Judicial Branch
The United States Supreme Court
Left: Lady Liberty
Blindfold symbolizes "Justice is blind" - all equal under the law; scale weighs facts objectively; sword - defense & punishment.
U.S. Supreme Court 101
Who Sat on the First Court?
Who Decides the Number of Justices on the Court?
There was one Chief Justice,
John Jay (above), and
five Associate Justices:
James Wilson,
William Cushing,
John Blair,
John Rutledge and
James Iredell.
Only Jay, Wilson, Cushing, and Blair
were present at the Court's
first sitting in 1790.
Who Decides the Number of Justices on the Court?
Who Decides the Number of Justices on the Court?
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress.
The first
Judiciary Act,
passed in 1789
Set the number of Justices at six,
one Chief Justice and five Associates.
*
Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten.
The Judiciary Act of 1869
Fixed the number of Justices at nine
and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
How many cases are appealed to the Court each year and how many cases does the Court hear?
How many cases are appealed to the Court each year and how many cases does the Court hear?
The Court receives approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari * each Term.
The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 80 cases.
* writ of certiorari - A latin word meaning "to be more fully informed." This term describes the process whereby the Supreme Court requests all case
records from a lower court for their review.
Source: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
Article 3, Section 1 of U.S. Constitution
"Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges
Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.
A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and
should personally observe those standards,
so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.
https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges
Current United States Supreme Court Justices - 2026
Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan.
Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Credit: Fred
Judical Branch:
- Supreme Court
- Inferior Courts: District & Circuit
The Role of a Supreme Court Judge
Judicial Power via the U.S. Constitution
1. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,
2. The Laws of the United States,
3. Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
4. All Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
5. All Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
6. Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
7. Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State;
8. Between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States,
9. Between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
10. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
11. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
12. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed;
13. but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
(Excerpt from Article III of the Constitution, please see Constitution page for more)
Common Law Tradition
"stare decisis" means stand by what has been decided - Judges often apply this Common Law practice in an effort to apply the law equally in analogous cases previously decided - not arbitrarily.
By using the similar former case as "case law" it can be applied to new cases under review.
* * *
An Adversarial System - The litigation process in U.S. courts is referred to as an “adversarial” system because it relies on the litigants to present their dispute before a neutral fact-finder. According to American legal tradition, inherited from the English common law, the clash of adversaries before the court is most likely to allow the jury or judge to determine the truth and resolve the dispute at hand. In some other legal systems, judges or other court officials investigate and assist the parties to find relevant evidence or obtain testimony from witnesses.
In the United States, the work of collecting evidence and preparing to present it to the court is accomplished by the litigants and their attorneys, normally without assistance from the court. Source: understanding-federal-courts.pdf (uscourts.gov)
Role of Judge is to Interpret the Law
The Constitution with Amendments is deemed "the law of the land" and cannot be changed from a judge's bench, but rather by the Legislative branch or States using the methods specified in the Constitution.
Justice is Blind
This term means that laws do not change depending on a particular person or group - Justice is applied equally to everyone under the law.
A judge is not to create or change a law, but to interpret the law as written (similar to a referee who wouldn't change a foul ball to a home run due to a personal preference toward the outcome.)
Adjudication - Generally, a judge hears/processes disputes misunderstandings or competing claims by parties - This includes: Which party has a right or duty, the details of their dispute, and what if any harm resulted in the situation at hand - and often the intent of the parties.
When interpreting statutes judges often determine if statue created unintended consequences, errors and the like.
William Marbury vs James Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
The Doctrine of Judicial Review
Summary & Case Text
U.S. Supreme Court - Major Free Speech Cases
Freedom of speech INCLUDES the right:
- May engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989); United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).
- "The First Amendment affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct as well as to actual speech.
- See, e.g., R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U. S., at 382; Texas v. Johnson, supra, at 405-406; United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 376-377 (1968); Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 505 (1969). . ." (Source:
***
- Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag).
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
- Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”).
Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
- To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
- To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
- To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions).
Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976); Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977). - (see source: uscourts.gov)
***
- The protections afforded by the First Amendment, however, are not absolute, and we have long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e. g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572 (1942) ("There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem"). Virginia v. Black - Supreme Court Opinions | Sandra Day O'Connor Institute Digital Library (oconnorlibrary.org)
FREE TRADE OF IDEAS is the hallmark of the protection of free speech
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
(Source: U.S. Constitution)
***
The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
The hallmark of the protection of free speech is to allow "free trade in ideas"-even ideas that the overwhelming majority of people might find distasteful or discomforting.
Abrams v. United States, 250 U. S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting); see also Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989).
("If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable").
Thus, the First Amendment "ordinarily" denies a State "the power to prohibit dissemination of social, economic and political doctrine which a vast majority of its citizens believes to be false and fraught with evil consequence." Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 374 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring) . . .
The First Amendment permits "restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas, which are 'of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.'" R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 382-383 (quoting Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572).
Thus, for example, a State may punish those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572; see also R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 383 (listing limited areas where the First Amendment permits restrictions on the content of speech). We have consequently held that fighting words-"those personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction" -are generally proscribable under the First Amendment. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 20 (1971); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, supra, at 572.
.
Freedom of speech does NOT include:
Freedom of speech does NOT include:
Can NOT incite imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
- . . ."the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444, 447 (1969) (per curiam).
- And the First Amendment also permits a State to ban a "true threat." Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (1969) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord, R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul, supra, at 388
- ("[T]hreats of violence are outside the First Amendment"); Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753, 774 (1994); Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N.Y., 519 U. S. 357, 373 (1997)
- To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
- To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
- To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
- Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
- Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation.
the Judiciary Act was the first Congressional Bill
The First Judiciary Act of 1789
Officially titled "An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States," was signed into law by President George Washington on September 24, 1789.
The Constitution elaborated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the Judicial Branch as a whole. Thus, it was left to Congress and to the Justices of the Court through their decisions to develop the Federal Judiciary and a body of Federal law.
The first bill introduced in the United States Senate became the Judiciary Act of 1789.
The act divided the country into 13 judicial districts, which were, in turn, organized into three circuits: the Eastern, Middle, and Southern. The Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the Nation's Capital, and was initially composed of a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.
For the first 101 years of the Supreme Court’s life -- but for a brief period in the early 1800's -- the Justices were also required to "ride circuit," and hold circuit court twice a year in each judicial district. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx
Article III of the Constitution established a Supreme Court, but left to Congress the authority to create lower federal courts as needed.
Principally authored by Senator Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut, the Judiciary Act of 1789 established the structure and jurisdiction of the federal court system and created the position of attorney general.
Although amended throughout the years by Congress, the basic outline of the federal court system established by the First Congress remains largely intact today.
https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/judiciary.html
(Please see below for a list of Congressional Acts regarding the Judiciary)
Journal page from Senate Proceedings on the Bill "An Act to Establish Judicial Courts of U.S. 1789