UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (5/19/25): Part II: Everything You Need to Know About the JUDICIAL Branch of the U.S. Government

Episode Date: May 19, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. Lately, there’s been a lot of debate—and confusion—about the separation of powers, checks and balances, and whether certain branches are overstepping their authority. I created this three-part series to help cut through the noise and give you a clear, unbiased look at how each branch is supposed to function, what powers they actually hold, and how they’re meant to keep each other in check. In today's episode, we're diving into the judicial branch of the U.S. government. Intro (0:00) Foundational Elements of the Judicial Branch (2:28) The Role of the Judiciary/Checks and Balances (7:24) History of the Judicial Branch (16:27) The Federal Court System & Appeals Process (29:03) Fun Facts About the Judicial Branch (39:12) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S FREE NEWSLETTER. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Monday, May 19th, 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 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 5-4 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 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 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 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 III of the Constitution. Section 1 of Article III 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 1 also tells us that judges are to receive a compensation for their services and can hold on to their position 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 U.S. Constitution. Federal laws. Treaties

made by the United States. Cases involving ambassadors or foreign officials. Cases that happen at sea or involve ships. The U.S. 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 2 tells us that all criminal trials except for 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 3, 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 the judicial branch of the United States government. Now you might be be thinking, well, that was there was a lot of substance there. It sounds like a lot because I'm just teaching you one thing after another. But really, when you look at what's included in articles one, two, and three, there is nothing included in article three. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 of 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 there'd be no need for it. We might just have the two branches of government, Congress and the executive. So I'll give you an example of what I mean by how differently laws can be interpreted. Title VII 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. 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 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 six-to-three

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 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 interpreting the law and what is right or wrong, there is no right or wrong. They're just different. 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 gonna 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. 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 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 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 more.

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 strike down both laws and executive orders.

At the same time though, the judiciary gets checked too. Its authority is not unlimited. No branch has unlimited authority. The legislative branch approves judicial appointments. 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 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 versus 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, etc., and it took months for the federal government to fully roll out the policy changes in accordance

with the Supreme Court's ruling. So in sum, and I guess I should say too, when we talk about checks and balances and 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 some, the judicial branch keeps the other two branches in check by interpreting laws and striking down unconstitutional actions, but Congress and the president keep the courts in check by controlling appointments, 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 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 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 Capitol moved to Washington in 1800, the judiciary took such a backseat that 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 versus 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 asks the Supreme Court to compel the Secretary of State to deliver the documents. In a 4-2 decision the court found that 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 theitutional 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 court became a major player in shaping U.S. law. Throughout the 1800s the judiciary began to flex its muscle a bit more if you will. 1810, the Supreme Court expanded its right of judicial review in a case called Fletcher v. Peck. In that case, for the first time, the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. So in Marbury v. 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. What that decision said is that Black Americans could not be citizens and that Congress could not ban slavery in U.S. territories. That decision arguably helped fuel the Civil War. So after the war, the 14th Amendment is ratified in 1868, which

granted granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and mandated 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 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 and public accommodations, finding that the Fourteenth 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 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 we're at 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' 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. 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 shut 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, you know, 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. So John Roberts, who had often sided with the conservative majority, 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 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 versus Wainwright Which guaranteed the right to an attorney and Miranda versus Arizona which led to our Miranda rights in? 1973 is when the court decided Roe versus 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 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 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. 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. 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. Divide that pyramid into three sections. Once you do that, you're left with a bottom third, a middle third, and a top

third. So picture this. The bottom third section consists of the federal district courts. The middle 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, 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 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 the least amount of authority. So they're on the bottom, but the bottom is also the biggest, right? Because 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. 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 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 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 the appellate court doesn't have to hear your district court ruling. Now, the appellate court doesn't have to hear your appeal, okay? 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. 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 law student.

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 Appeals, which is specifically for Washington DC, and then the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which we'll talk about more in a minute, but there's 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, Georgia, and Alabama

appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Federal cases out of Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana 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 9th Circuit, which shares 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 six to three, conservative-liberal split. It instead would have probably been five to four, conservative-liber 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 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 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 DC 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 four.

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 presidential value, or might resolve conflicting decisions between the federal appeals courts. In fact, of the roughly 7-8,000 cases that it's asked to review each year, it typically only accepts about a hundred of those. So that's a little bit about how the appeals process works 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 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 placed on the desks. Justice Kagan, 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 borough 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 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 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.