As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with guaranteeing to the American people the promise of equal justice before the law and, therefore, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. These three branches (legislative, executive and judicial) function within a constitutional system of “checks and balances”. This means that, while each power is formally separated from the other two, the Constitution often requires cooperation between the powers. Federal laws, for example, are approved by Congress and signed by the president. The judiciary, in turn, has the authority to decide the constitutionality of federal laws and to resolve other cases related to federal laws.
However, judges rely on the executive branch to enforce judicial decisions. Because the Constitution was drafted by an assembly of representatives from several states, its drafting is the product of negotiation and commitment. Therefore, many of the words and phrases in the document are ambiguous. Even those phrases whose meaning seems to be relatively clear may require interpretation when applied to unforeseen situations. It is incumbent on the Court to assume primary responsibility for interpreting and applying the Constitution.
The Court has the opportunity to interpret the Constitution when legal cases arise involving disputes over the meaning of the Constitution. Usually, these cases involve challenging the exercise of power by a government body or an assertion that a government employee, such as a police officer or prosecutor, has violated a person's rights. These questions about the meaning of the Constitution receive initial decisions from lower federal courts or state courts before they reach the Supreme Court. The Court has the authority to choose which constitutional issues to decide. If the Court does not want to decide a matter, it simply leaves the previous decision of a lower federal or state court intact.
State superior courts interpret laws that affect some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what is pending. A version of this article also appeared on the American Civil Liberties Union website. Nearly 50 years ago, former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Jr. He observed that “state courts, like federal courts, are and should be the guardians of our liberties.
More than 98 percent of court cases brought in the United States are in state courts, and state courts play an outsized role in certain areas of the law, including the rights of criminal defendants and their families. However, the ability of state courts to protect our liberties depends to a large extent on those courts adopting transparent processes that allow members of the public to obtain information about, monitor and participate in important state court cases. As federal courts have become increasingly hostile to the protection of civil liberties, state supreme courts play an especially important role in protecting and expanding our rights. Each state has its own constitution, which may go beyond that of the U.S.
In the United States, and it often does. State supreme courts also have the final word on interpreting a state's constitution without the threat of the United States. Consequently, the decisions of the state supreme courts, like those of the Supreme Court of the United States, have an enormous impact on our lives. State supreme courts, for example, have relied on state law to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry, declare the death penalty unconstitutional despite the contrary of federal law, protect access to reproductive health care after Dobbs, and offer stronger protection to individuals who have been or could be the subject of unreasonable searches and seizures. When community groups soon learn that a higher state court is reviewing a case, they can prepare to file “friendly” briefs to inform judges about the implications of the case.
We see dozens of these writings, known as amicus curiae briefs, in many cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, but they are much less frequent in proceedings before state supreme courts. Similarly, a list of cases before a state's Supreme Court informs the public about what has happened in the case so far and what to expect in terms of future submissions. This type of information helps citizen journalists and other media outlets covering a legal topic to educate the public about the twists and turns of litigation in real time. It's important to note that, in many states, Supreme Court judges are elected.
Voters deserve to know not only a judge's definitive opinions on a case, but also whether the judge's opinions respond fairly to the arguments of, for example, those accused of criminal offenses, employees who were fired because they were black or gay, or demonstrators who were retaliated for speaking their minds. A full evaluation is only possible if you can read the legal briefs of a case. Given what is at stake, it's imperative that the public has meaningful access to cases pending in state superior courts, but access varies dramatically across the country. Common law and the First Amendment legally require some transparency, which gives the public the right to access certain court documents.
However, beyond this reference point, the fact that you can easily access the writings, files and issues that are being processed in your state's superior court will depend on where you live. The ACLU State Supreme Court initiative examined all state superior courts to determine four key practices, all of which are already in effect in the EE. UU. These practices include publishing new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about the legal issues presented by the cases, making records accessible and free to the public, and making information about the fund accessible and free to the public.
You can view the full scoreboard, which includes an interactive map and specific data for each state, here. Fortunately, state supreme courts that have room for improvement don't need to recreate the wheel. There are clear examples in state superior courts across the country and in the U.S. Supreme Court, and these examples could, at a minimum, serve as a model for the specific modification of a state.
Therefore, whenever possible, our scoreboard contains links to examples on state superior court websites in the information provided about each state, in the hope that these examples will help the courts and the advocates who appear before them identify promising practices that could be repeated in their states. Everyone benefits from transparency in our judicial system. It's up to all of us to demand that our states' superior courts set a high standard. Julie Murray is co-director of the ACLU State Supreme Court Initiative. Bridget Lavender is a Skadden intern and is participating in the initiative.
The Ohio Supreme Court justice outlines a framework that promotes state interpretations that differ from federal case law. A Massachusetts state court was the first to defend the right to same-sex marriage on grounds constitutional. A recent case announcing greater state protection of religious liberties under federal law marked a turning point in Virginia case law. Recently, a Kansas court refused to follow federal precedent in interpreting the state's constitutional right to bear arms.
Pending decisions and cases that make up state constitutional law. In a divided decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the governor did not exceed the partial veto power granted to him by the state constitution by modifying digits in a budget bill to extend the increase in school funding from 2 to 402 years. The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the legal requirement that an applicant who requests a certificate to provide non-emergency medical transportation must demonstrate that the proposed service is required for public convenience and that the need does not facially violate state constitutional due process or prohibit special laws or laws that grant special privileges and immunities. He also held that the due process and equal protection clauses of the Nebraska Constitution are coextensive with their federal equivalents, so the federal rationale review applies to substantive due process challenges to economic regulations, not to the stricter standard that the court had applied in a series of cases in the early 20th century. A project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Interpretation refers to the process of understanding and explaining the meaning of a text or document, while application involves putting that interpretation into practice. In the context of the United States Supreme Court, interpretation is often used to describe how judges interpret and apply the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution and determine its meaning, which may involve examining the text itself, as well as the historical context and precedents. Application, on the other hand, refers to the way in which the Supreme Court applies the Constitution to the specific cases before it.
This may include deciding whether laws are constitutional or not, determining the scope of individual rights protected by the Constitution, and resolving disputes between parties. In general, interpretation and application are two important functions of the Supreme Court when it comes to interpreting and applying the Constitution. Finally, the Supreme Court can also rely on case law, that is, the principle that previous court decisions must be respected, unless there is good reason to depart from them. However, the Court used its power of judicial review to systematically invalidate laws that imposed a minimum wage, laws that established permitted working hours, and laws designed to limit the exploitation of children workers.
In addition to its interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court also plays a crucial role in shaping American society through its decisions on civil rights, the right to vote and other issues related to individual liberties. The Court's interpretations of these amendments define the extent to which people's constitutional rights protect them against government actions. The Constitution also specifies that Supreme Court judges shall be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The Court made important contributions to the stability and viability enjoyed by the Constitution through its decisions, in which it interpreted the document in order to define the powers of the government and clarify the extent to which individuals have protected constitutional rights.
During the first eighty years of the Constitution's history, the Court faced important questions about the constitutional provisions that define the powers of the government. In contrast, six state superior courts belong to level 5, meaning they don't follow any of the identified transparency practices, and another 26 follow only one or two of those key practices. This has far-reaching implications for the interpretation and application of the Constitution, as well as other laws passed by Congress. The Court also interpreted constitutional provisions on the powers of Congress to allow the enactment of laws against discrimination by private companies and individuals.
in the Katzenbach v. Maryland case (181), the Court interpreted the Constitution to prohibit states from taxing the federal government and its agencies. Once the Court has defined that word or phrase, that interpretation becomes binding on all lower courts should disputes arise in the future.
