← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics (5/19/25): Part II: Everything You Need to Know About the JUDICIAL Branch of the U.S. Government
00:47:04
Loading summary
Transcript4 lines
- [00:00]
A
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever find yourself playing the budgeting game? Well, with a name your price tool from Progressive, you can find options that fit your budget and potentially lower your bills. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates Price and coverage match limited by state law not available in all states.
- [00:25]
B
Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, May 19, and today we're talking all about the Judicial Branch. In case you haven't been able to tune in to the last couple of episodes, this is part two of a three part series all about the US Government. So on Thursday, I released an episode all about the Legislative branch. Today's episode is all about the Judicial branch. And Thursday's episode will be all about the Executive branch. After listening to all three of these episodes, you'll be more knowledgeable than the average American when it comes to the US Government and and how it works. Did you know that in 2022, less than half of US adults, 47% could name all three branches of the US government? And when asked what it means when the Supreme Court rules five to four in a case just over half, 55% correctly chose that the decision is law and needs to be followed. So I want you to listen to this three part series and afterwards feel confident in your knowledge about the three branches of government, what their powers are, how they check on each other, and how each branch has evolved since since the country's founding. Let's start with the foundational fact that here in the United States there are three branches of government. The Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. Together, they run the country. Simply put, the Legislative sets the laws, enacts the laws. I should say the Judicial interprets the laws and the Executive carries out the laws. But there's obviously much more that goes into the government than just that. In today's episode, we will focus solely on the Judicial branch, which consists of the federal court system. And, and as far as why I'm doing this, I think it's really important that we're all aware of how these three branches of government coexist with one another and what the roles of each branch are. The founders of this country designed a system with three branches. Nowadays, these branches are co equal, but they weren't always. I mean, technically in terms of power, they were supposed to be. But when the framers wrote the Constitution, the judicial branch kind of took a major backseat to the other two branches. It wasn't until a year after the Constitution's ratification that that the judicial branch got its key power of judicial review. Judicial review doesn't even exist in the Constitution, but we'll get to that more a little bit later. Each branch has distinct powers, but they also have mechanisms in place so that each branch can check and balance one another. And we'll talk about all of those things throughout this episode. So let's start the episode with a few of the fundamentals when it comes to the judicial branch. Whereas Article 1 of the Constitution established the legislative branch, Article 3 established the judicial branch, and yes, Article 2 established the executive branch. But we'll get there on Thursday. The Constitution tells us a few things, not much, but a few things, about the judicial branch and how it's supposed to function. Now, these things are set forth in three sections that make up Article 3 of the Constitution. Section 1 of Article 3 says that the judicial power of the United States is to belong to one Supreme Court as well as other inferior courts that Congress is to establish. Section one also tells us that judges are to receive a compensation for their services and can hold on to their positions so long as they maintain good behavior. But that's it. It's pretty vague. Section 2 of Article 3 tells us which cases the federal courts can hear, and those are cases that involve the following the the US Constitution, federal laws, treaties made by the United States, cases involving ambassadors or foreign officials, cases that happen at sea or involve ships, the US Government disputes between two different states, disputes between a state and citizens of another state, disputes between citizens from different states, and disputes between a state or US citizen and a foreign country or foreign citizen. Section 2 also tells us that the Supreme Court gets to hear certain cases first without those cases going through the lower courts. This is called original jurisdiction, and it only applies to cases involving ambassadors or foreign officials, or cases where a state is directly involved. For all other cases, Section 2 says the Supreme Court can only hear them after they've gone through the lower courts first. And then finally Section two tells us that all criminal trials, except for in impeachment cases, must have a jury, that the jury must happen in the state where the crime happened. And if the crime didn't happen in a state and instead, you know, happened in the middle of the ocean or US Territories, Congress is to decide where the trial takes place. Section three, the last section of Article three talks about treason. It tells us that treason against the United States means either waging war against the United States or helping enemy countries. It tells us that a person can't be convicted of treason unless two people saw them commit treason and they both testify about it, or if the person confesses to treason in open court. And then finally, section three tells us that Congress gets to decide what the punishment for treason will be, but specifies that the punishment cannot affect the person's family or their heirs. So, as I said, Article 3 of the Constitution, which consists of those three sections we just went over, are what established. Established the judicial branch of the United States government. Now, you might be thinking, well, that was. There was a lot of substance there. It sounds like a lot, because I'm just, you know, teaching you one thing after, after another. But really, when you look at what's Included in articles 1, 2, and 3, there is nothing included in article. In article 3, there's just. There really was not much thought that went into the creation of the judicial branch. But the one thing the framers did do is. Is lay out the various ways in which the legislature gets to control the judiciary. So it's almost like the framers didn't know what the judiciary would look like or how it would act, you know, amongst the other branches of government. So they just said, let's just put it in here, and we'll let Congress figure out the rest. But one of those ways that, you know, Congress checks on the judiciary or controls the judiciary, is that Congress confirms judges and justices. Now, the president can appoint them, but Congress has the ultimate say in whether they get confirmed. Another power Congress has over the judiciary is getting to set rules surrounding which cases the courts can hear. This is otherwise known as jurisdiction. It's not actually the jury, the judiciary, that decides what types of cases it hears. It's Congress. And then third, Congress has the power to establish the inferior courts of the United States, not the Supreme Court, but the courts below the Supreme Court. Now, there are, of course, many other checks that Congress and the executive branch have on the judiciary, but Those are the three checks explicitly stated in Article 3 of the Constitution. If you noticed, as we are going through the sections of Article 3, absolutely nothing in Article 3 of the Constitution talks about judicial review, which is the court's number one power. It's the power to interpret laws and. And the Constitution. It's not in the Constitution at all. The power of judicial review was actually granted by one of the court's own cases, which we'll talk about more when we get into the history of the judicial branch. But I do want to spend a couple of minutes talking about the actual power of judicial review, the role of the judiciary is to interpret the United States Constitution and the laws of this country. Here's what that means in the reality. This is something I think a lot of people either tend to miss or just don't tend to think about too much. So the number one thing that I learned in law school, right? And truthfully, everyone always asks, how am I able to host this podcast? How am I able to do what I do? It's because of law school. And the number one thing that that law school teaches you is there are many ways to interpret the same thing. And you are quite literally taught to come up with the arguments on all sides an issue. So what you're taught is that the law is vague and the law can be interpreted in many ways. Now, because judges and justices are human beings just like you and I, with their own set of ideals, beliefs, views, etc, the law will be interpreted differently from one judge to the next. There is no right way to interpret the law, and if anyone tells you that there is, they're misleading you. If there were one right way to interpret the law, our government would not be structured the way that it is. We might not even have the judiciary if that was the case, because the there'd be no need for it. We might just have the two branches of government, Congress and, and the executive. So I'll give you an example of, of what I mean by, by how differently laws can be interpreted. Title VII of the Civil Rights act makes or of the Civil Rights act of 1964 makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. For decades, though, courts have disagreed on what sex actually means. The more traditional view is that sex only refers to one's biological sex at birth. So under this view, employers could not treat men and women differently simply because they were male or female. But it didn't protect people who were discriminated against for being gay or transgender because those things weren't related to sex in the traditional sense. Now, down the road, courts began to interpret sex differently. Under this more progressive view, discrimination includes or discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity because that type of discrimination involves sex stereotypes or some treating someone different based on the sex of who they love or how they identify because different courts were interpreting the law differently and the definition of sex and what it included. The Supreme Court took the issue up in 2020 and it was a 6 to 3 decision and it ruled that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The ruling affirmed nationwide that an employer discriminating against an employee for being gay or transgender or for being in a same sex relationship, whatever, is employment discrimination because of sex, since it involves treating someone differently than based on sex. This is a textbook example of how the same exact federal law can be read very differently, depending on the court and the judges or justices that sit on the bench. One interpretation isn't right or wrong, I mean morally right. That's a whole other conversation. You may believe one thing, another person may believe another. When we're talking about actually interpret, interpreting the law and what is right or wrong, there is no right or wrong. They're just different. And. But the Supreme Court has the ultimate and final say. Whatever the Supreme Court says, that's what goes. Unless Congress does something about it. And that is where checks and balances come into play. So we're going to segue into the checks and balances part of this conversation. Let's take that 2020 Supreme Court ruling as an example. Let's say the Supreme Court issues that ruling surrounding workplace discrimination and employment discrimination, and Congress says, we don't like that ruling, we are going to amend the law. So Congress goes back to the drawing board. They amend Title VII to explicitly exclude discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. This is not happening, by the way. This is just an example to show you how checks and balances work. Let's assume Congress successfully amends the law. Title VII now excludes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Well, now The Supreme Court's 2020 decision doesn't matter. It's irrelevant because Congress has amended the law. The that is one way for Congress to limit the judiciary's authority. Now, can another lawsuit be filed challenging this new law? Of course. And once again, it could end up before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court would have to determine whether the amended law is constitutional, so on and so forth. So now let's say the president issues an executive order that some think is an overstep of authority and it's unlawful. They sue, it eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court overturns the president's order. That's obviously one way the judiciary checks on the executive. But then what? Does the president have any recourse? Sure. Even though the Supreme Court has the final say over executive orders and the President definitely has to abide by that, there's a few options. Right? So for one, the president can issue a new order that addresses the court's objections. So, for example, when President President Trump's first travel ban was blocked by the courts. The administration revised versions with narrower language until one ultimately passed legal challenges. The second option available to the president is the president can ask Congress to pass a law granting it the authority it's looking for. So in other words, if the court determines that the president overstepped executive authority, the president can go to Congress and try to get the power through Congress enacting a law instead. And while courts can overturn laws, laws are harder to overturn than executive orders. So that's why that second option, you know, is also a possibility. So hopefully, through these hypotheticals, you can start to see where the judiciary's authority lies and how that authority is checked by both Congress and the President. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll sum up the checks and balances conversation. We'll run through some of the history of the judicial branch and and more. Do you want to know three things that I love? And if I were to guess, we have these three things in common. But one, fresh air, two, sunshine. And three, good food. I'd actually probably put good food at the top of the list, which is why I'm so excited that HelloFresh is a sponsor of today's show. Because I love the convenience one of HelloFresh. It's incredibly convenient because the ingredients and recipes just show up at your door. But two, I love the fact that HelloFresh is evolving to fit different lifestyles. Like yeah, sure, some of us might have, you know, time to cook a full on recipe for our meals, but a lot of us don't. So to accommodate busy schedules, HelloFresh introduced Ready Made meals. And these are meals that are made in three minutes. Things like stir fried udon with pulled pork and veggies. There's a creamy Alfredo truffle pasta, really delicious stuff. And then if you do have more time, I personally love the winner winner chicken orzo dinner and and the crispy Parmesan chicken dinner. So I would definitely recommend both of those. Feel great with meals that fit your spring schedule and make the season even more delicious. Go to hellofresh.comunbiased10fm now to get 10 free meals with a free item for life. One per box with active subscription free meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. That's hellofresh.comUnbiased10FM as in unbiased 10 free meals. You may have seen me in the press briefing room of the White House a few weeks ago and in a recent episode I actually filled you in on the story of how I got invited. But what I did not tell you is how hectic that week was leading up to it. I just had so much to do. I had episodes to get out. I had to find an outfit, I had to go to the tailor. There was just so much I had to get done in the couple of days notice that I did have. And the reason I'm telling you this is because when I have these moments where I'm just, it's super chaotic. I. I have to be really efficient and I have to stay really calm. And we all have these chaotic moments and days, right? But there is a specific type of chaos that is unlike any other, and that is the chaos that comes with order fulfillment for an E commerce business. That is a chaos that never ends. But that's why I want to tell you about Shipstation, because I actually used Shipstation when I had a cookie company. So it's a software that helps businesses manage their e commerce order fulfillment process. Between the discounted shipping rates of up to 90%, the easy to use dashboard, being able to print labels with the click of a button, the chaos that is shipping is just so much more enjoyable. So calm the chaos of order fulfillment with the shipping software that delivers switch to ShipStation today. Go to shipstation.com and use code unbiased to sign up for your free trial. That's shipstation.com code unbiased for a free trial. Before we took a break, we were talking about how checks and balances pertain to the judicial branch. So to round out that discussion, let's recap what the judicial branch can and can't do, starting with what it can do. The court's key power, again, is judicial review, the authority to interpret the laws and the Constitution and to strike down anything that violates them. This serves as a check on the legislative branch and the executive branch, because the judiciary can can strike down both laws and executive orders at the same time. Though the judiciary gets checked too, its authority is not unlimited. No, no branch has unlimited authority. The legislative branch approves judicial appointments. Right? The legislative branch can change the structure or size of the courts. The legislature can pass new laws or amend old ones to get around court rulings. And the legislature can also propose constitutional amendments to get around judicial interpretation. The executive branch has its own ways of checking on the the judiciary. So the executive branch is responsible for enforcing or in some cases, delaying enforcement of court decisions. What do I mean by that? Well, presidents have to obey court orders, okay? They don't have A choice. However, they do have some discretion in how quickly and forcefully court rulings are carried out within the executive branch. So as an example, in the 50s, after Brown vs Board of Education, which prohibited schools from segregating, it took President Eisenhower sending federal troops to enforce that ruling in Little Rock, Arkansas. That's obviously an example of active enforcement. But an example of delayed enforcement would be when the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage act, which was a federal law that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. After that decision, the Obama administration, it didn't resist the ruling, but it did have to decide how quickly and broadly to implement the ruling across federal agencies. So some agencies like the IRS and Social Security Administration had to adjust policies, update forms, change eligibility rules, et cetera, and it took months for the federal government to fully roll out the policy changes in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling. So it's in sum, and I guess I should say too, when we talk about checks and balances and the, the amount of checks that one branch has on the other, and so on and so forth, the executive doesn't have as many checks on the judiciary as the legislature does, but it has some. So in sum, the judicial branch keeps the other two branches in check by interpreting laws and striking down unconstitutional actions. But, but Congress and the President keep the courts in check by controlling appointments, main, you know, court structure, amending laws, enforcing court rulings, and even by amending the Constitution itself in some cases. Okay, now let's get into the history. Before the ratification of the Constitution, the United States ran off of the Articles of Confederation. We talked about this in part one. We're going to talk about it in part two. The Articles of Confederation, they did not work well, which is why the Constitution ultimately replaced it. But I say this to say that the Articles of Confederation failed to even mention judicial power or a federal court system. Then once the Constitution came about, the federal court system was included, but it was the last branch to be included. And it barely outlines what the, what the judicial branch should look like compared to the legislative and executive branches. There's no mention of how many justices should be on the Supreme Court. There's no detailed description of how lower courts should work. There's just sort of this general idea that there should be a Supreme Court and then courts under that Supreme Court, which are known as inferior courts, but that's really it. And then it says that Congress can create those inferior courts as needed, but that was it. The vagueness was, or at least is said to be Intentional, though. The framers were apparently a lot more focused on limiting executive power because they had, you know, just gotten done rebelling against a king in England and then also at the same time, making sure Congress didn't become too powerful. They weren't quite sure how. How the courts would function long term, so they left it vague and just let Congress fill in the blanks. So less than a year after the Constitution was ratified, Congress passed the Judiciary act of 1789, which served as basically the blueprint for the entire federal court system. It created district courts and circuit courts that would serve as the inferior courts that are set forth in the Constitution. And it also said that there would be six Supreme Court justices, one Chief justice, and five associate justices. Within its first few years. The Supreme Court and courts generally didn't really have much meaning or authority compared to what they have now. In fact, the judiciary took such a backseat that when the United States. When the United States Capitol moved to Washington in 1800, the city's planners didn't even provide the court with its own building. It wasn't until 1935, almost 150 years after the Constitution was ratified, that the Supreme Court building was built. But the lack of judicial authority and meaning changed in 1803 with a case that you've probably heard of called Marbury vs Madison. This is the case I talked about in the beginning of the episode which led the court to give itself the power of judicial review, the ability to declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. Let's rewind the clock to early 1800s, before Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800. Okay. John Adams is still in office. John Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary act of 1801. What this did was it created new courts, it added judges, and most importantly, it gave Adams the ability to appoint more judges. Adams used this act to appoint 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. The appointees were confirmed by the Senate, but they wouldn't be valid. Remember, 1800s, okay, not modern day. These confirmations weren't valid until their commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State. William Marbury had been appointed as one of the justices of the peace, but his commission wasn't delivered. So what does Marbury do? He goes ahead and he asked the Supreme Court to compel the Secretary of State to deliver the documents. In a 4 to 2 decision, the court found that Madison, James Madison, he was the Secretary of State. The refusal to deliver the commission was illegal. Okay, but that wasn't the major element of this decision. The court also Found that the actual provision of the Judiciary act of 1789 that allowed Marbury to bring his claim to the supreme Court in the first place was unconstitutional. And that was that. All of a sudden, the court was now declaring law unconstitutional, and judicial review was born. So Chief justice John Marshall more or less invented the power of judicial review with this ruling. And from that point forward, the. The court became a major player in shaping US law. Throughout the 1800s, the judiciary began to flex its muscle a bit more, if you will. In 1810, the Supreme Court expanded its right of judicial review in a case called Fletcher vs. Peck. In that case, for the first time, the supreme court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. So in Marbury vs Madison, it struck down a federal law, but now it was exercising judicial review over state laws. During this time, the court weighed in on big issues like federal versus state power, slavery, economic regulation. But also at this time, the court's reputation was a bit unstable because it had decided the infamous Dred Scott decision in 1857. And what that decision said is that black Americans could not be citizens and that Congress could not ban slavery in US Territories. That decision arguably helped fuel the civil war. So after the war, the 14th amendment is ratified in 1868, which grants it's granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and mandated equal the equal protection of laws by the states. With the 14th Amendment, the courts had a whole new tool for protecting civil rights, or in many early cases, not protecting them. Right. So as some. We'll go through some examples. In 1873, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment only protected rights related to federal citizenship, not state citizenship. In 1876, the court ruled that the federal government could not prosecute individuals for civil rights violations unless a state law was also broken. In 1883, the court struck down the Civil Rights act of 1875, which banned racial discrimination in public accommodations, finding that the 14th Amendment only applies to state actions, not private businesses. In other words, private businesses could continue to discriminate, but states could not. And in 1896, the Supreme Court upheld Louisiana's segregation law, finding that separate facilities for blacks and whites were constitutional so long as they were equal in quality. This established the separate but equal doctrine. In 1891, there was a big change to the federal court system. So this is when Congress created a separate tier of appellate courts, appellate circuit circuit courts. This was done because the supreme court justices were actually traveling across the country to hear cases in different circuits. This was called circuit riding. But in 1891, the structure of the courts changed. We now had district courts, appellate courts, and the Supreme Court, which is the way that it remains today. Oh, and another thing that changed a couple of decades before this was the number of Justices on the supreme court. So in 1869 is when Congress increased the number of justices from six to nine. And that's where it still stands today. But now right about the 1900s. So from about 1900 to 1935, the Supreme Court handled major cases that reflected the challenges of the time, which were industrialization, economic regulation, civil liberties, racial discrimination. Again, as examples, in 1905, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that limited bakers to a 60 hour workweek, saying that it violated the workers first freedom of contract under the 14th amendment. In 1908, the court upheld a state law limiting women's work hours to 10 per day, citing differences between men and women. And in 1919, the court ruled that speech that poses a clear and present danger to national security is not protected by the First Amendment. Now, in the 1930s, the New Deal era came, and President FDR pushed a massive expansion of federal government power to deal with the Great Depression. And the Supreme Court wasn't necessarily thrilled about it. Okay, so the Supreme Court didn't like this quick expansion of executive power. FDR was trying to bring back the economy from the Great Depression with federal programs, jobs, bank reform, public works projects, and all of these things were expanding the Executive. So the Justices actually struck down several of FDR's programs early on, finding that these initiatives went beyond the powers granted to the Executive in the Constitution. As an example, the court struck down FDR's National Industrial Recovery act, finding that it gave the Executive branch too much legislative authority. Now, because the Supreme Court was in a sense, limiting the actions that FDR was trying to take, FDR proposed his famous Court packing plan in the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. This plan would have added up to six new justices to the Supreme Court, one for every justice over the age of 70 who did not retire. FDR argued that the Court was falling behind on its workload, but the real reason was that he wanted to tip the ideological balance in his favor by appointing new Justices so his programs would stop getting struck down. Right now the plan didn't pass Congress because many felt it threatened judicial independence. But even though it didn't pass Congress, the Court kind of started to change its tune. Whether that's because of FDR's proposal or it was just due to a natural evolution of the Court's thinking, we don't know for sure, but just months after FDR unveiled this plan, the Court upheld a state minimum wage law, which was sort of a shift in FDR's direction. Okay, so John Roberts, who had often sided with the conservative majority of switched his vote in that case. And historians have famously called that switch, the switch in time that saved nine. From that point forward, the Court started to uphold more New Deal legislation. And that moment kind of reset the relationship between the branches. If you will fast forward to the 1950s and 60s, the court took a turn in the direction of civil rights and civil liberties. Under Chief Justice Warren, the Court issued various landmark rulings like Brown versus Board of Education, which struck down segregation in public schools. Gideon vs. Wainwright, which guaranteed the right to an attorney. And Miranda vs. Arizona, which led to our Miranda rights. In 1973 is when the court decided Roe vs. Wade, which held that a woman's right to abortion fell within her right to privacy under the 14th Amendment. This era really transformed the Court into a defender of individual rights and really a key player in social change. But naturally, it, it also made the Court more controversial. Right People who liked the outcomes saw the Court as a guardian of justice, while others accused the Court of legislating from the bench and overstepping its authority. In the 70s and 80s, the Supreme Court was focused on expanding the civil liberties that had been granted earlier in the 50s and 60s, especially in privacy, speech, and criminal justice. These years were really about testing the boundaries of what rights an individual had, whether at home, in school, or in the justice system. Later in the 90s, the court moved more towards federalism. So the idea that states should retain more power relative to the federal government. There was also an increased emphasis on religious liberty and reinforcing the separation of powers in the 2000s. This was the post 911 era, so it came with intense debates around national security and civil liberties. At the same time, the Court was increasingly being drawn into social and cultural debates. So things like same sex relationships, affirmative action and abortion. And then within the last five years, these social and cultural debates have heated up. And at the same time, the Court's been defined by a return to textualism and originalism, meaning the text of the Constitution and the original intent of, of the framers. So as you can probably see, each era of the Court, the Supreme Court, that, I mean really the Court system as a whole, because the cases make their way up. But each era in the Courts reflects the political, cultural, and ideological tensions of its time. In the 70s and 80s, the court was about what rights people have in the 90s, it focused on who has power, federal government versus the states. In the 2000s, it grappled with how to balance liberty and national security. And then today, it's about what the Constitution really protects and what it doesn't. Let's take our second and final break here. I'll be right back though, to talk through the structure of the federal court system and more.
- [32:14]
A
I'm no tech genius, but I knew if I wanted my business to crush it, I needed a website. Now, thankfully, bluehost made it easy. I customized, optimized and monetized everything exactly how I wanted with AI. In minutes, my site was up. I couldn't believe it. The search engine tools even helped me get more site visitors. Whatever your passion project is, you can set it up with Bluehost with their 30 day money back guarantee. What have you got to lose? Head to bluehost.com to start now.
- [32:46]
B
I am so excited about this sponsor. Thrive Market is one of my favorite companies and I'm so glad they booked the show because now I have an excuse to tell you guys all about it. So Thrive Market is basically like your favorite healthy grocery store, but online and way more affordable. So I want to give you a few reasons why I personally love it. Okay. For one, the groceries show up at your door. We love that. Convenient, easy, efficient. That's the name of my game. Two, it's all of my favorite brands and products in one place. So sometimes I'll go into a grocery store looking for a certain product. I know that store carries the brand, but they don't have the specific product I'm looking for. I have had such great luck with finding those harder to find products on Thrive Market. And three, it's cheaper. So the other day, this is actually a funny story. The other day I went to my go to grocery store. I was, I had a craving for the specific brand of french fries. I like the stronger roots brand. And when I got to the store, they were 8.99 for a single bag. So I literally walked out of the store with nothing because I was like, that's crazy. I got home, I went on Thrive Market and there they were for six. I mean, those savings seriously add up when you're adding products to your cart. Anyway, I could go on and on about why I love Thrive Market. I just love how easy it is. I love that I can find all the things that I love in one place and I love how it's making healthy food accessible. That's maybe my favorite part. So skip the junk without overspending. Head to thrive market.comunbiased to get 30% off your first order and a free $60 gift. That's thrivemarket.comunbiased thrive market.comuniased to get 30% off your first Order and a free $60 gift. Welcome back. I think this is the part of the judicial branch that I am most excited to break down because it's the part that most Americans don't fully understand, and that is how the judiciary is structured. And it's complex, but I think I can break it down in a way that makes it easier to grasp. At least I hope so. Okay. First and foremost, here in the United States, we have state courts and we have federal courts. State courts hear certain cases. Federal courts hear other cases. State courts are part of state governments. Federal courts are part of the federal government. So when we talk about the judicial branch of the United States, we are only talking about the federal court system. We are not touching state courts at all in this episode. Now, to envision the structure of the federal court system, I want you to imagine a pyramid. Okay? Divide that pyramid into three sections. Once you do that, you're left with a bottom third, a middle third, and a top third, right? So picture this. The bottom third section consists of the federal district courts. The middle third section consists of the federal appellate courts. And the top third section consists only of the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, the way we've laid out this pyramid is symbolic in two ways, quantity and authority. So when you're envisioning this pyramid, right, the bottom third section is the biggest in size, but it's also at the bottom, the middle third is a little smaller than the bottom third, but it's also higher up. And then the top is obviously the smallest in size and. And highest up on the pyramid. So when I say it's symbolic in two ways, quantity and authority, this is what I mean. The bottom third section consists of the federal district courts because there are more federal district courts than any other type of federal court. And because they hold it, they hold the least amount of authority. So they're on the bottom, but the bottom is also the biggest, right, because there's the most. The. The federal district courts, there's more of them than any other court. The middle third section of the pyramid consists of the federal appellate courts because there are less appellate courts than the district courts. Yet appellate courts hold more authority than the district courts below. Appellate courts can overturn district court rulings. And then finally, in the top third of the pyramid, is the Supreme Court of the United States. There's only one Supreme Court of the United States, which is why that section of the pyramid is so small. But it sits at the top of the pyramid because it's the most powerful court in the land. It the Supreme Court can overturn district court rulings and appellate court rulings, and it has the ultimate and final say in any legal dispute. There is, there is no court above the Supreme Court. So to recap, we have the federal district courts on the bottom of the pyramid, the appellate courts in the middle of the pyramid, and then the Supreme Court at the top. Now, when you file a lawsuit in federal court, the first court you are going to litigate in is the district court. You're starting at the bottom. Once the district court rules in your case, if you lose, you can try to appeal to the appellate court because the appellate court has the authority to overturn a district court ruling. Now there's the appellate court doesn't have to. Doesn't have to hear your appeal, okay? They can if they want to. They don't have to. If they accept your appeal and you lose again, at the appellate level, your last chance is with the Supreme Court of the United States. So that's how the hierarchy of the federal court system works. Now, in the United states, there are 94 federal district courts. One state, each state has at least one. Florida, for example, has three. Florida has a northern district court, a middle district court, and a southern district court. Depending on where your dispute arises, that'll determine which court you file a lawsuit in. States like Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, seven other states and D.C. only have one federal district court in the whole state. When it comes to appellate courts, there are 13 appellate circuit courts in the United States. Each are split into circuits. So you have the first Circuit Court of Appeals, the second Circuit Court of Appeals, the third Circuit Court of Appeals, so on and so forth until the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. You also have the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals, which is specifically for Washington, D.C. and then the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which we'll talk about more in a minute. But there is your 13. Each circuit court of appeals has its own region of the country that it is responsible for hearing appeals from. So federal cases out of Florida State, Georgia and Alabama appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Federal cases out of Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana appeal to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The biggest circuit court of appeals is the ninth Circuit, which hears appeals from Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, and the Northern Mariana islands. Now, the 13th Appellate Court is called the 13th Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This appellate court is different than the other 12 in that it has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases. So the 13th Court of Appeals, it's not limited to appeals from certain states like the other appeals courts are. It's just limited to appeals in certain cases. These typically are cases like, you know, cases involving patent laws, cases decided by the US Court of International Trade, and cases decided by the US Court of Federal Claims. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. Okay, so now we're at the top of the pyramid. It hears appeals from all 13 appellate circuits. On the Supreme Court sit nine justices. What's the difference between a judge and a justice, you might ask? Put simply, a judge works in the lower level courts, like the district courts and the appellate courts, whereas justices serve on the Supreme Court. Keep in mind, though, that's the federal distinction. States have their own state rules and titles for judges and justices, but we're not getting into all of that. Okay, so each of the nine justices on the Supreme Court bench serve life terms. They are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate because they serve life terms. That means not all presidents get to nominate justices. It really depends on when there are vacancies, either due to retirement or death. And because of this, sometimes these justices will intentionally retire at a certain point. Okay, so I'll give you a more recent example of when a justice did not retire and many Democrats felt that she should have. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a liberal justice on the bench until 2020, when she died at 87 years old, not only was she the oldest justice on the bench, but she had been battling cancer for 11 years. Now, because she died in 2020, when President Trump was in office, Trump got to appoint her replacement. Consequently, rbg, a liberal justice, was replaced with a more conservative justice, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who I would actually say is more in the middle, but does lean conservative. Now, if RBG had retired in 2016 at the age of 83, when President Obama was President, Obama would have replaced her with another liberal justice, and the court would have, you know, it wouldn't have eventually gone 6 to 3 conservative liberal split. It instead would have probably been 5 to 4 conservative liberal split. So sometimes justices plan out the retirement, so their replacement will be along similar ideological lines. But I digress. Let's go back to the nine justices and what their roles are. The Supreme Court bench consists of eight associate justices, one Chief Justice. The Chief justice is distinct in that he holds special administrative and leadership roles that other Justices don't. The Chief justice serves as the Chair of the Judicial Conference of the United States. He supervises the process of selecting the cases the Court will hear. He supervises discussions about the cases at private conferences, swears in the President at the inauguration. He also presides over impeachment trials. The Chief justice also is the head of the Federal Judicial branch and it's 30,000 employees. So currently, the Chief justice is John Roberts. He was nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate in 2005, and he will remain Chief justice until either retirement or death. So that's the Chief Justice. The other eight Justices, the Associate Justices, are under the Chief Justice. There's really not much to say about them. In fact, there are no formal constitutional requirements to become a Supreme Court justice, other than being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Technically, you don't even have to have a law degree or experience in the law at all. One, One last thing I want to say, though, here, and this is something a lot of people don't know, it has to do with the, with the procedure of appeals. So when a case is appealed to the Supreme Court from an appellate court, the appeal goes to one of the nine Justices, depending on which appellate circuit the case came from. In other words, each justice is responsible for the appeals from at least one circuit court of appeal. I'll give you some examples. Chief Justice Roberts gets appeals from the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals and the 13th Court of Appeals. Justice Jackson gets appeals from the First Circuit. Justice Sotomayor gets appeals from the Second Circuit. Justice Alito gets appeals from the Third and Fifth circuits. Justice Kavanaugh gets appeals from the Sixth and Eighth circuits, so on and so forth. Now, keep in mind, each justice has multiple law clerks, right, which are basically really smart aides. So these clerks are the ones that read and summarize the petitions to the court into memos called cert memos. And this just helps the Justices quickly review the cases that are submitted for review. So if a case gets appealed from the Fifth Circuit, let's say Justice Alito's law clerks will write up a cert memo and give a copy to each of the nine Justices. That breaks down the case. If four of the nine Justices want to hear a case, the court will take it. Note that it doesn't need A majority, only 4. This rule is intended to protect the minority interests. Also, keep in mind that the Supreme Court is under no obligation to hear an appeal. It will usually only accept an appeal if the case could have national significance, you know, maybe precedential value, or might resolve conflicting decisions between the federal appeals courts. In fact, of the roughly 7 to 8,000 cases that it's asked to review each year, it typically only accepts about 100 of those. So that's a little bit about how the appeals process works in, in the United States. Now, let's finish with some fun facts about the judicial branch, mostly about the Supreme Court, really, but we'll get at least one in there about the judicial branch as a whole. Did you know that still to this day, each day that the Supreme Court is in session, white goose feather quill pens are placed on the tables that the attorneys sit at during arguments. The attorneys will often take these pens home as souvenirs because they're not actually used. But still, every court session, the white goose feather quill pens that they used to use way back in the early, early days are. Are placed on the desks. Justice Kagan, who is. Who is still on the Supreme Court bench, is responsible for the installation of the first frozen yogurt machine in the Supreme Court cafeteria. Per court tradition, each new justice has to serve on the Court's cafeteria committee, which is a tradition where the newest justice is assigned to oversee the Court's cafeteria. It's seen as a way to humble new Justices, since they typically have to deal with things like food complaints. But Justice Kagan is no longer the newest justice on the bench. She's just known for the first frozen yogurt machine. As you may have picked up on very early in this episode, the Constitution says the least about the judicial branch. Compared to the other two branches, Article 3 of the Constitution is much shorter than Articles 1 and 2, which govern Congress and the Presidency respectively. Did you also know that because the Supreme Court did not have a permanent home until 1935, the court bounced between borrowed spaces for roughly 150 years, including at one point, the basement of the Capitol building, though it moved its meeting place at least six times within the Capitol alone. So even though all three branches of government were created at the same time, for some reason, the government didn't feel it was necessary to create a home for the highest court. The Capitol was built in 1783. The White House was built in 1792. The Supreme Court wasn't built until 1935. And finally, did you know that you do not have a constitutional right to appeal? We kind of touched on this in the episode. But you do have the right to a fair trial. You just are not guaranteed the right to appeal that case. It is the court above that will decide whether or not you can appeal. That concludes our deep dive into the judicial branch. Throughout this episode, we talked about its origins, how it fits into the checks and balances system, and how the court system is structured, structured from the district level all the way up to the Supreme Court. Whether it's interpreting laws, striking down unconstitutional actions, or deciding landmark cases that, you know, shape our our daily lives, the judicial branch plays a massive role in how our government functions. So next time you hear about a major Supreme Court case or a federal judge's ruling, you'll know exactly how it fits into the bigger picture and why it matters. As always, thank you for being here. If you found this episode insightful, please share it with a friend who's also trying to make sense of how the government actually works. Don't forget, staying informed is one of the most powerful things we can do. Have a fantastic next couple of days and on Thursday we will dive into the executive branch. If your job at a healthcare facility includes disinfecting against viruses, you know prevention is the best medicine. And maintaining healthy spaces starts with a healthy cleaning routine. Grainger's world class supply chain helps ensure you have the quality products you need when you need them, from disinfectants and cleaning supplies to personal protective equipment so you can help deliver a clean bill of health. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.