Overview
This lecture explores how Supreme Court decisions can influence public perceptions of the Court’s legitimacy and explains ways other government branches can limit the Court’s power.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
- Judicial activism refers to courts making decisions that establish new policy and consider broad societal impacts.
- Both liberal and conservative justices/courts have been accused of judicial activism (e.g., Warren Court in Brown v. Board, Roberts Court in Citizens United v. FEC).
- Judicial restraint emphasizes that judges should only strike down laws if they clearly violate the Constitution, focusing on precedent.
- Judicial restraint can sometimes uphold harmful precedents, as in Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine.
Controversial Supreme Court Decisions and Legitimacy
- Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): The Court ruled that enslaved people were not citizens and struck down the Missouri Compromise, expanding slavery and sparking outrage.
- This was seen as judicial activism and led many to question the Court’s legitimacy, especially in the North.
- Korematsu v. United States (1944): The Court upheld Japanese American internment during WWII, using judicial restraint and precedent from a previous case.
- Both cases illustrate how unpopular decisions can erode trust in the Supreme Court.
Checks on Supreme Court Power
- Congress can pass new laws that modify the impact of Supreme Court decisions (e.g., modifying the Gun-Free School Zones Act after U.S. v. Lopez).
- Congress can pass constitutional amendments to overturn Court decisions (e.g., 13th Amendment after Dred Scott).
- Congress can change the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, limiting which cases it can hear.
- The President can appoint new justices to shift the Court’s ideological balance.
- The President can choose not to enforce Court decisions, as seen with Andrew Jackson and the removal of the Cherokee.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Judicial Activism — When courts create new policy and consider broad consequences in their rulings.
- Judicial Restraint — The philosophy that courts should defer to existing laws and precedents unless they clearly conflict with the Constitution.
- Precedent — Previous court decisions used as a guide for deciding similar future cases.
- Jurisdiction — The authority of a court to hear and decide cases.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Review unit 2 topics 10–11 in the AP Government curriculum.
- Prepare for deeper discussion of Roe v. Wade in unit 3.