Лист за преговор: L'évolution de la Cour Suprême américaine

📋 Plan du Cours

1. Early days of the Supreme Court as the 3rd branch
2. Establishment of the Supreme Court in 1935
3. Presidential nomination of Justices and paradoxical status
4. Unclear role of the Supreme Court under Article III, Section
5. Increasingly coveted seats and recent nomination battles
6. Free speech as the first culture war
7. Challenges to the scope of the 14th Amendment
8. Use of the “compelling interest” standard based on stereotypes
9. Power and legitimacy of the Supreme Court
10. Criteria for Supreme Court case selection: national importance
11. Criteria for case selection: federal vs state law conflicts
12. Criteria for case selection: divergences among lower courts

📖 1. Early days of the Supreme Court as the 3rd branch

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Judicial review : Pouvoir du pouvoir judiciaire d'examiner la constitutionnalité des lois et des actes gouvernementaux, et d'annuler ceux qui sont contraires à la Constitution, établi par la Cour Suprême elle-même.
• Supreme Court : The power to force the Page 11 sur 45 This leads to a further and much more serious issue.

📝 Points essentiels

• The original role of the Supreme Court was unclear beyond interstate cases and a limited list in the Constitution.
• John Marshall established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison (1803), defining the Court's power to say what the law is, thus creating a powerful judicial branch not explicitly planned by the Founding Fathers.
• Page 13 sur 45 against abuses by the legislative and executive branches. Courts justify this power as necessary to protect democracy and to secure individual rights within the constitutional order. Who Really Won Marbury v. Madison? If the question is framed narrowly, the outcome of Marbury v. Madison is simple. Marbury lost, and Madison won. The Court ruled in favor of Madison, the respondent, and Marbury never received his judicial commission. However, this framing misses the real significance of the case. The true winner was neither Marbury nor Madison. The real winner was John Marshall and, more broadly, the Supreme Court itself. Through this decision, the Court established its own relevance and authority within the constitutional system. It asserted itself as an institution equal in importance to the other branches of government. For the executive branch, the decision was not a victory. On the contrary, it was a subtle but clear humiliation. The Chief Justice reminded the President and the Secretary of State that they were part of the executive branch and that interpreting the Constitution was not their role. The case generated lasting political tension, particularly between Marshall, a Federalist, and Madison, a Democratic-Republican. The Long-Term Consequences of the Decision From that point forward, and still today more than two centuries later, courts have held the
• Page 16 sur 45 McCulloch v. Maryland was therefore not just a case about banking. It was a decisive moment in constitutional interpretation, federalism, and the growth of national power. It reinforced a broad reading of the Constitution, legitimized implied powers, and laid the groundwork for later federal expansion, including during the New Deal under Franklin D. Roosevelt. Through this case, Marshall confirmed that interpreting the Constitution means engaging with its spirit as well as its text, a principle that continues to shape American constitutional law today. John Marshall’s Contested Legacy John Marshall was a Federalist, and his legacy reflects that ideology. He expanded not only the powers of the federal government but also, and perhaps more decisively, the authority of the judicial branch. For this reason, his work has never been unanimously celebrated. Many critics argue that Marshall went too far, that he entrenched excessive federalism, strengthened unelected judges at the expense of democratic institutions, and transformed the Supreme Court into an overly powerful body. Despite these criticisms, the system Marshall helped construct has endured for more than two centuries. Whether one admires or rejects his legacy is ultimately secondary. The institutional reality he created remains firmly in place and shows no sign of disappearing. The Dual Role of the U.S.

💡 À retenir

La Cour Suprême est passée d'une institution ambiguë à une branche puissante en créant elle-même la judicial review pour combler les lacunes constitutionnelles.

📖 2. Establishment of the Supreme Court in 1935

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Example : The Dred Scott case, about the constitutionality of slavery, in which the Court wrote that it was constitutional.
• Supreme Court : The highest judicial authority in the United States, established by Article III of the 1787 Constitution, with a role defined by the Constitution and shaped by subsequent legislative and judicial developments.

📝 Points essentiels

• (No explicit key points found in source about the 1935 establishment)

💡 À retenir

(No explicit key points found in source about the 1935 establishment)

📖 3. Presidential nomination of Justices and paradoxical status

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• 2017 : Année durant laquelle le président Donald Trump a nommé le juge Neil Gorsuch à la Cour suprême, après que le Sénat a refusé d'organiser des auditions pour le successeur de Scalia en 2016.
• 2018 : Année où Donald Trump a nommé Brett Kavanaugh à la Cour suprême, une nomination marquée par des auditions publiques télévisées et des accusations d'agression sexuelle.
• Effect : Limits lower courts’ ability to block executive actions at the national level.

📝 Points essentiels

• The Senate refused to hold confirmation hearings for Justice Scalia's replacement in 2016, citing the proximity to the presidential election, a rule not in the Constitution but created by Senate practice.
• President Trump successfully nominated three conservative justices, shifting the Court's balance to a conservative majority, with nominations marked by intense political and public scrutiny.
• Page 4 sur 45 The other question addressed by Congress is how many justices should sit on the Court. The only date that matters is 1869, when the number was fixed at nine justices. Before that, the number varied: six, then seven, nine, ten, back to seven, and finally nine. There is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The Chief Justice does not have more power than the others but controls the schedule and sits at the center of the Court. Whenever there is a new member, an official class photo is taken, with justices standing according to seniority. - John Roberts is the Chief Justice since 2005, nominated by George W. Bush. - Clarence Thomas is very conservative, the second African American justice, nominated by George H. W. Bush. - Samuel Alito Jr. was nominated by George W. Bush in 2006. - Sonia Sotomayor was nominated by Barack Obama in 2009 and is the first Latina justice. - Elena Kagan was nominated by Obama in 2010. - Neil M. Gorsuch was nominated by Trump in 2017. - Brett M. Kavanaugh was nominated by Trump in 2018. - Amy Coney Barrett was nominated by Trump in 2020. - Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated by Biden in 2022. B. A paradoxical status Justices are nominated by the President. Some presidents never nominate any justice because such nominations depend on circumstances. Trump was very lucky, as he nominated three justices in four years. Justices serve a life term during good behavior. The first female justice of the Supreme Court was Sandra O’Connor. The rationale for life tenure is to allow justices to rise above everyday politics. Members of the House serve two-year terms, Senators six years, and Presidents four years, while justices serve for life. However, the problem is that they are politicized, as they are chosen by the President
• Page 26 sur 45 John Roberts John Roberts has served on the Supreme Court for approximately twenty years and holds the position of Chief Justice of the United States. His role extends far beyond that of an ordinary justice. He sets the Court’s agenda, presides over oral arguments, assigns the writing of majority opinions when he is in the majority, and represents the judicial branch institutionally. He also administers the presidential oath of office and presides over presidential impeachment trials in the Senate. Ideologically, Roberts is not a hardline conservative. He is widely regarded as a centrist and a swing vote, often prioritizing the institutional legitimacy of the Court over ideological consistency. His approach reflects a strong concern for the public’s trust in the Supreme Court, which has declined significantly in recent years. Roberts has repeatedly emphasized that judges are not political actors and that judicial decisions must be grounded in legal reasoning rather than partisan considerations. His jurisprudence is therefore characterized by moderation and a desire to preserve the Court’s credibility. Ketanji Brown Jackson Among the liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson represents the most recent appointment. She was nominated by Joe Biden following the retirement of Stephen Breyer. Jackson’s nomination fulfilled a clear campaign promise made by Biden: to

💡 À retenir

Les nominations à la Cour suprême sont des événements hautement politisés qui peuvent modifier de manière décisive l'équilibre idéologique de la Cour, illustrant le paradoxe du pouvoir exercé par des juges non élus.

📖 4. Unclear role of the Supreme Court under Article III, Section

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Supreme Court : The power to force the established.

📝 Points essentiels

• The Constitution does not explicitly mention judicial review, leaving the Court's role ambiguous under Article III.
• The judiciary was not initially intended as a co-equal branch with checks on executive and legislative powers, but it assumed this role over time through judicial review.

💡 À retenir

Le rôle puissant de la Cour suprême a émergé des ambiguïtés et lacunes de la Constitution, plutôt que d'une conception explicite, grâce à la jurisprudence et à la pratique.

📖 5. Increasingly coveted seats and recent nomination battles

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Senate : Hod hearing of nominees for all federal judicial Page 29 sur 45 Scalia death > Obama était alors au pvr mais Scalia était conservateur, Obama voulait mettre qqun de liberal.
• The consequence : Filling a vacancy often sets off a political feud, with a rôle of special interrest groups that lobby elected officials.

📝 Points essentiels

• Senate Majority Leader McConnell blocked Obama's nominee to replace Scalia in 2016, arguing the next elected president should choose the justice, despite no constitutional deadline for replacement.
• The death of Justice Ginsburg in 2020 allowed Trump to appoint another conservative justice shortly before the presidential election, intensifying nomination battles.

💡 À retenir

Senate Majority Leader McConnell blocked Obama's nominee to replace Scalia in 2016, arguing the next elected president should choose the justice, despite no constitutional deadline for replacement.

📖 6. Free speech as the first culture war

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Free speech : A fundamental right protected by the First Amendment that allows individuals to express their opinions without government censorship, subject to legal limitations such as defamation or incitement to violence.
• That of Free : A phrase appearing in the source content without a clear or distinct definition; it does not correspond to a defined concept within the provided material.
• Freedom of speech : A constitutional right enabling individuals to communicate ideas and opinions without government interference, while being subject to certain legal restrictions.

📝 Points essentiels

• (No explicit key points found in source about free speech as culture war)
• Free speech The 1st culture war is that of Free speech.
• Chiles’ right to “free speech”?

💡 À retenir

(No explicit key points found in source about free speech as culture war)

📖 7. Challenges to the scope of the 14th Amendment

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Affirmative action ( : Politiques visant à promouvoir la diversité et l'égalité des chances en tenant compte de la race ou du genre, notamment dans l'éducation ou l'emploi, pour corriger des désavantages historiques.
• Equal Protection Clause : Clause du Quatorzième Amendement qui interdit aux États de refuser à toute personne la protection égale des lois, servant de fondement juridique pour contester ou défendre des politiques relatives aux droits civiques.
• 14th amendment : Amendement de la Constitution américaine adopté en 1868, qui garantit notamment la protection égale des lois à toutes les personnes et a été central dans la jurisprudence sur les droits civiques.
• Fourteenth Amendment : Nom officiel du Quatorzième Amendement, qui inclut la clause de protection égale et a été invoqué dans des décisions majeures telles que l'arrêt Obergefell v. Hodges sur le mariage homosexuel.

📝 Points essentiels

• The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause has been used by the Roberts Court to affirm and expand civil rights, including same-sex marriage and voting rights.
• Recent cases challenge affirmative action policies, with some arguing these policies discriminate against White applicants, reversing the original protective intent of the 14th Amendment.
• Page 34 sur 45 on interracial relationships and marriage, with the explicit aim of preventing mixed-race families and children. By the end of the nineteenth century, Jim Crow legislation came under judicial review. The key case in this regard was Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In this decision, the Supreme Court held, by a majority, that racial segregation did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provided that the separate facilities offered to different racial groups were of equal quality. This reasoning gave rise to the doctrine of “separate but equal”. In practice, however, this doctrine masked a deeply unequal reality. While facilities were indeed separate, they were manifestly not equal. Infrastructure, funding, and public services provided to non-white populations were consistently inferior. The doctrine thus functioned as a legal justification for racial discrimination and entrenched a system of structural inequality under the guise of constitutional compliance. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the End of “Separate but Equal” in Public Education The turning point came under the Warren Court, which sat from 1953 to 1969. One of its most significant decisions in the field of civil rights was Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The case concerned a Black resident of Topeka, Kansas, whose young daughter was required to attend a segregated
• Other cases show that the Court has been eager to reinforce voting rights.

💡 À retenir

Le Quatorzième Amendement constitue une base constitutionnelle toujours débattue pour les droits civiques, son interprétation et son application étant régulièrement remises en question par la Cour suprême.

📖 8. Use of the “compelling interest” standard based on stereotypes

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Masculinist movement : Courant revendiquant que les hommes constituent une majorité victime, influençant les débats sur les politiques d'action positive en contestant leur légitimité et en remettant en cause le standard juridique de l'intérêt impérieux.
• Compelling interest : Norme juridique exigeant que l'État démontre un intérêt légitime et important pour justifier des politiques discriminatoires, notamment dans le cadre des politiques d'action positive, et qui fait l'objet d'un examen strict par les tribunaux.

📝 Points essentiels

• Race-conscious admission programs aim to create diverse student populations but are challenged as discriminatory against White applicants under the 14th Amendment.
• The 'compelling interest' standard is applied to justify or challenge affirmative action policies, with debates influenced by movements like the masculinist movement claiming majority victimization.
• The “compelling interest” is based on a stereotype.

💡 À retenir

Race-conscious admission programs aim to create diverse student populations but are challenged as discriminatory against White applicants under the 14th Amendment.

📖 9. Power and legitimacy of the Supreme Court

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Litigation culture : A societal tendency in the United States where courts are frequently used as arenas to resolve political disputes, with politicians often resorting to legal challenges to overturn or contest political decisions.
• Supreme Court : The highest court in the United States judicial system, serving as the court of last resort for criminal and civil cases and as a constitutional court that interprets the Constitution and establishes binding legal precedents nationwide.
• Judicial precedent : The Hierarchy of Courts and the Weight of Case Law Judicial precedent operates within a strict hierarchy.

📝 Points essentiels

• The Supreme Court's rulings set binding precedents that apply at both federal and state levels, making it the final arbiter in policy disputes.
• Politicians increasingly use the Court to overturn political decisions, reflecting a US litigation culture where courts serve as tools for political agendas.
• Supreme Court The U.S. Supreme Court fulfills two essential roles within the American legal system. First, it acts as a court of last resort in both criminal and civil matters. American law is structured around distinct branches, criminal law and civil law, with administrative law operating alongside them. All of these branches ultimately fall under the supervision of the Supreme Court, which sits at the apex of both the federal and state judicial systems. Second, the Supreme Court functions as a constitutional court, comparable in purpose, though not in structure, to the Conseil constitutionnel. Unlike the French model, constitutional review in the United States is not abstract or preventive. A law cannot be challenged in the abstract before it is applied. Instead, constitutional review operates through concrete litigation. There must be a plaintiff, and that plaintiff must be a victim of the law being challenged. This requirement explains why, in Roe v. Wade, the case was built around a woman directly affected by the statute. Without a victim, there is no case, and without a case, there is no constitutional review. An Increasingly Politicized Institution The Supreme Court operates within a political environment that is relatively simple compared to many European systems. Since the mid-nineteenth century, American politics has been structured around two dominant parties: the
• Page 42 sur 45 This structural limitation is illustrated by desegregation cases following Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Although the Court declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, resistance in Southern states remained intense. Local authorities, state officials, and police forces in states such as Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana frequently refused to implement desegregation orders. Demonstrations and physical obstruction prevented Black children from attending formerly segregated schools. Judicial rulings alone proved insufficient without executive enforcement. In January 1963, George Wallace, Governor of Alabama, delivered his inaugural address, openly opposing desegregation. Referring to Alabama as the cradle of the Confederacy and invoking Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States during the Civil War, Wallace declared his refusal to comply with federal desegregation mandates. By drawing “a line in the dust,” he signaled that segregation would continue under his governorship. His speech framed federal intervention and Supreme Court decisions as tyranny, thereby asserting state resistance to judicial authority. Expansion of Executive Power under Donald J. Trump Judicial decisions require executive enforcement to be effective. Courts issue rulings, yet implementation depends on police, military and administrative authorities. This

💡 À retenir

La Cour suprême détient un pouvoir et une légitimité immenses en tant qu'arbitre ultime des politiques, façonné par une culture juridique très litigieuse aux États-Unis.

📖 10. Criteria for Supreme Court case selection: national importance

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Supreme Court : The highest federal court in the United States, responsible for interpreting the Constitution and resolving conflicts involving federal law.

📝 Points essentiels

• The Supreme Court selects cases based on their national importance, focusing on issues that affect the country broadly rather than localized disputes.
• Case selection is a strategic process to manage the Court's docket and ensure rulings have wide-reaching legal and social impact.

💡 À retenir

La Cour suprême privilégie les affaires de portée nationale pour maximiser son influence sur la loi et la société américaines.

📖 11. Criteria for case selection: federal vs state law conflicts

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• Case Selection : Also reflect the ideological composition of the Court, as the balance between conservative and liberal justices influences the types of issues accepted for review.

📝 Points essentiels

• The Supreme Court hears cases involving conflicts between federal and state laws to resolve inconsistencies and uphold federal supremacy.
• Such conflicts are a key criterion for case selection, ensuring uniform interpretation and application of federal law across states.

💡 À retenir

Resolving conflicts between federal and state laws is a central function of the Supreme Court, crucial for maintaining legal uniformity throughout the United States.

📖 12. Criteria for case selection: divergences among lower courts

🔑 Notions clés & Définitions

• The Syllabus : An introductory section of a Supreme Court decision that summarizes the case context and central question, providing a framework for the Court's ruling and aiding comprehension for non-specialist readers.
• The Majority Opinion : The main part of a Supreme Court decision that begins by clearly stating which party the Court favors, then justifies the ruling by referencing constitutional provisions, legal principles, and precedents, including agreement or disagreement with lower courts' reasoning.

📝 Points essentiels

• The Supreme Court selects cases to resolve divergences among lower federal courts (circuit splits) to ensure consistent legal interpretation.
• Addressing these splits prevents conflicting precedents and promotes a unified national legal framework.
• Page 24 sur 45 toward more progressive or liberal views, especially toward a stronger federal role in protecting equality and civil rights. However, Clarence Thomas holds the opposite position. He is widely regarded as the most conservative justice on the Court, and historically one of the most conservative overall. He is both a textualist and an originalist. For him, the words of the Constitution alone matter, and he firmly rejects any form of judicial activism. He does not believe that courts should be used as instruments to advance social or political change. Even on racial issues, his position remains consistent with this philosophy. He argues that progress for African Americans must come through legislation, not through judicial interpretation. In his view, courts should not intervene to reshape society. This makes him a particularly powerful and uncompromising figure on the Court. It is also important to note that Clarence Thomas is the successor of Thurgood Marshall, one of the most liberal justices in the history of the Supreme Court and a former lawyer for the NAACP. This contrast is striking. Thurgood Marshall embodied judicial engagement in favor of racial progress and integration, whereas Clarence Thomas shows no interest in using the Court to advance the cause of African Americans or racial equality. Neil Gorsuch Among the more recent conservative justices, Neil
• These three grounds, national importance, federal–state conflict, and splits among lower courts, constitute the principal justifications for Supreme Court review.

💡 À retenir

The Supreme Court serves as the ultimate arbiter of legal disagreements among lower courts, ensuring national legal coherence by resolving conflicting interpretations.

🧩 Compléments de couverture

1. Détail source à réviser : 1 sur 45 JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE US - Lectures (CM) - TD : 19/01 - Evaluation: MCQ test (one correct answer) Introduction “Judicial review” —> contrôle de constitutionnalité by US Supreme Court. There are more powers in t (Source: "1 sur 45 JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE US - Lectures (CM) - TD : 19/01 - Evaluation: MCQ test (one correct answer) Introduction “Judicial review” —> contrôle de constitutionnalité by US Supreme Court. There are more powers in the US Supreme Court compared to other countries. Examples: In the 2010s, many changes were done in many Western countries concerning")
2. Détail source à réviser : 1965. Page 2 sur 45 The 1973 decision on legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, was decided in 1973, but it was struck down in 2022 by a new precedent. Abortion is now something that states get to decide (Ohio, Kentucky, etc.) (Source: "1965. Page 2 sur 45 The 1973 decision on legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, was decided in 1973, but it was struck down in 2022 by a new precedent. Abortion is now something that states get to decide (Ohio, Kentucky, etc.). How have we come to this fact that nine judges, women and men, who are not elected nor the product of a democratic choice, get to")
3. Détail source à réviser : of the Constitution, it is the last branch because it is addressed in the last article, which suggests it was initially thought out to be the least important. Page 3 sur 45 In Article III of the 1787 Constitution, delega (Source: "of the Constitution, it is the last branch because it is addressed in the last article, which suggests it was initially thought out to be the least important. Page 3 sur 45 In Article III of the 1787 Constitution, delegates imagined the creation of a Supreme Court, with inferior federal courts left to the appreciation of Congress. Congress is left to")
4. Détail source à réviser : court system is threefold: the Supreme Court, the US Circuit Courts of Appeals, which never have original jurisdiction, and the US District Courts. In the US, there is also another level, the state level. If you commit a (Source: "court system is threefold: the Supreme Court, the US Circuit Courts of Appeals, which never have original jurisdiction, and the US District Courts. In the US, there is also another level, the state level. If you commit a federal crime, you will be brought before a US District Court. If it is a criminal case, it will be United States v. You. If you")
5. Détail source à réviser : interstate cases and a limited list in the Constitution. This raises the question of how the Court moved from Article III to legalizing same-sex marriage. There is no explicit mention of judicial review in the Constituti (Source: "interstate cases and a limited list in the Constitution. This raises the question of how the Court moved from Article III to legalizing same-sex marriage. There is no explicit mention of judicial review in the Constitution. One of the great mysteries of the Court is that it became something that was likely not planned by the Founding Fathers, who")
6. Détail source à réviser : later discussion sections requires students to write a judicial decision themselves, which makes familiarity with this method indispensable. Page 6 sur 45 In the British tradition, when a case is heard by a panel of judg (Source: "later discussion sections requires students to write a judicial decision themselves, which makes familiarity with this method indispensable. Page 6 sur 45 In the British tradition, when a case is heard by a panel of judges, meaning more than one judge, each judge is required to deliver an individual opinion. Each judge writes a separate document explaining")
7. Détail source à réviser : legal principles. - The justice uses different precedents. - The justice follows a different line of reasoning or analytical method. By writing a concurring opinion, the justice makes it clear that they support the outco (Source: "legal principles. - The justice uses different precedents. - The justice follows a different line of reasoning or analytical method. By writing a concurring opinion, the justice makes it clear that they support the outcome but wish to explain their own reasoning separately. This type of opinion is intellectually demanding Page 7 sur 45 because it requires")
8. Détail source à réviser : or overturned. This allows the reader to immediately understand the context in which the Supreme Court is intervening. The Majority Opinion: Outcome and Reasoning Page 8 sur 45 After the syllabus comes the majority opini (Source: "or overturned. This allows the reader to immediately understand the context in which the Supreme Court is intervening. The Majority Opinion: Outcome and Reasoning Page 8 sur 45 After the syllabus comes the majority opinion. It always opens with a clear statement identifying which party the Court rules in favor of. Every case has a winner and a loser.")
9. Détail source à réviser : of the earliest and most important cases in Supreme Court history, Marbury v. Madison, whose name is engraved on the Court’s building itself. The case illustrates how a judicial decision can shape the future of the insti (Source: "of the earliest and most important cases in Supreme Court history, Marbury v. Madison, whose name is engraved on the Court’s building itself. The case illustrates how a judicial decision can shape the future of the institution that delivers it. While Marbury himself was not a particularly significant figure, the case also involved James Madison, a central")
10. Détail source à réviser : of John Adams John Adams understood something essential about the American constitutional system: federal judges are appointed for life. Losing the presidency did not necessarily mean losing power. In the final months of (Source: "of John Adams John Adams understood something essential about the American constitutional system: federal judges are appointed for life. Losing the presidency did not necessarily mean losing power. In the final months of his administration, Adams created new federal courts and appointed hundreds of judges, all of them Federalists. By placing")
11. Détail source à réviser : situation but the opportunity it gave John Marshall. Marshall transformed what appeared to be a narrow dispute into a foundational constitutional case. Instead of focusing solely on Marbury’s appointment, he reframed the (Source: "situation but the opportunity it gave John Marshall. Marshall transformed what appeared to be a narrow dispute into a foundational constitutional case. Instead of focusing solely on Marbury’s appointment, he reframed the case around a series of deeper questions that touched on politics, executive power, and the role of the judiciary. This is the")
12. Détail source à réviser : his commission. At this stage, it might appear that Marbury was about to win the case. The Procedural Question: Can the Court Enforce the Obligation? The turning point came with the procedural question. The Court acknowl (Source: "his commission. At this stage, it might appear that Marbury was about to win the case. The Procedural Question: Can the Court Enforce the Obligation? The turning point came with the procedural question. The Court acknowledged that Marbury had a right to the appointment, but it held that it did not have the authority to order the Secretary of State to")
13. Détail source à réviser : the courts, not to the President, not to the Secretary of State, and not to the executive branch in general. This decision refined the separation of powers and strengthened the system of checks and balances. While the fa (Source: "the courts, not to the President, not to the Secretary of State, and not to the executive branch in general. This decision refined the separation of powers and strengthened the system of checks and balances. While the facts of the case may appear unremarkable, its legal consequences are foundational. It is the starting point for all subsequent cases")
14. Détail source à réviser : the executive nor to the legislature. The decision refined the separation of powers and strengthened checks and balances by clearly assigning constitutional interpretation to the judiciary. The facts of the case themselv (Source: "the executive nor to the legislature. The decision refined the separation of powers and strengthened checks and balances by clearly assigning constitutional interpretation to the judiciary. The facts of the case themselves were unremarkable. What made it foundational was the principle it established. That is why the language of the decision appears on the")
15. Détail source à réviser : as important as Marbury v. Madison. Ideology and Constitutional Interpretation This is where ideology becomes central. To understand how the Constitution is interpreted, it is necessary to ask a simple question: was John (Source: "as important as Marbury v. Madison. Ideology and Constitutional Interpretation This is where ideology becomes central. To understand how the Constitution is interpreted, it is necessary to ask a simple question: was John Marshall a proponent of a broad or a narrow interpretation of the Constitution? Marshall’s own words provide the answer. In McCulloch v.")
16. Détail source à réviser : Doctrine of Implied Powers Another crucial dimension of McCulloch v. Maryland is federalism. The Court answered yes to the question of whether Congress could create a federal bank, even though the Constitution does not e (Source: "Doctrine of Implied Powers Another crucial dimension of McCulloch v. Maryland is federalism. The Court answered yes to the question of whether Congress could create a federal bank, even though the Constitution does not explicitly authorize it. This marked the birth of the doctrine of implied powers. Under this doctrine, the Constitution grants not only")
17. Détail source à réviser : of the nomination process threaten the neutrality of the Court? There is no definitive answer. Some argue that it does, others that the institution has proven resilient enough to preserve its legitimacy. The Court itself (Source: "of the nomination process threaten the neutrality of the Court? There is no definitive answer. Some argue that it does, others that the institution has proven resilient enough to preserve its legitimacy. The Court itself constantly seeks to defend its credibility against accusations of partisanship. Ultimately, forming a judgment on this issue is left to")
18. Détail source à réviser : Judicial Reasoning and the Central Role of Precedent Two judges may reach the same conclusion in a case while relying on very different precedents. This difference reveals how judges think, how they process information, (Source: "Judicial Reasoning and the Central Role of Precedent Two judges may reach the same conclusion in a case while relying on very different precedents. This difference reveals how judges think, how they process information, and how they structure legal reasoning. Methodology matters as much as the outcome. In common law systems, including the United States and")
19. Détail source à réviser : are recognized reasons that may justify overturning a precedent. A precedent may be overturned if it has proven unworkable, meaning that it is impractical, incoherent, or impossible to apply in real cases. A rule that ca (Source: "are recognized reasons that may justify overturning a precedent. A precedent may be overturned if it has proven unworkable, meaning that it is impractical, incoherent, or impossible to apply in real cases. A rule that cannot function properly undermines legal certainty. Societal change may also be relevant. Interestingly, in the case of abortion, public")
20. Détail source à réviser : A central method associated with this approach is textualism. Under textualism, what matters is the meaning of the legal text itself. The interpretation focuses on the words of the Constitution, taken as they are written (Source: "A central method associated with this approach is textualism. Under textualism, what matters is the meaning of the legal text itself. The interpretation focuses on the words of the Constitution, taken as they are written, without paying attention to the broader context or to the intent of the drafters. Textualism must be distinguished from originalism.")
21. Détail source à réviser : held that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the Court, there was no valid reason Page 21 sur 45 to limit marriage exclusively to one man and one woman. As a con (Source: "held that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. According to the Court, there was no valid reason Page 21 sur 45 to limit marriage exclusively to one man and one woman. As a consequence, all states were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in")
22. Détail source à réviser : where he not only sided with the liberals but also authored the majority opinion. As a result, his name appears first in the decision. A central concept in his reasoning was dignity. He argued that creating discriminatio (Source: "where he not only sided with the liberals but also authored the majority opinion. As a result, his name appears first in the decision. A central concept in his reasoning was dignity. He argued that creating discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was incompatible with human dignity. Marriage, as an institution, grants access to a wide range of")
23. Détail source à réviser : policy is a state matter. Citizens vote for representatives at the state level, those representatives enact state laws, and if voters are dissatisfied, they can either vote differently in the next election or move to ano (Source: "policy is a state matter. Citizens vote for representatives at the state level, those representatives enact state laws, and if voters are dissatisfied, they can either vote differently in the next election or move to another state with different laws. This reasoning applies equally, according to these justices, to abortion and to any other right not")
24. Détail source à réviser : of the Supreme Court reflects not only legal expertise but also deep ideological divisions, shaped by the political context in which justices are nominated and confirmed. Samuel Alito Samuel Alito has been on the Supreme (Source: "of the Supreme Court reflects not only legal expertise but also deep ideological divisions, shaped by the political context in which justices are nominated and confirmed. Samuel Alito Samuel Alito has been on the Supreme Court for a long time, nearly twenty years. He was appointed by George W. Bush, the son. He is clearly conservative, but he describes")
25. Détail source à réviser : to state her position on Roe v. Wade, emphasizing judicial neutrality. Although she fulfilled conservative expectations in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), her subsequent jurisprudence has surprised m (Source: "to state her position on Roe v. Wade, emphasizing judicial neutrality. Although she fulfilled conservative expectations in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), her subsequent jurisprudence has surprised many Republicans. Barrett has shown a willingness to side with liberals in certain cases, demonstrating a level of independence and")
26. Détail source à réviser : constitutional interpretation must remain faithful to prior Page 27 sur 45 decisions, and judges should show deference to the accumulated body of case law. As a result, she is generally methodical and cautious, rather th (Source: "constitutional interpretation must remain faithful to prior Page 27 sur 45 decisions, and judges should show deference to the accumulated body of case law. As a result, she is generally methodical and cautious, rather than driven by ideological ambition. Ideologically, she is considered a moderate liberal rather than a radical one. She does not")
27. Détail source à réviser : rattrapé———————————————————————————————— Page 28 sur 45 B) High stakes Les legal doctrines sont d’utmost importance, since : will determine the outcome of cases in public policy, abortion, minority rights, gun control, h (Source: "rattrapé———————————————————————————————— Page 28 sur 45 B) High stakes Les legal doctrines sont d’utmost importance, since : will determine the outcome of cases in public policy, abortion, minority rights, gun control, healthcare, immigration,… SCOTUS rulings set precedents which apply at a federal and state level, a final arbiter in policy-making, all")
28. Détail source à réviser : et connaît les lois, confirmation by senate, appointment by potus. Senate : hod hearing of nominees for all federal judicial positions to vet him / her. Ils vérifient : que la personne n’est pas un ami du pdt, que la per (Source: "et connaît les lois, confirmation by senate, appointment by potus. Senate : hod hearing of nominees for all federal judicial positions to vet him / her. Ils vérifient : que la personne n’est pas un ami du pdt, que la personne est vraiment juge et qu’elle est compétente, troisième vérif à vérif. The Senate may delay hearing (no timeline in constitution)")
29. Détail source à réviser : will of the voters ? → senatorrs… Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in 2016. The consequence is that president trump rushed to nominate a Justice, 35 days before election. The senate moved swiftly conf (Source: "will of the voters ? → senatorrs… Lindsay Graham, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, in 2016. The consequence is that president trump rushed to nominate a Justice, 35 days before election. The senate moved swiftly confirm her, 8 days before election. Who did trump nominate ? → may Coney barrett. She is presented as a threat to the right to abortion →")
30. Détail source à réviser : as a counter power during trump’s first term. Oral arguments : a good way to predict outcome. Finally, a methodological warning is added for the semi partiel : un juge est toujours liberal ou conservateur mais jamais dem (Source: "as a counter power during trump’s first term. Oral arguments : a good way to predict outcome. Finally, a methodological warning is added for the semi partiel : un juge est toujours liberal ou conservateur mais jamais democrate ou republicain puisqu’un juge n’est pas politique. + pour le semi partiel même si la solution est complexe ne pas partir sur des")
31. Détail source à réviser : specific domain: civil rights. Civil rights concern the ability of individuals to fully exercise their rights as citizens, particularly the right to vote and to participate equally in American society. The history of jud (Source: "specific domain: civil rights. Civil rights concern the ability of individuals to fully exercise their rights as citizens, particularly the right to vote and to participate equally in American society. The history of judicial review in this area is ambivalent. Courts have sometimes advanced civil rights, but they have also, at crucial moments, obstructed")
32. Détail source à réviser : were acquired, there was a growing risk that slave states would outnumber free states. At that time, there was a fragile balance between states where slavery was legal and states where it was prohibited. The Missouri Com (Source: "were acquired, there was a growing risk that slave states would outnumber free states. At that time, there was a fragile balance between states where slavery was legal and states where it was prohibited. The Missouri Compromise sought to preserve this balance. It established that any new state admitted north of the Louisiana Territory line would be")
33. Détail source à réviser : across generations: once a slave, always a slave, unless freed by the owner. Taney explicitly asserted that Black people had no rights that white men were bound to respect and concluded that they were not considered huma (Source: "across generations: once a slave, always a slave, unless freed by the owner. Taney explicitly asserted that Black people had no rights that white men were bound to respect and concluded that they were not considered human beings in the constitutional order. Citizenship, in this view, required being both white and free. The Court held that the")
34. Détail source à réviser : Amendments, constitutional equality appeared, at least formally, to be guaranteed. In practice, however, racism did not disappear after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the adoption of the Fifteenth Amend (Source: "Amendments, constitutional equality appeared, at least formally, to be guaranteed. In practice, however, racism did not disappear after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment. In most Southern states, racial segregation became systematic and was legally organized through what became known as the")
35. Détail source à réviser : education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The decision marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation and represented a major judi (Source: "education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” The decision marked a fundamental shift in constitutional interpretation and represented a major judicial intervention in favor of civil rights. However, the end of school segregation did not bring an immediate end to segregation more")
36. Détail source à réviser : pregnancy. This illustrates the extent to which the Warren Court authorized itself to adopt a broad and creative interpretation of the Constitution, often acting ahead of the legislature, a practice that generated signif (Source: "pregnancy. This illustrates the extent to which the Warren Court authorized itself to adopt a broad and creative interpretation of the Constitution, often acting ahead of the legislature, a practice that generated significant political and legal controversy. Another major precedent of the Warren Court is Loving v. Virginia (1967), which struck down laws")
37. Détail source à réviser : :suggested that if they didn’t want to serve the sentence, they could leave Virginia and settle somewhere else, promising never to go back to Virginia for 25 years. They decided to leave and went back to Washington DC to (Source: ":suggested that if they didn’t want to serve the sentence, they could leave Virginia and settle somewhere else, promising never to go back to Virginia for 25 years. They decided to leave and went back to Washington DC to live freely as a married couple. But meanwhile, they decided to take their case before a court, feeling it would be unfair for them to")
38. Détail source à réviser : The 1st culture war is that of Free speech. It rules all the other culture wars. How much can you say, how can you express yourself… is at the center of every political issue. In 2010, the conservatives win the Citizens (Source: "The 1st culture war is that of Free speech. It rules all the other culture wars. How much can you say, how can you express yourself… is at the center of every political issue. In 2010, the conservatives win the Citizens United v. FECcase. This precedent is complex. The legal issue was : Are corporations and groups entitled to the freedom of speech")
39. Détail source à réviser : that this law has a legitimate law : conversion therapy is not only uneffective, useless, but is also harmful – underraged patients need to be protected against it. The Court will have to answer “Does the ban violate the (Source: "that this law has a legitimate law : conversion therapy is not only uneffective, useless, but is also harmful – underraged patients need to be protected against it. The Court will have to answer “Does the ban violate the 1stAmendment”? And to do that they have to answer a more tricky question : “is speech therapy a medical act and/or a speech act”? It")
40. Détail source à réviser : showing how split the Roberts court used to be. In this decision, the results of the vote are confusing. Kavannaugh and Roberts, conservatives, decided to vote with the Liberal block. Some decisions also show the extent (Source: "showing how split the Roberts court used to be. In this decision, the results of the vote are confusing. Kavannaugh and Roberts, conservatives, decided to vote with the Liberal block. Some decisions also show the extent to which the conservatives are very powerful. Affirmative action (= discrimination positive) put policies in place to help racial")
41. Détail source à réviser : not easily measurable and did not satisfy the strict scrutiny of the compelling interest. As a result, Grutter was effectively overturned. Affirmative action policies from now on are going to be severly limited. LECTURE (Source: "not easily measurable and did not satisfy the strict scrutiny of the compelling interest. As a result, Grutter was effectively overturned. Affirmative action policies from now on are going to be severly limited. LECTURE 5 – SCOTUS AND OTHE OTHER BRANCHES Is SCOTUS a powerful institution and how does it interact with other powers in the system of checks and")
42. Détail source à réviser : The resulting legal framework remains paradoxical: cannabis is illegal under federal law but lawful under certain state laws. Consequently, conduct permitted by state authorities may still expose individuals to federal p (Source: "The resulting legal framework remains paradoxical: cannabis is illegal under federal law but lawful under certain state laws. Consequently, conduct permitted by state authorities may still expose individuals to federal prosecution. 3. The third criterion concerns divergences in interpretation among lower courts. In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), lower")
43. Détail source à réviser : military and administrative authorities. This structural reality is central to understanding recent tensions between the presidency and the constitutional system during Donald Trump’s second term. A defining feature of t (Source: "military and administrative authorities. This structural reality is central to understanding recent tensions between the presidency and the constitutional system during Donald Trump’s second term. A defining feature of this term is the expansion of executive power. In foreign affairs, the administration has imposed tariffs and engaged in international")
44. Détail source à réviser : The Act, however, applies only in cases of declared war or imminent invasion. The Court held that neither condition was met. There was no declared war with Venezuela and no evidence of invasion. The executive action ther (Source: "The Act, however, applies only in cases of declared war or imminent invasion. The Court held that neither condition was met. There was no declared war with Venezuela and no evidence of invasion. The executive action therefore exceeded statutory limits. This decision confirmed that the Supreme Court could still enforce constitutional boundaries against")
45. Détail source à réviser : official acts and private conduct. The unresolved question is whether actions connected to election denial and January 6 qualify as official acts. The decision significantly delayed the criminal proceedings and intersect (Source: "official acts and private conduct. The unresolved question is whether actions connected to election denial and January 6 qualify as official acts. The decision significantly delayed the criminal proceedings and intersected with the presidential election calendar. The dissenting justices argue that recognizing presumptive immunity for official acts")
46. Détail source à réviser : 2013, with the election of Hollande, the Parliament opened marriage to same-sex couples (Source: "2013, with the election of Hollande, the Parliament opened marriage to same-sex couples")
47. Détail source à réviser : 1788, Hamilton writes: “no influence over either the sword or the purse… it may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment (Source: "1788, Hamilton writes: “no influence over either the sword or the purse… it may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment")
48. Détail source à réviser : 1801, serving for thirty-four years (Source: "1801, serving for thirty-four years")
49. Détail source à réviser : v. Wade, the legal conclusion remains straightforward: one party prevails over the other (Source: "v. Wade, the legal conclusion remains straightforward: one party prevails over the other")
50. Détail source à réviser : 1800 and the Birth of Modern Political Conflict At the turn of the nineteenth century, American politics entered a new phase (Source: "1800 and the Birth of Modern Political Conflict At the turn of the nineteenth century, American politics entered a new phase")
51. Détail source à réviser : ated this principle in words that now appear on the façade of the Supreme Court building: “An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void,” and “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial d (Source: "ated this principle in words that now appear on the façade of the Supreme Court building: “An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void,” and “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Judicial Review and Constitutional Supremacy From 1803 onward")
52. Détail source à réviser : 1819, this case raised a deceptively simple issue: does Congress have the constitutional authority to create a federal bank (Source: "1819, this case raised a deceptively simple issue: does Congress have the constitutional authority to create a federal bank")
53. Détail source à réviser : 1819, the Union was still fragile, and one unresolved issue lay beneath all political tensions: slavery (Source: "1819, the Union was still fragile, and one unresolved issue lay beneath all political tensions: slavery")
54. Détail source à réviser : This reality raises a fundamental question: does the politicization of the nomination process threaten the neutrality of the Court? There is no definitive answer. Some argue that it does, others that the institution has (Source: "This reality raises a fundamental question: does the politicization of the nomination process threaten the neutrality of the Court? There is no definitive answer. Some argue that it does, others that the institution has proven resilient enough to preserve its legitimacy. The Cour")
55. Détail source à réviser : 2022 than in 1973 (Source: "2022 than in 1973")
56. Détail source à réviser : This approach is particularly visible in cases involving controversial political or social issues, such as same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) or abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Because of this active role, (Source: "This approach is particularly visible in cases involving controversial political or social issues, such as same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) or abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Because of this active role, liberals are sometimes accused of judicial activism, with the criticism that this leads to a form of government by judges. This approach...")
57. Détail source à réviser : v. Wade was fundamentally incompatible with conservative ideology, as it treated abortion as a federal issue (Source: "v. Wade was fundamentally incompatible with conservative ideology, as it treated abortion as a federal issue")
58. Détail source à réviser : 1991, during the first Bush administration, which means that he has served on the Supreme Court for more than thirty-five years (Source: "1991, during the first Bush administration, which means that he has served on the Supreme Court for more than thirty-five years")
59. Détail source à réviser : v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), her subsequent jurisprudence has surprised many Republicans (Source: "v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), her subsequent jurisprudence has surprised many Republicans")
60. Détail source à réviser : 2022–2023 term, these scores showed that Kagan and Jackson were statistically more liberal than Sotomayor (Source: "2022–2023 term, these scores showed that Kagan and Jackson were statistically more liberal than Sotomayor")
61. Détail source à réviser : Since then : the court has overturned precedents concerning the right to abortion, affirmative action, environmental regulation,… 2022 term : Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade (1973). So (Source: "Since then : the court has overturned precedents concerning the right to abortion, affirmative action, environmental regulation,… 2022 term : Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade (1973). Some democrats have suggested packing the court : another political maneuvre, schow how procedural norms can be distorted for political gai...")
62. Détail source à réviser : 1787 and its ratification in 1789 (Source: "1787 and its ratification in 1789")
63. Détail source à réviser : 1860 was followed by the outbreak of war in 1861, its end in 1865, and the abolition of slavery (Source: "1860 was followed by the outbreak of war in 1861, its end in 1865, and the abolition of slavery")
64. Détail source à réviser : v. Connecticut (1965) and Implied Constitutional Rights Another landmark decision of the Warren Court was Griswold v (Source: "v. Connecticut (1965) and Implied Constitutional Rights Another landmark decision of the Warren Court was Griswold v")
65. Détail source à réviser : v. Virginia: Facts and Legal Context Under Virginia law, the population was divided into two rigid legal categories, white people and “colored” people (Source: "v. Virginia: Facts and Legal Context Under Virginia law, the population was divided into two rigid legal categories, white people and “colored” people")
66. Détail source à réviser : v. Hodge (2015) which reaffirmed the Equal Protection Clause= end of all bans of same-sex marriages (Source: "v. Hodge (2015) which reaffirmed the Equal Protection Clause= end of all bans of same-sex marriages")
67. Détail source à réviser : v. President of Fellows of Harvard College (2023) - Students for Fair Admission Inc (Source: "v. President of Fellows of Harvard College (2023) - Students for Fair Admission Inc")
68. Détail source à réviser : v. Hodges (2015), lower federal courts issued contradictory rulings regarding same-sex marriage (Source: "v. Hodges (2015), lower federal courts issued contradictory rulings regarding same-sex marriage")
69. Détail source à réviser : 2024: the Justice Department drops the charges, citing political timing and practical difficulties (Source: "2024: the Justice Department drops the charges, citing political timing and practical difficulties")
70. Détail source à réviser : The Court relied on several precedents, including the notion of a zone of privacy and earlier decisions such as Loving v. Virginia (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial marriage, and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), whi (Source: "The Court relied on several precedents, including the notion of a zone of privacy and earlier decisions such as Loving v. Virginia (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial marriage, and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down laws criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct. The decision conveyed a strong message to the states: same-sex couples a...")
71. Détail source à réviser : 2015) which reaffirmed the Equal Protection Clause= end of all bans of same-sex marriages (Source: "2015) which reaffirmed the Equal Protection Clause= end of all bans of same-sex marriages")
72. Détail source à réviser : 2023, 2 cases iniaited by the same group SFA : Students for Fair Admission - Students for Frai Admissions Inc (Source: "2023, 2 cases iniaited by the same group SFA : Students for Fair Admission - Students for Frai Admissions Inc")
73. Détail source à réviser : The petitioners argued the Grutter v. Bollinger precedent was wrong, and that it must be overruled, because : 1. In the 14th amendment there is no window for racial classification. 2. The “compelling interest” is based o (Source: "The petitioners argued the Grutter v. Bollinger precedent was wrong, and that it must be overruled, because : 1. In the 14th amendment there is no window for racial classification. 2. The “compelling interest” is based on a stereotype. Ethnic diversity doesn’t always lead to pluralism. It may not be better to have more diverse student body: the sole purpo...")
74. Détail source à réviser : 2015), lower federal courts issued contradictory rulings regarding same-sex marriage (Source: "2015), lower federal courts issued contradictory rulings regarding same-sex marriage")
75. Détail source à réviser : v. Trump (May 2025), the Supreme Court reviewed the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador (Source: "v. Trump (May 2025), the Supreme Court reviewed the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador")
76. Détail source à réviser : 2025 : Blocked by a judge (appointed by reagan) → « this is a blatently unconstitutional order » (Source: "2025 : Blocked by a judge (appointed by reagan) → « this is a blatently unconstitutional order »")
77. Détail source à réviser : 2017 : parce que la personne proposée était incompétente et n’était pa sjuge, il est peu probable que cela ait été un refus pour des raisons politiques (Source: "2017 : parce que la personne proposée était incompétente et n’était pa sjuge, il est peu probable que cela ait été un refus pour des raisons politiques")
78. Détail source à réviser : 2020 : 0 democrats voted to confirm her (pas parce qu’elle était incompétente mais parce qu’elle n’avait pas la bonne idéeologie → la politique prend le dessus ce quiv est original pour un juge) (Source: "2020 : 0 democrats voted to confirm her (pas parce qu’elle était incompétente mais parce qu’elle n’avait pas la bonne idéeologie → la politique prend le dessus ce quiv est original pour un juge)")
79. Détail source à réviser : 2023) - Students for Fair Admission Inc (Source: "2023) - Students for Fair Admission Inc")
80. Détail source à réviser : 2025), the Supreme Court reviewed the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador (Source: "2025), the Supreme Court reviewed the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador")
81. Détail source à réviser : for incitement to insurrection. Public reaction included demonstrations under the slogan “No King.” November 2024: the Justice Department drops the charges, citing political timing and practical difficulties. Strategy of (Source: "for incitement to insurrection. Public reaction included demonstrations under the slogan “No King.” November 2024: the Justice Department drops the charges, citing political timing and practical difficulties. Strategy of delay succeeds. Trump v. Casa (2025),")
82. Détail source à réviser : 2017 : replaced Scalia with Justice Gorsuch → 5 conservatives (ils ont la majorité) (Source: "2017 : replaced Scalia with Justice Gorsuch → 5 conservatives (ils ont la majorité)")
83. Détail source à réviser : 2018 : Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh → accused of sexual assault : au moment où il a été proposé → televised public hearing in the Senate (Source: "2018 : Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh → accused of sexual assault : au moment où il a été proposé → televised public hearing in the Senate")
84. Détail source à réviser : 2020 : Trump had already tipped the Court to the right → worst fear of liberals was realized (Source: "2020 : Trump had already tipped the Court to the right → worst fear of liberals was realized")
85. Détail source à réviser : Other implications include the right NOT to say something :are companies also allowed to refuse service to a customer because if they serve them it would “force” a certain kind of expression? Page 38 sur 45 Masterpiece C (Source: "Other implications include the right NOT to say something :are companies also allowed to refuse service to a customer because if they serve them it would “force” a certain kind of expression? Page 38 sur 45 Masterpiece Cakeshop . Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) 303 Creati")
86. Détail source à réviser : v. Salazar case, 2026 cocket (hearings happened already but final ruling in June) (Source: "v. Salazar case, 2026 cocket (hearings happened already but final ruling in June)")
87. Détail source à réviser : II. Challenging the Scope of the 14th Amendment This short amendment leads to a variety of cases :discrimination in schools, admissions in universities, … A) Equal protection Page 39 sur 45 The 14th amendment lead the Ro (Source: "II. Challenging the Scope of the 14th Amendment This short amendment leads to a variety of cases :discrimination in schools, admissions in universities, … A) Equal protection Page 39 sur 45 The 14th amendment lead the Roberts Court to produce rulings affirming and enhancing civil rights")
88. Détail source à réviser : v. Claytin County in 2020 involved a justice in particular, Neil … who despite being conservative voted to ban discrimination in employment on the ground of gender identity (transgender employees) (Source: "v. Claytin County in 2020 involved a justice in particular, Neil … who despite being conservative voted to ban discrimination in employment on the ground of gender identity (transgender employees)")
89. Détail source à réviser : v. Milligan case in 2022 was about the redistricting plan in Alabama, a very diverse state with many Black voters (Source: "v. Milligan case in 2022 was about the redistricting plan in Alabama, a very diverse state with many Black voters")
90. Détail source à réviser : In this case the question was : is the new map violating section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965 which guarantees the voting rights of Black voters? This case wasn’t a unanimous decision, showing how split the Roberts co (Source: "In this case the question was : is the new map violating section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 1965 which guarantees the voting rights of Black voters? This case wasn’t a unanimous decision, showing how split the Roberts court used to be. In this decision, the results of the vote ar")
91. Détail source à réviser : v. Bollinger precedent was wrong, and that it must be overruled, because : 1 (Source: "v. Bollinger precedent was wrong, and that it must be overruled, because : 1")
92. Détail source à réviser : v. Madison (1803), which established the power of courts to review executive action (Source: "v. Madison (1803), which established the power of courts to review executive action")
93. Détail source à réviser : v. Casa (2025), Nationwide Injunctions Executive order denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U (Source: "v. Casa (2025), Nationwide Injunctions Executive order denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U")
94. Détail source à réviser : mful – underraged patients need to be protected against it. The Court will have to answer “Does the ban violate the 1stAmendment”? And to do that they have to answer a more tricky question : “is speech therapy a medical (Source: "mful – underraged patients need to be protected against it. The Court will have to answer “Does the ban violate the 1stAmendment”? And to do that they have to answer a more tricky question : “is speech therapy a medical act and/or a speech act”? It would be discrimination if the answer is")
95. Détail source à réviser : an violate the 1stAmendment”? And to do that they have to answer a more tricky question : “is speech therapy a medical act and/or a speech act”? It would be discrimination if the answer is yes : banning speech because it (Source: "an violate the 1stAmendment”? And to do that they have to answer a more tricky question : “is speech therapy a medical act and/or a speech act”? It would be discrimination if the answer is yes : banning speech because it conveys a specific opinion. But if the answer is no, it is a matter of professiona")
96. Détail source à réviser : we focus on minorites, the majority becomes the victim. The question SCOTUS was asked is “Is Affirmative action a violation of 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause” ?What’s interesting is it’s reversed : the amendmen (Source: "we focus on minorites, the majority becomes the victim. The question SCOTUS was asked is “Is Affirmative action a violation of 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause” ?What’s interesting is it’s reversed : the amendment was meant to protect Black americans, and is now being used by White americans. There is a precedent : the")

📅 Repères chronologiques

Date	Événement
1803	Judicial review established by Marbury v. Madison
1935	Establishment of the Supreme Court in its modern role
1787	Constitutional basis for the Supreme Court in Article III
2017	Recent nomination battles and political conflicts over judicial appointments
2016	McConnell blocks Obama's nominee after Scalia's death
2018	Supreme Court's role in free speech and culture wars

📊 Tableaux de Synthèse

Judicial Review and Court Power

Aspect	Details
Origin	Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, established by Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Role ambiguity	Initially unclear beyond interstate cases
Power assertion	Court established its relevance and authority, asserting itself as co-equal branch

⚠️ Pièges & Confusions Fréquentes

1. Confusing judicial review with legislative or executive powers
2. Misunderstanding the original role of the Supreme Court as explicitly defined in the Constitution
3. Overestimating the Court's power to shape policy without considering political context
4. Ignoring the role of precedent in Court decisions
5. Misinterpreting the Court's role in protecting democracy and individual rights
6. Confusing the Court's power with that of other branches
7. Assuming the Court's decisions are always based on clear constitutional mandates

✅ Checklist Examen

1. Review the origins of judicial review and its establishment in Marbury v. Madison
2. Understand the ambiguity of the Court's role under Article III of the Constitution
3. Familiarize with recent nomination battles and their political implications
4. Study the criteria for Supreme Court case selection, including national importance and conflicts among lower courts
5. Examine the Court's role in free speech and culture wars
6. Analyze the impact of landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade and their recent overturning
7. Recognize the power dynamics and legitimacy issues surrounding the Court
8. Differentiate between the Court's role in criminal, civil, and constitutional law