Section 2.3: Policy and the Supreme Court 

Additionally, the Court has the power to interpret the law, which provides them with another way to make criminal justice policy. The Due Process Clause is an essential factor in the Court’s decision-making process. Judicial modesty is a concept that some constitutional scholars believe Supreme Court justices should practice. It refers to the idea that justices should only strike down laws if they violate a constitutional provision, and policy-making should be left to the legislative and executive branches. However, some justices believe that the Court should be active in cases of civil liberties and civil rights. Ultimately, the justices must monitor themselves to prevent political agendas from influencing their decision-making process.

Judicial Review

Judicial review is the authority granted to the Supreme Court to review laws and actions taken by Congress or the Executive branch and determine whether they are consistent with the Constitution. This power is not explicitly stated in the Constitution but was established in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803, where Chief Justice John Marshall asserted that it is the duty of the Court to interpret the Constitution and strike down any laws that are unconstitutional.

The concept of judicial review has been a controversial one since its inception, as it has the potential to undermine the power of the other two branches of government. Critics argue that it gives unelected judges too much power and can lead to decisions that are not representative of the will of the people. Supporters, on the other hand, believe that it is necessary to maintain the integrity of the Constitution and prevent abuses of power by the other branches.

The impact of judicial review on the criminal justice system has been significant. The Supreme Court has used this power to strike down laws that violate the rights of criminal defendants and limit the power of law enforcement. For example, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court established the requirement that police officers inform individuals of their rights before questioning them. This decision was based on the Court’s interpretation of the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination and has had a major impact on police procedures ever since.

Another major area where judicial review has impacted the criminal justice system is the area of civil rights. The Court has used its power to strike down laws that discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories. For example, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Court struck down the practice of segregation in public schools, finding that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

However, the use of judicial review in the criminal justice system is not without its limits. The legal framework that governs the Supreme Court’s power to review laws and actions limits the Court’s ability to engage in judicial activism. Before a federal court can hear a case, certain conditions must be met. For example, the case must present an actual legal dispute, and the plaintiff must have legal standing to ask the court for a decision. The case must also present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy.

In addition, the Court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative or answer a hypothetical legal question. The Court’s power to review laws and actions is limited to actual legal disputes between parties who have suffered legal harm and have standing to bring a case before the Court. As a result, the Court’s power to engage in judicial activism is constrained by the legal framework that governs its jurisdiction.

Political Tendencies

The Supreme Court justices are tasked with interpreting the law, but this task is influenced by their personal political beliefs. Despite good intentions, these beliefs impact their perception of what is just and unjust. Typically, the political leanings of justices are divided into two categories: liberal and conservative. Liberal decisions tend to favor criminal defendants, those who claim discrimination, and those who claim violations of civil rights. Conservative decisions, on the other hand, tend to favor law enforcement, prosecutors, and other government entities.

As of March 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States is composed of nine justices, with more appointed by Republican presidents than were appointed by Democratic presidents. Currently, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett tend to vote in a conservative manner. In contrast, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan tend to vote more liberally.

It is worth noting that not all liberal justices are equally liberal, and not all conservative justices are equally conservative. Justice Breyer is known for being more centrist, while Justices Thomas and Alito are known for their more conservative positions. Moreover, the individual justices’ voting behavior can vary from case to case, and predicting the outcome of a Supreme Court decision is often challenging. 

The Court’s decisions can also be influenced by factors such as legal precedent, the specific issue at stake, and the broader political and social context. Nonetheless, the current makeup of the Court suggests that the justices are likely to be divided along ideological lines in many cases, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh being seen as potential swing votes on certain issues.

Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint

The Supreme Court has two primary ways of interpreting the Constitution: strict constructionism and contextual interpretation. The former maintains that the Constitution should be read exactly as it is written, while the latter argues that it should be understood in light of current events and issues. These two positions are often referred to as judicial restraint and judicial activism. 

Judicial restraint is based on the idea that changes in policy should be made through legislative enactments that represent the will of the people rather than through judicial interpretation. Judicial activism, on the other hand, calls for the court to take an active role in correcting injustices when other branches of government fail to do so.

While the Warren Court was known for its liberal activism, it is important to note that activism can come from either side of the political spectrum. In any case, judges are limited in their ability to pursue activism by the legal framework in which they operate. Federal judges can only interpret the law through the resolution of actual legal disputes, and plaintiffs must have legal standing to ask for a decision. 

Additionally, the case must present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy.  The federal courts, thus, are courts of limited jurisdiction because they may only decide certain types of cases as provided by Congress or as identified in the Constitution.

Despite these limitations, the Supreme Court’s rulings have a significant impact on the criminal justice system, and the justices are often called upon to make decisions that go beyond a literal reading of the law. Their interpretations can reflect their own personal beliefs and political leanings, making the court’s policymaking role just as consequential as acts of Congress and executive decisions of the president.

Limits to Judicial Activism

The power of the Supreme Court to shape policy through judicial activism is not absolute. Several legal frameworks limit the ability of the court to engage in activism. These frameworks ensure that the court does not overstep its bounds, interfere with the democratic process, or engage in judicial overreach.

The legal framework that limits judicial activism is derived from the Constitution itself. According to Article III, federal courts are authorized to exercise only judicial powers. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to as “Cases or Controversies.” The court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative or answer a hypothetical legal question. In addition, assuming there is an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit must have legal standing to ask the court for a decision.

This means that the plaintiff must have been aggrieved or legally harmed in some way by the defendant. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union cannot sue the police directly, but they can fund legal assistance for a party that alleges harm done by the police. The case must also present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy. This means that the court must be authorized, under the Constitution or federal law, to hear the case. For example, if there is no substantial federal question, the Supreme Court cannot review a case originating in state courts.

To further limit judicial activism, certain conditions must be met for a federal court to hear a case. These conditions ensure the court is not overstepping its bounds and interfering with the democratic process. First, the court must have jurisdiction over the case. This means the court must have the power to hear and decide the case. For example, if a case arises under state law, the federal court does not have jurisdiction.

In addition, the case must be ripe for review. This means the case must present an actual and ongoing problem for the court to resolve. The court cannot decide on hypothetical or abstract questions. The case must also be presented by a party with standing. This means the party bringing the case must have a personal stake in the outcome.

Also, the court must determine that it is the appropriate forum for the case. This means that the court must determine that it is the best place to hear the case based on factors such as convenience and efficiency. The court must also determine that the case is not moot. A case is moot if it no longer presents an actual controversy or if the issue has been resolved.

The law is designed to address certain categories of disputes. These categories ensure that the court is not overstepping its bounds and engaging in judicial overreach. The law is designed to address cases that involve a federal question, such as a question of constitutional law. The law is also designed to address cases that involve diversity jurisdiction, such as cases between citizens of different states.

In addition, the law is designed to address cases that involve federal crimes or federal regulations. The law is also designed to address cases that involve international law, such as cases involving treaties or foreign relations. Finally, the law is designed to address cases that involve civil rights and civil liberties. These categories ensure that the court is focusing on issues that are within its purview and are not overstepping its bounds.

Due Process Clause and Police Procedure

The Due Process Clause is a provision in the Constitution that requires the government to respect the legal rights of individuals. This clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. It ensures that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Due process can refer to both procedural and substantive protections that individuals have under the law.

The Due Process Clause has significant implications for the policymaking role of the Supreme Court. The Court has interpreted the Due Process Clause as guaranteeing certain fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy and the right to freedom of speech. These interpretations have had a major impact on the criminal justice system and other areas of law.

One example of the impact of the Due Process Clause on police procedure is the Warren Court’s decision in Mapp v. Ohio. In this case, the Court held that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure could not be used in a criminal trial. This decision was significant because it established the “exclusionary rule,” which requires the suppression of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Prior to this decision, police officers often conducted searches without warrants or probable cause, and the evidence obtained in these searches was frequently used in criminal trials. The exclusionary rule has since become a cornerstone of criminal procedure, and police officers are now required to obtain a warrant or have probable cause before conducting a search.

In addition to the exclusionary rule, the Due Process Clause has also been used to protect the rights of criminal defendants during interrogations. In the case of Escobedo v. Illinois, the Court held that a criminal defendant had a right to an attorney during police interrogations. This decision was later expanded in Miranda v. Arizona, which established the now-famous Miranda warning that police officers must give to suspects before questioning them.

These cases demonstrate the important role that the Due Process Clause has played in shaping police procedure and protecting the rights of criminal defendants. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Due Process Clause has helped to ensure that the criminal justice system operates in a fair and just manner.  We will delve much deeper into these cases in a later section.

 

Summary

The United States Supreme Court has a significant role in shaping criminal justice policy, as it has the power of judicial review to review Congress’s actions and determine if they comply with the Constitution. The Court’s power to interpret the law provides another way to make criminal justice policy. The Due Process Clause is an essential factor in the Court’s decision-making process. Judicial modesty is a concept that some constitutional scholars believe Supreme Court justices should practice. The justices must monitor themselves to prevent political agendas from influencing their decision-making process.

The concept of judicial review has been controversial since its establishment in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The impact of judicial review on the criminal justice system has been significant, as the Supreme Court has used this power to strike down laws that violate the rights of criminal defendants and limit the power of law enforcement. The Due Process Clause is an essential factor in the Court’s decision-making process, and the Court has used its power to strike down laws that discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, gender, or other protected categories.

Several legal frameworks limit judicial activism to ensure that the Court does not overstep its bounds, interfere with the democratic process, or engage in judicial overreach. Before a federal court can hear a case, certain conditions must be met. The case must present an actual legal dispute, and the plaintiff must have legal standing to ask the court for a decision. The case must also present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy.

The law is designed to address certain categories of disputes to ensure that the court is focusing on issues that are within its purview and not overstepping its bounds. The Court’s decisions are influenced by their personal political beliefs, but their interpretations can reflect their own personal beliefs and political leanings, making the Court’s policymaking role just as consequential as acts of Congress and executive decisions of the president. The Supreme Court’s rulings have a significant impact on the criminal justice system, and the justices are often called upon to make decisions that go beyond a literal reading of the law. 

Key Terms