The President nominates all federal judges but they must be approved by the Senate. Although there are no formal requirements to quality to be nominated to be federal judge (with a few exceptions), the Senate Judiciary Committee will carefully review each candidate before the vote moves to the Full Senate for confirmation. Constitutional judges serve on courts that derive their power from Article III while the Special Court Judges serve on courts that derive their power from Article I. Special Court judges will only hear cases from a very specific jurisdiction. Constitutional Court justices will hear a wider variety of cases. One key difference is that while Constitutional Court judges serve for life, Special Court justices have a limited term.

he President nominates all federal judges but they must be approved by the Senate. Although there are no formal requirements to quality to be nominated to be federal judge (with a few exceptions), the Senate Judiciary Committee will carefully review each candidate before the vote moves to the Full Senate for confirmation. Constitutional judges serve on courts that derive their power from Article III while the Special Court Judges serve on courts that derive their power from Article I. Special Court judges will only hear cases from a very specific jurisdiction. Constitutional Court justices will hear a wider variety of cases. One key difference is that while Constitutional Court judges serve for life, Special Court justices have a limited term.

The events involving Governor William Cosby and editor Peter Zenger helped establish early arguments for the right of freedom of the press which would later be enshrined in the Constitution. Governor William Cosby responded to critical newspaper coverage by imprisoning the editor of the paper, Peter Zenger. Zenger was charged with libel, but found not guilty by the jury. Alexander Hamilton served as his defense attorney. Hamilton closed his defense with these words, “The question before the Court and you, Gentlemen of the jury, is not of small or private concern. It is not the cause of one poor printer, nor of New York alone, which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequence affect every free man that lives under a British government on the main of America. It is the best cause. It is the cause of liberty.” (NYCourts.gov)
This case was influential in enforcing the protection of individual rights because it influenced how the colonists viewed freedom of the press. It is also important because it serves as an early example of the courts checking the power of the executive.

Judicial Review is the power of the courts to rule on the constitutionality of the actions of government and potentially declare them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s ability to declare actions of the Legislative and Executive Branches unconstitutional is a vital check on the power of those branches. The Supreme Court established itself as the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution through the court case Marbury v Madison. Chief Justice Marshall wrote, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.” (5 U.S. 137, Marbury v. Madison)

After Thomas Jefferson was elected in 1800 the outgoing Federalist party attempted to fill the judiciary with as many sympathetic judges as possible before Jefferson took office. William Marbury was one such appointee, but somehow his commission was never delivered after being signed by the outgoing President Adams. Once President Jefferson took office, he ordered his Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commissions. William Marbury sought help from the Supreme Court through a writ of mandamus. The resulting court case, Marbury v Madison established the principle of judicial review and substantially increased the power of the Supreme Court through its ability to declare acts of Congress and the President unconstitutional.

The US Constitution ensures the existence of three equal branches of government.

Article I established the **legislative branch**, which is represented in **Congress.** The Congress consists of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Article II established the **executive branch**, represented by the **President’s office**.

Article III established the **Supreme Court**, which is the highest body of the **judicial branch** of government.

The Framers of the Constitution foresaw not only the existence of three different branches of government, but also procedures that allow the branches to be mutually checked and balanced.

The executive controls the legislature through the president’s right to refuse to sign any act of Congress – **presidential veto**. Congress can still approve a rejected act if it secures a two-thirds majority in both houses. The executive also has the power to convene special sessions in Congress.

On the other hand, the legislature controls the executive branch through the provision of funds – Congress may refuse to provide funds for certain purposes requested by the President. The legislature may also **impeach** the President.

The legislature and the executive have an influence on the judiciary through the appointment of judges. All federal judges are nominated by the President, and their appointment is confirmed by the Senate.Congress can also impeach federal judges, and has the power to form lower courts.

On the other hand, courts may declare unconstitutional acts adopted by Congress or the executive.

Judicial Activism is a method of interpreting the Constitution and laws through the lens of modern values and conditions rather than the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Judicial restraint is the opposite and argues for a stricter interpretation based on the intent of the framers and precedent. Society has clearly evolved since the Constitution was written and one can argue that a modern interpretation is required for those issues that would have been unimaginable to the framers. Additionally, the modern perception of civil rights and liberties has evolved and requires a broader view of the Constitution. Some argue that judicial activism is appropriate when the issue concerns individual rights since the original text of the Constitution did not extend the same protections to everyone.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) is one of the U.S courts whose focus is on combating terrorism. The FISA courts come into conflict with the Bill of Rights because of their ability to issue secret search warrants. One can argue that these secret searches are a violation of the 4th Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. There are concerns that these courts may allow the rights of the individual to be infringed upon in the name of national security.

In the United States, there are two separate judicial systems: the Federal Courts and the State Courts. The judicial branch of government consists of Federal Courts. The most important role of the judicial branch is judicial review.

The only court established directly under the Constitution is the **Supreme Court**. All other federal courts are formed by Congress and are inferior courts.

There are two types of federal courts:

**1. Constitutional courts
2. Special courts**

Constitutional federal courts include the following courts:

**1. District Courts
2. U.S. Court of Appeals
3. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
4. U.S. Court of International Trade**

Special federal courts include the following courts:

**1. U.S. Court of Federal Claims
2. U.S. Tax Court
3. Territorial Courts
4. U.S. Court of Appeals for Armed Forces
5. Court of the District of Columbia
6. U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims**

The **jurisdiction** of the federal courts is determined on the basis of two principles:

**1. The subject matter:**
– interpretation and application of a provision in the Constitution or in any federal statute or treaty
– question of admiralty or maritime law

**2. The parties involved in cases:**
”
– The United States or one of its officers or agencies
– An ambassador, consul, or other official representative of a foreign government
– One of the 50 States suing another State, a resident of another State or a foreign government or one of its subjects
– A citizen of one State suing a citizen of another State
– An American citizen suing a foreign government or one of its subjects
– A citizen of a State suing another citizen of that same State where both claim title to land under grants from different States ” (P 320)

The previous paragraph states how the jurisdiction of the court is determined, and the following are the types of jurisdiction:

**1. Exclusive jurisdiction**: cases that can only be heard before federal courts
**2. Concurrent jurisdiction:** cases that can be heard before the federal courts, but also before the State courts
**3. Original jurisdiction:** cases heard for the first time
**4. Appellate jurisdiction:** appeals to cases heard in lower courts

**Federal courts of Appeals** were formed to relieve the Supreme Court, which was initially the only instance for appealing federal court judgments. The country is divided into 12 judicial circuits, and there is a court for each circuits. There is also a thirteenth court, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and it is located in the District of Columbia. These courts have appellate jurisdiction and deal mainly with appeals from the district courts, but also from the Tax Court, or territorial courts. Also, these courts have jurisdiction to deal with the appeals of certain federal agencies.

The United States political system implies a division into three branches of government: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch of government. These three branches of government are independent and equally important.

The main function of the judicial branch of government is to interpret the constitutionality of federal laws and to resolve other issues concerning federal laws. This important power is called judicial review. The judicial branch of government interprets the meaning of laws and how they should be applied in practice. The judicial branch of government is represented in the Supreme Court which is the final instance in all cases concerning the Constitution, acts enacted by Congress, or treaties of the U.S.

The United States is divided into 94 federal judicial districts with 678 judges assigned across all the districts. These districts are each organized into one of 12 regions. Each region has a court of appeals which will hear cases on appeal from within their region. The number of districts comprising each state will vary based on the number of cases within the state. New York is divided into four federal judicial districts while New Mexico is a singular judicial district.

The Framers of the United States Constitution wanted the judicial branch of government to be as strong as the other two branches of government, the legislature and the executive. For these reasons, the Constitution states that judges of federal courts are appointed to office, not elected, and that their term may end only with the resignation of the judge himself, the death of the judge, or if the judge retires. In this way, it is ensured that judges do not have to fear for their mandate, which leads to them being able to perform their role without the influence of current political actors.

Judges are greatly influenced by the judicial philosophy in which we have two important concepts:

**1. Judicial restraint
2. Judicial activism**

Proponents of the concept of judicial restraint believe that judges in their work should decide entirely on the basis of the original intentions of the Framers of the Constitution and judicial decisions that have become precedents. They believe that only members of the legislative branch of government can create laws, and that the job of judges is only the literal application of those laws.

Judges who believe that the judicial function is far broader and more significant, are supporters of the concept of judicial activism. The central idea of this concept is that judges should not only apply the laws literally, but that they should view the laws in the light of current social conditions and values.

According the the U.S Census, the percentage of the Texas population living in urban areas grew from 3.6% in 1850 to 83% in 2000. One can attribute some of this change to the increased importance of oil throughout the 20th century. This brought people to Texas and put more focus on industry. This was taken further with the expansion of industry during WWII. This dramatic increase of industry and factories furthered urbanization by bringing more people to live near one central location.

The largest number of American soldiers who took part in the war were from Texas – as many as 750,000 people. Further, after the federal government approved an increase in military funds, a large number of military facilities were established in Texas.

Texas had a good central position, a pleasant climate, resources such as oil, so all that nominated it to become the center of the war industry and new military bases.

The heavy war industry in the cities created many new jobs filled by farmers from rural areas. In addition to them, members of racial minorities, as well as women, managed to find employment. The state transformed from a rural to an urban one, and the economic growth that accompanied the development of the war industry led to an increase in the standard of living of the citizens. This led to an increase in population of over 30 percent. Also, the state debt from the Great Depression was eliminated.

The Texas government worked closely with the federal government during the war and was able to obtain expansion of many budgets, additional federal benefits, and investments.

After the end of the war, many military bases were closed and there was no longer a need for the war industry to exist on such a large scale. However, four years of prosperity led to sufficient qualitative changes in the economy that despite the end of the war, Texas continued its development.

Also, the participation of racial minorities and women in warfare and in the military industry has led to an increase in awareness of the need for them to be actively and equally involved in all spheres of life. Many direct participants in the war, who came from minority groups, returned to Texas as victors, and in that spirit they expected recognition of their rights and freedoms, which had been denied to them in many ways in the previous period.

We can conclude that during the war, Texas underwent economic, social, political, and demographic transformation.

There are various types of conflicts and many ways to resolve them. If conflicts concern laws and rights, their resolution is often sought in courts.

The judicial branch of government in the United States is complex and consists of many elements. The Constitution itself contains the framework for the organization of the judiciary, while the detailed organization is further elaborated by federal and state laws.

There are several types of conflicts that are resolved before the courts.
First of all, we should mention the conflicts concerning the constitutionality of a law or act. All legal acts adopted must be in accordance with the Constitution. There are federal courts that have the power to decide whether a legal act is constitutional or not, and if they decide not to, that act loses its legal force and becomes null and void. This power is called judicial review.

In addition to resolving these constitutional disputes, there are many civil and criminal conflicts that are resolved before federal courts and State Courts. In some cases, it is clearly defined which conflicts are resolved by federal courts and which by State courts, while in some cases it is possible to bring a conflict before both courts. This means that there is a dual court system in the United States.

Finally, if one of the parties to the dispute is dissatisfied with the judgment rendered before the lower courts, it may institute an appeal before the higher courts and before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest court and its decisions are final.

The Supreme Court is the only court that is constituted directly under the Constitution. In addition to the appeals process and the power of judicial review, this court also has the power of precedent. Decisions of this court are viewed as precedents and lower courts are expected to respect them.