Gideon
All 112 justices in the history of the US Supreme Court (as of 2011) have been lawyers.
Miranda v. Arizona
No, The US Supreme Court is the only federal court Congress is powerless to abolish, because the Court is mandated by Article III of the Constitution.
Congress created a rudimentary federal court system in The Judiciary Act of 1789. Although Article III of the Constitution mandated a US Supreme Court.
No. The Constitution mandated Congress create the Supreme Court and empowered them to create whatever lower courts they deemed necessary, but the Constitution did not actually establishthe federal court system. Congress began that process with the Judiciary Act of 1789.
no
All 112 justices in the history of the US Supreme Court (as of 2011) have been lawyers.
Rights of defendants and detainees
The Supreme Court mandated that an immigration quota system was unconstitutional
The US Supreme Court was mandated by Article III of the Constitution, but was actually created by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789.For more specific information about the creation of the US Supreme Court, see Related Links, below.
Gideon v. Wainwright
Miranda v. Arizona
Nominated by the President, and confirmed by the Senate. There are no others. In fact, some of the most famous Justices of the Supreme Court weren't even lawyers. We'd probably be better off today if there were fewer lawyers on the Court.
Yes and no. Article III of the Constitution mandated the creation of the US Supreme Court, but Congress actually established the Court in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
No, The US Supreme Court is the only federal court Congress is powerless to abolish, because the Court is mandated by Article III of the Constitution.
No, The US Supreme Court is the only federal court Congress is powerless to abolish, because the Court is mandated by Article III of the Constitution.
The US Supreme Court set a precedent requiring states to provide court-appointed counsel to indigent criminal defendants by applying the Sixth Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.ExplanationThe US Supreme Court overturned the earlier decision in Betts v. Brady, 316 US 455 (1942), which held states weren't required to provide court-appointed counsel at trial, and failure to do so didn't violate a defendant's Due Process protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963) the Supreme Court unanimously held that states had to provide free legal counsel to indigent criminal defendants. The Court asserted that poor people were being deprived of their Sixth Amendment constitutional right to an attorney, which applied to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The condition of poverty placed defendants in a position of not receiving the same opportunity for a fair trial (due process) as people who could afford to hire an attorney, which was unconstitutional.