As an expert in constitutional law, I have spent years studying the role of the Supreme Court in the United States government. The primary function of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law, specifically the Constitution, and act as the final arbiter of legal disputes. This means ensuring that the laws and actions of other branches of government adhere to constitutional principles. While it does not write or pass new laws, it has the power to repeal laws that are deemed unconstitutional through a process called judicial review.
Additionally, the Court enforces the law by resolving disputes between states and overseeing treaty-related cases, ensuring consistent application of the law across the country. The United States government operates within a system of checks and balances, with three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial - each having its own powers and responsibilities. While these powers are formally separated, there is often a need for cooperation between them. For example, federal laws are approved by Congress and signed by the president. The judiciary then has the authority to decide on the constitutionality of these laws and resolve other cases related to them. However, judges rely on the executive branch to enforce their decisions.
As someone from a civil law country (Scandinavian law), I have been intrigued by the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. It made me curious to understand how the ability to create laws works in the United States. Technically, it follows a similar system as most other countries with a division of power into three branches - one that creates laws, one that interprets them, and one that enforces them. It would seem that the Supreme Court is the final authority when it comes to interpreting laws passed by Congress. However, when we look at cases such as abortion rights, presidential immunity, and agency regulations, it appears that the Court has more power in creating laws than just interpreting them.
This raises the question - is the ability to create laws in the United States divided between Congress and the Supreme Court? Or is the threshold for something to be considered a law extremely high? As an expert, I find this topic both interesting and, at times, concerning. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary. It has the highest appellate jurisdiction over all federal court cases and cases in state courts involving issues in the United States. It also has original jurisdiction over a limited range of cases, including those involving ambassadors, public ministers, consuls, and disputes between states. In 1803, the Court established its power of judicial review through the historic case of Marbury v. Madison.
This means that it has the authority to invalidate a law if it violates a provision of the Constitution. The Court can also annul presidential directives if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of statutory law. The drafters of the Constitution outlined a general framework for the judiciary in Article Three, leaving it up to Congress to establish lower courts as needed. Despite this variability, almost every president has been able to appoint at least one judge during their term. Only four presidents have not had this opportunity - William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor died shortly after taking office, Andrew Johnson was denied the opportunity due to a reduction in the size of the Court, and Jimmy Carter left office without making any appointments during his term. Congress has the power to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution.
Cases brought before the Court are referred to as petitioner versus defendant, regardless of who initiated the lawsuit in lower courts. For example, criminal cases are initiated by the state against an individual, such as in the case of Arizona v. Miranda. There have been several criticisms and controversies surrounding the Court that have not been discussed in the previous sections. One notable example is the case of Worcester v.
Georgia in 1832, where the state of Georgia ignored the Court's decision. This raised questions about the Court's ability to enforce its judgments, as it relies on respect for the Constitution and the law to do so. Almost all cases are brought before the Court through petitions for writ of certiorari, commonly referred to as "certs." The Court then issues a writ of certiorari to hear the case. Some judicial decisions have been criticized for delving into political issues and making decisions that fall within the realm of elected powers.
