0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Ezra
Lao
RafaThe President of the United States does not have the power to make Supreme Court decisions, nor does Congress.
For more information about Congress' and the President's interaction with the Supreme Court, see Related Questions, below.
No. Although no formal law prohibits the Court from advising the President, the reasoning behind this traditional prohibition was illustrated in a set of letters exchanged between the first Chief Justice, John Jay, and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who was writing to the court at President Washington's request, in July 1793.
Washington inquired whether he could ask the Supreme Court for advice on the construction of treaties with other countries because he felt their legal knowledge would be advantageous to negotiation. John Jay replied that he regretted having to say no, but he believed it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to advise the President on matters constitutionally assigned to the Executive branch, and would violate the intentionally designed system of checks and balances.
You can read the text of the letters below:
THOMAS JEFFERSON
TO CHIEF JUSTICE JAY AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
PHILADELPHIA July 18 1793
GENTLEMEN The war which has taken place among the powers of Europe produces frequent transactions within our ports and limits on which questions arise of considerable difficulty and of greater importance to the peace of the United States These questions depend for their solution on the construction of our treaties on the laws of nature and nations and on the laws of the land and are often presented under circumstances which do not give a cognizance of them to the tribunals of the country Yet their decision is so little analogous to the ordinary functions of the executive as to occasion much embarrassment and difficulty to them The President therefore would be much relieved if he found himself free to refer questions of this description to the opinions of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States whose knowledge of the subject would secure us against errors dangerous to the peace of the United States and their authority insure the respect of all parties He has therefore asked the attendance of such of the judges as could be collected in time for the occasion to know in the first place their opinion whether the public may with propriety be availed of their advice on these questions And if they may to present for their advice the abstract questions which have already occurred or may soon occur from which they will themselves strike out such as any circumstances might in their opinion forbid them to pronounce on I have the honour to be with sentiments of the most perfect respect gentlemen Your most obedient and humble servant.
THOS JEFFERSON
CHIEF-JUSTICE JAY AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICES
TO PRESIDENT WASHINGTON
PHILADELPHIA 8th August 1793
SIR:
We have considered the previous question stated in a letter written by your direction to us by the Secretary of State on the 18th of last month regarding the lines of separation drawn by the Constitution between the three departments of the government These being in certain respects checks upon each other and our being judges of a court in the last resort are considerations which afford strong arguments against the propriety of our extra judicially deciding the questions alluded to especially as the power given by the Constitution to the President of calling on the heads of departments for opinions seems to have been purposely as well as expressly united to the executive departments We exceedingly regret every event that may cause embarrassment to your administration but we derive consolation from the reflection that your judgment will discern what is right and that your usual prudence decision and firmness will surmount every obstacle to the preservation of the rights peace and dignity of the United States We have the honour to be with perfect respect sir your most obedient and most humble servants.
No. US Supreme Court decisions are final unlessCongress and the States ratify an amendment that effectively changes the Court's ability to rule on certain issues; or the Court agrees to a rehearing based on new information; or (more common), a later Supreme Court may have a different constitutional interpretation than an earlier court, resulting in a decision on a new case that changes nullifies laws or changes how they are applied.
Once common example is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, (1954), ended segregation allowed n public schools under the doctrine of "separate but equal" that arose from the an earlier Court's decision that the practice of racial segregation was constitutional as long as the accommodations were equal (they weren't).
No. The US Supreme Court is the final appellate court for cases heard under its jurisdiction; their authority supersedes that of the state supreme courts.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Do appeal courts hear cases on appeal from lower court decisions?
Yes, appeals courts hear cases that are being appealed from lower court decisions. That's what they are for.
Is the supreme court the highest law in the land and is apart of the legislative branch?
pretty sure it is, its a part of the judicial branch The Supreme Court is not the highest law in the land; the Constitution is. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final appeals court; decisions made by it are final. But these decisions still represent the interpretation of the court, and such decisions can theoretically be overturned by the same or future courts.
Can a Supreme Court decision be appealed?
The Supreme Court's ruling is final and cannot be appealed. The United States Supreme Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices.
Identify the main responsibilities of the court of appeals and the state supreme court?
The state Courts of Appeal review and render decisions on cases appealed to them from the lower circuits of the state court system. No actual jury trials are held at this level, they simply review the cases for legal sufficiency and render a verdict either affirming them or remanding them back to the lower courts for re-trial. State Supreme Courts hear all cases which have been appealed past the circuit court and appelate levels and - like the appeals court - no jury trials are held in front of them either although the opposing lawyers for both sides can appear and deliver their respective arguments. Cases appealed to the state Supreme Court have reached their highest level at this point and the State Supreme Court's decision is final and binding. Cases can move out of the state courts system into the Federal court system ONLY if the case involves or contains some over-riding interest in, or conflict with, Federal law.
What are the names of the 3 courts that make up the judicial branch?
There are 3 "levels" of courts that make up the judicial branch. These are: 1. Trial courts 2. Courts of appeal 3. Court of last resort. Another system of levels comprised within the judicial system is district courts, circuit courts, and appellate courts.
