all of its citizens. Some think the president controls everything and makes all laws. Others say that Congress is the most powerful. All think the Supreme Court is a court. But in this essay, all questions and doubts will be solved.

On June 28, 2013, appellee, Jennifer Brandeen, (“Mother”), was awarded an absolute divorce from appellant, David Brandeen, (“Father”) in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. The circuit court amended its judgment on November 6, 2013. Mother later appealed the circuit court’s decision to this court, where we affirmed the circuit court’s judgment except on a question relating to the court’s marital property award. Father, sought--and was granted--an en banc review of the circuit court’s judgment. After the en banc review, the circuit court’s judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff's claims regarding his ability to mail documents bears upon his constitutional right of access to the courts. Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977). While prisoners have a constitutionally protected right of access to the courts:

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn.

The issue is whether Abby, Beth, Carl, Dan and ABC’s Corporation (Plaintiffs) action meets requirements of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

The United States Supreme Court has heard many cases since it was established in 1788, but there were three major cases that were most prominent in my view. Though every Supreme Court case played a major role in history, the most prominent three were Palko vs. Connecticut, Brown vs. Board of Education, and Miranda vs. Arizona. These three cases established some major things that we use within the government to this day, and with that, these cases play a prominent role in United States history.

According to the Constitution, how do Congress and the President balance the power of the Supreme Court?

Article III of the Constitution of the United States vests judicial power in “one supreme Court”. With incredible adaptability, the Constitution has stood the test of time. Largely due to the limited specificity as to the application of its words, the Constitution has allowed the character of the Court to be historically defined by the individuals who have held the position of “Chief Justice of the United States”. The ideology and individual Constitutional interpretation of each Chief Justice has changed both the influential power and message of the Court. Earl Warren, Warren Burger, and John G. Roberts, Jr. have all successfully been appointed to the Court as Chief Justices. And although the Constitutionally proscribed process of

Original jurisdiction refers to where the case starts. Appellate jurisdiction means that the court reviews the decision from the other court. Meaning, if you are prosecuted for a crime, the court where the trial would be held, has the original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court generally is a court of an appellate jurisdiction, but it does have original jurisdiction for cases regarding ambassadors, or other public ministers. The court that reviews the decision of the trial from the lower court, would have appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, if you lose in court you can ask a higher court, an appellate court to consider whether or not your trial followed the law correctly. If you lose in the appellate court you can ask the highest court in the land which is the United States Supreme Court. Genuine jurisdiction is different entirely from special jurisdiction. General jurisdiction has the power of the court to hear only certain types of cases, and if the amount of controversy is below a certain amount, is more times than less subject to exceptions. Courts of the general jurisdiction are often called District Courts or Superior Courts. Jurisdiction may also be referred to the origin of the court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general

Lower courts now have the ability to hear cases. This authority, known as jurisdiction, was granted to them by the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction also refers to the territory that a court can exercise its power. This factor also determines its other definition, the ability of a court to hear a case (Legal Information Institute, 2015). There are two components of jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction. Both elements are mandatory for a court to preside over a particular case. This essay defines the two elements giving the requirements of personal jurisdiction in a federal court and further explains the three different types of personal jurisdiction.

Question 1 Morrissey v Commissioner of Internal Revenue was a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1935. The case revolved around tax rulings, deficiencies, and valuations and the burden of proof on such. Essentially, the Internal Revenue Code defines a corporation to include associations, insurance companies, and joint-stock companies. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling the IRS identified certain criteria that distinguished what a corporation was legally and how it differed from an Association. In Morrissey, the trustees of an express trust, contested income taxes for the years 1924 to 1926 upon the grounds that it had been illegally treated as an association. The Tax board sustained the ruling of the Commissioner of the IRS and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed all decisions.

The Constitution states that “the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, this section is mere surplusage and is entirely without meaning. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

Furthermore, precedent set by Nixon v Administrator of General Services (1977) established that Congressional authority may only be confined and limited in contest between Congress and President only if Congress’ statute would prevent the executive from, “accomplishing its constitutionally assigned functions.” Morrison v Olson (1988) reinforced the Nixon decision. In following Supreme Court precedent in decisions regarding the power of the executive over Congress, this court should rule against the executive based on the absence of enumerated Constitutional language granting the President exclusive recognition power and the supremacy of Congressional authority.