Judiciary Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Judiciary – The network of courts that resolves disputes, interprets, defends, and applies law. Separation of Powers – Judiciary interprets law only; legislatures make statutes; executives enforce them. Judicial Review – Courts can nullify statutes, regulations, or treaties that conflict with a higher norm (e.g., constitution). Ius Commune – A blended European legal tradition merging Roman civil law (codified rules) with canon law (church norms). Stare Decisis – In common‑law systems, lower courts must follow legal principles established by higher‑court precedents. Three‑Tier Court Structure – Trial → Appellate → Supreme Court (both federal and state levels in the U.S.). 📌 Must Remember Judiciary ≠ Legislature ≠ Executive (no law‑making, no law‑enforcement). Judicial review protects the supremacy of constitutions and higher norms. Corpus Iuris Civilis (Justinian, 6th c.) = foundational Roman law source, split into four books. Common‑law courts both interpret statutes and create law through precedent. Stare decisis binds lower courts to higher‑court rulings. U.S. Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the federal Constitution; state supreme courts are final for state law. U.S. federal judiciary: 94 districts → 12 circuits → Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court justices: appointed by President, confirmed by Senate, serve for life (unless they retire). 🔄 Key Processes Judicial Review Workflow Case filed → Lower court decides → Party appeals → Appellate court reviews → May reach Supreme Court → Court compares challenged law to higher norm → If incompatible, law is annulled. Mixed (Inquisitorial + Adversarial) Process (Ius Commune) Judge actively investigates (inquisitorial) → Parties also present evidence and arguments (adversarial) → Judge synthesizes both inputs to reach judgment. U.S. Federal Case Progression District Court (trial) → Court of Appeals (circuit) → U.S. Supreme Court ( discretionary certiorari). 🔍 Key Comparisons Judiciary vs. Legislature – Judiciary: interprets law; Legislature: creates law. Inquisitorial vs. Adversarial – Inquisitorial: judge leads evidence‑gathering; Adversarial: parties drive evidence presentation. Common Law vs. Civil Law – Common Law: law evolves through precedent (stare decisis); Civil Law: law is primarily codified (e.g., Corpus Iuris Civilis). ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Judges make laws” – In common law they interpret and apply precedent; they do not legislate broadly. “Judicial review means judges can change the Constitution” – Review only annuls laws conflicting with the Constitution; it does not rewrite the Constitution. “All courts follow the same structure worldwide” – Many systems (e.g., civil‑law countries) lack a strict three‑tier hierarchy or the same precedent doctrine. 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Gatekeeper” Model – Think of the judiciary as a gate that lets only legally valid statutes/pass regulations through; anything failing the “higher‑norm test” is blocked. “Precedent as a River” – Lower courts flow downstream, forced to follow the direction set by higher courts (the source). 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Not enough information in source outline to detail specific statutory exceptions to judicial review (e.g., political questions, sovereign immunity). 📍 When to Use Which Apply Judicial Review when a law, regulation, or treaty is alleged to conflict with a constitution, primary legislation, or an international treaty. Use Stare decisis when arguing that a lower court must follow a higher‑court decision on a similar factual/legal issue. Choose Inquisitorial tactics (e.g., requesting court‑ordered evidence) in jurisdictions that retain Ius Commune mixed processes; rely on adversarial tactics (e.g., cross‑examination) in pure common‑law settings. 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Higher‑norm conflict” language in exam questions → triggers judicial‑review analysis. “Precedent hierarchy” cues (e.g., “lower court must follow”) → signals stare decisis application. Three‑tier description (trial → appellate → supreme) → signals a U.S. federal or state case flow. 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Judges can create new statutes.” – Wrong; they create case law through precedent, not statutory law. Distractor: “Judicial review allows courts to rewrite the Constitution.” – Incorrect; courts can only strike down conflicting laws. Distractor: “All European legal systems are pure civil law.” – Misleading; many retain mixed inquisitorial‑adversarial elements from the Ius Commune. Distractor: “State courts handle only 2 % of litigation.” – Opposite; they handle 98 % of cases. --- Use this guide for a quick, high‑impact review before your exam – focus on the bolded terms, the step‑by‑step processes, and the trap warnings.