# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Judicial Learning Center | An online companion to the Judicial Learning Center in St. Louis, Missouri.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Don't run with scissors in your hand!"

"Don't drive your car on the sidewalk!"

"Do not steal your neighbor's property!"

How many times a day does someone tell you what to do? How often do you have to stop yourself from doing what you want, because you know that this action is prohibited or wrong?

In the United States, it seems like we have laws, rules, and regulations to oversee just about everything. We don't always like these rules, since they often mean that someone is telling us what to do, or keeping us from doing what we want. Yet to live in a civil society, we must have some rules to follow.

Who gets to make these rules? Where do they come from? What happens when we break them? These are the questions this page will seek to answer for you.

LAW

aws are rules that bind all people living in a community. Laws protect our general safety, and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by other people, by organizations, and by the government itself. We have laws to help provide for our general safety. These exist at the local, state and national levels, and include things like:

Laws about food safety. At the state and local level, health departments have guidelines that restaurants follow for how to store and prepare food in a healthy manner, so that diners won't get sick. At the national level, the Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies inspect food production plants to be sure that the food that shows up in your supermarket is safe to eat.

Speed limits and traffic laws exist so that we drive in a safe manner.

Licensing for doctors and nurses ensures proper training of the people who look after us, and who often have our lives in their hands.

We also have laws that protect our rights as citizens, and which include things like:

Laws that come from the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution, that guarantee our basic freedoms like freedom of speech, religion, and the press.

Laws that protect us from discrimination because of our race, gender, age, or because of a disability.

Where do Laws come from?

In the United States, the Constitution is the ultimate source of the law. However, it was never designed to address every specific legal question. Within the boundaries of the Constitution, there are two primary sources of law, and statutory law.

This law comes from the judicial branch. Though the courts do not pass laws, they do interpret them. This means that the judiciary bases their legal decisions on what is written in the Constitution, and on previous court rulings in similar cases. This is a process called stare decisis which in Latin means "let the decision stand."

Statutes are laws created by the legislative branch through the lawmaking process. Statutes are written, discussed, argued and voted on in Congress or in the legislature of a state. The courts then apply and interpret these statutes on a case by case basis.

Laws Over Time

The thing about living in a democracy is that the laws change over time. The laws needed in 1789 when the Constitution was born, and in 1890, 1950, or 1990, are different from the laws needed today. The legislative branch of government must seek to update laws as needed, and the judicial branch has to interpret the laws so that they apply fairly to society at the time.

For example, laws about bullying or stalking have had to be updated to consider social networking sites, cyber bullying and cyber stalking. The original laws didn't take the internet into consideration.

More About Laws

The laws of our nation generally arise out of our shared values and morals. In our nation we have laws at both the national and state levels. As citizens, we tend to be most familiar with state and local laws, since these are the laws we encounter most in our daily lives. These laws protect us against crimes like murder, robbery, rape, and assault. They also insure that we don't drive too fast, that we mow our lawns and keep our dogs on leashes. In the United States, we also have a national government which makes laws. On the national level, we have laws about internet crime, narcotics, treason, as well as things like copyright and patents.

Laws are sometimes controversial, and citizens do not always agree on what should be illegal. Though laws tend to come out of our shared values as a society, not everything that is immoral is illegal. For example:

Foul Language may be offensive to some people, but it isn't illegal.

Narcotics are illegal in most cases, yet some people would like them to be legal for everyone, while others find them to be a threat to public safety and support current laws.

Recently we have seen state and local governments making some laws that may cause us to question the limits of government's power. For example:

Should a state be able to limit the sale of large, 40 ounce sodas in the name of supporting good health?

Should teachers be able to use Facebook? Can they "friend" their students?

Should a city be able to limit the number of fast food restaurants in a neighborhood, to try to make residents make healthier food choices?

Should a municipality be able to tell you how "low" to wear your pants?

The Rule of Law

President Theodore Roosevelt once said, " Ours is a government of liberty, by, through and under the law. No man is above it, and no man is below it."

Rule of Law 1

The American commitment to the rule of law means that every citizen is governed by the same laws, applied through a fair and equal judicial process to resolve disputes peacefully.

Rule of Law 2

Faithfulness to the rule of law allows us to live in a civil society in which everyone's rights are respected; where each of us is guaranteed liberty and equality of opportunity.

Rule of Law 3

As citizens we respect the laws because they are clearly communicated and fairly enforced. Everyone is held accountable to the same laws, and those laws protect our fundamental rights. This is the foundation of the rule of law in the United States.

Rule of Law 4

The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C... These words embody the ideal of the RULE OF LAW, which is at the heart of our American democracy.

Rule of Law 5

In the United States, we have written laws in place to help us settle disagreements peacefully through a fair system of justice. It is the job of the courts to interpret the laws. It is up to judges and juries to decide if we have indeed broken the law.

Law and the Rule of Law

Please wait while the activity loads. If this activity does not load, try refreshing your browser. Also, this page requires javascript. Please visit using a browser with javascript enabled.

Directions: Click START to begin the Student Challenge. Use the ARROW to move through the challenge. Check your RESULTS at the end.

Your answers are highlighted below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Do We Need Laws? | The Judicial Learning Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How many times a day does someone tell you what to do? How often do you have to stop yourself from doing what you want, because you know that this action is prohibited or wrong? In the United States, it seems like we have laws, rules, and regulations to oversee just about everything.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Annenberg Classroom - Civics Education Resources/Videos

# data[].attributes.subject
The Annenberg Classroom - Civics Education Resources/Videos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
INDIANAPOLIS (WTHR) - As she pulls up to a house in Franklin Township she barely remembers, Joyce Beaven steps out into memories of the night she hit rock bottom as a crack cocaine addict.

"I liked it from the very first moment I hit it," said Joyce of the first time she tried the drug while going through a painful divorce.

The house in front of where Joyce is standing, used to belong to her cousin. It's where Joyce, then 31 years old, stole a wedding ring and blank checks, all to feed her habit that had taken over her life.

"I did things I never thought I would do," said Joyce, including leaving her three young sons with her parents so she could use drugs whenever she wanted.

"I was choosing drugs over my children," Joyce explained.

Two of those sons were there the night Marion County Sheriffs deputies arrested Joyce and took her to jail.

One of them, now IMPD Officer Bill Pang, stood before Joyce Monday, in the same driveway where he had handcuffed her 20 years earlier.

It's been two decades and Joyce and Officer Pang are practically strangers, but not really.

Standing face to face with the man who drove her to jail that night, was a moment Joyce has waited for, for a long time.

"You saved my life and you don't even know it," Joyce said to Officer Pang as she hugged.

"You're welcome," he told her.

For Joyce, it's the thank you she couldn't say that night in Office Pang's patrol car after he spoke to her as she sat in the backseat.

"He looks in the mirror and looks at me and says, 'You don't belong in this world. What are you doing here?'" Joyce remembered Officer Pang saying to her.

"And those words have stayed with me for 20 years," she explained.

"That was the last time, I've ever touched crack cocaine," she added.

That night and the next several weeks in the Marion County jail were a turning point for Joyce, along with time in rehab and a 12 Step Program.

"Over the years, I've worked super hard to get clean and make a difference," Joyce told Officer Pang, adding she'd never forgotten those words of tough love from a man whose face she couldn't remember until she saw it today.

"I went back to school and got my masters degree in social work," Joyce also explained.

Recently. Joyce found the police report from that night and knew it was time to find Officer Pang and thank him.

"This is my little one-year-old granddaughter and that's my youngest son's children," she said, showing Officer Pang pictures of her family on her phone.

"How many grandchildren total?" Pang asked.

"I have six," Joyce told him.

"And it's because of you, these people are in my life," she told him.

"You're welcome," he said.

For Officer Pang, it's the kind of thank-you, he doesn't always get.

"It's kind of humbling. I'm glad whatever I said, made that much of a difference," Pang said, admitting after more than 20 years in law enforcement and thousands of arrests, he didn't immediately recall the night, until he re-read the original police report.

For this career officer, Joyce's story, is also confirmation that compassion still matters.

"He could have been like everyone else and said, 'Oh, I've given up on her.' But he didn't," said Joyce.

"Sometimes people need that. They just need somebody to be nice to them," said Officer Pang.

For Joyce, Officer Pang's compassion gave her something else that night, something she desperately needed. Hope.

"It's because you believed in me when I couldn't believe in myself," Joyce told him.

"I'm glad you did everything and turned everything around. That was remarkable," Officer Pang told Joyce.

"You did all the hard work," Pang added.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman credits IMPD officer with saving her life by arresting her 20 years ago

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
INDIANAPOLIS (WTHR) - As she pulls up to a house in Franklin Township she barely remembers, Joyce Beaven steps out into memories of the night she hit rock bottom as a crack cocaine addict. "I liked it from the very first moment I hit it," said Joyce of the first time she tried the drug while going through a painful divorce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tense courtroom battles have made for some of the best films in Hollywood history, from 12 Angry Men and To Kill A Mockingbird up to more recent classics such as Erin Brockovich. Martin Chilton picks the 20 best courtroom movies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF and Scribd versions.

Introduction

No matter the issue-whether it's marriage equality, voting rights, health care, or immigration-the U.S. federal courts play a vital role in the lives of all Americans. There are two types of courts: state and federal. The federal courts are those established to decide disagreements that concern the Constitution, congressional legislation, and certain state-based disputes.

Although most Americans are familiar with the lifetime appointment of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, many are surprised to learn that more than 900 judges have lifetime appointments to serve on lower federal courts, where they hear many more cases than their counterparts on the Supreme Court. Each year, the Supreme Court reviews around 100 of the most significant cases out of the nearly 30 million cases resolved by state and federal courts. These courts hear the majority of cases and, most of the time, they have the final say.

That is why, along with the Supreme Court's justices, the judges who sit on the nation's federal district and circuit courts are so important.

At any given time, there are vacancies on U.S. federal courts that need to be filled. If they are not filled, federal caseloads get backlogged, and as a result, Americans' access to justice is limited. As of March 9, 2015, there were 50 current vacancies on U.S. federal courts. These seats have been vacant for a total of 22,222 days, resulting in a backlog of 29,892 cases.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has designated 23 of these pending vacancies as judicial emergencies, meaning that filling them is a critical task. As the Center for American Progress has noted, "in practical terms," these are the judicial districts "where judges are overworked and where justice is being significantly delayed for the American public."

The Constitution dictates that the president appoints federal judges while the Senate advises and consents on these appointments. The result is a delicate balance between the desires of the White House, deference to home-state senators, and the power of the party that controls the Senate.

Recently, politics has played a big role in the pace at which judicial nominees are confirmed. In an attempt to slow President Barack Obama's effect on the federal courts, Senate Republicans have obstructed the president's judicial nominees at unprecedented levels by attempting to prevent or delay a vote through filibustering a record number of nominees and making them await confirmation for long periods of time.

The reason many Senate Republicans have played politics with President Obama's judicial nominees is because they know the dramatic impact the judiciary can have on policies, including marriage equality and reproductive choice. The fewer judges that President Obama appoints to fill federal judicial vacancies, the greater leverage the next president will have in deciding the make-up of these courts.

Yet in the face of unprecedented obstruction, President Obama has made great strides to fill vacancies and to ensure that federal judges meaningfully reflect the dynamic diversity of the nation. A diverse federal bench improves the quality of justice and instills confidence that judges understand the real-world implications of their decisions. Americans have different backgrounds, as well as an assorted set of professional, educational, and life experiences. It is important that the federal courts reflect the diversity of the public they serve. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor once wrote, "The dynamism of any diverse community depends not only on the diversity itself but on promoting a sense of belonging among those who formerly would have been considered and felt themselves outsiders."

Furthermore, scholars have found that judges often change their minds during the deliberative process. In one study, researchers concluded that having a woman on the panel affected "elements of both deliberation and bargaining-alternative perspectives, persuasive argument, and horse trading." Not only do the federal courts play a vital role in preserving democracy, but who sits on the courts has an effect too.

This issue brief examines the ways in which our federal courts influence important policy issues and illustrates how judges' decisions are often aligned with the legal philosophy of the presidents who appoint them. This fact drives home one of the reasons why courts matter: The decisions of federal judges have repercussions on people's lives. Through its review of how the federal courts affect three specific policy issues-gun violence, money in politics, and voting rights-this issue brief shines a light on how important the federal courts are for the progressive community.

Federal courts affect the issues that progressives care about

Gun violence

Gun violence has become all too familiar in America. However, research shows that reasonable gun control efforts decrease its occurrence. In particular, the Center for American Progress has determined that there is "a clear link between high levels of gun violence and weak state gun laws," and that "the 10 states with the weakest gun laws collectively have an aggregate level of gun violence that is more than twice as high-104 percent higher, in fact-than the 10 states with the strongest gun laws."In short, evidence shows that with more guns, there are more gun deaths. U.S. federal courts play a significant role in determining whether states can impose reasonable gun regulations.

For 70 years, the Supreme Court never took a case that dealt with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. But in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, five Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents changed course, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service. Four justices appointed to the Court by Democratic presidents disagreed. Less than one day after the decision, gun rights activists began to flood courts with lawsuits that challenged any and all gun regulations. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, since the Heller decision, federal and state courts have issued more than 700 decisions on Second Amendment challenges.

In many of these cases, judges appointed by Republican presidents have struck down gun regulations, while judges appointed by Democratic presidents have interpreted the Supreme Court's decision less broadly and upheld them.

For example, there is an ongoing debate over the states' right to impose regulations on applicants for concealed-carry permits. Prior to Heller, many states required a permit applicant to show "good cause" or a "justifiable need" to carry a gun in public. After reviewing these common-sense laws, panels of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 9th Circuit struck them down.

In Peruta v. County of San Diego, two judges appointed by Republican presidents struck down California's requirement that concealed-carry permit applicants show "good cause" before carrying guns in public, with the majority interpreting the Second Amendment in an expansive manner. This prompted Judge Sidney Thomas, who was appointed by a Democratic president, to author a vigorous dissent:

This case involves California's "presumptively lawful" and longstanding restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in public and, more specifically, an even narrower question: the constitutionality of San Diego County's policy of allowing persons who show good cause to carry concealed firearms in public. When we examine the justification provided for the policy, coupled with Heller's direction, our conclusion must be that the County's policy is constitutional. Unfortunately, the majority never answers the question posed. Instead, in a sweeping decision that unnecessarily decides questions not presented, the majority not only strikes down San Diego County's concealed carry policy, but upends the entire California firearm regulatory scheme. The majority opinion conflicts with Heller, the reasoned decisions of other Circuits, and our own case law. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

As Judge Thomas noted, other courts have upheld state laws that promote public safety. Judges on the Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Circuit have found that laws requiring permit applicants to show "good cause" do not interfere with the Second Amendment and instead promote balancing gun use with safety. In each of the decisions, judges appointed by Democratic presidents upheld longstanding permit regulations that are utilized by states across the country.

The Heller decision emboldened gun rights groups. One particular organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, or SAF, has adopted a legal strategy of "swinging for the fences and often making very broad constitutional arguments."[xxiv] Alan Gottlieb, the SAF's founder, has said, "Our feeling is strike while the iron is hot ... [t]hen weave [the case law] into a spider web that's strong enough so our opponents can't get through it."

Money in politics

America's representative democracy rests on the notion that elected officials are responsive to the people who elect them. Currently, however, political campaigns and elections are dominated by large amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and special interests that politicians rely on to run for office.

During the 2014 election cycle, mega-donors dominated spending, with the top 100 campaign donors pouring in nearly enough money to match some 4.75 million small donors combined.[xxvi] The Center for Responsive Politics found that "just 666,773 individuals had donated more than $200 to campaigns, parties and political action committees in the 2014 election cycle." This means that only 0.2 percent of the population financed the midterm elections.

This is concerning because, as a recent study detailed, "the preferences of economic elites ... have far more independent impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do." New research makes clear that members of Congress are more likely to meet with a constituent if they say they are a campaign donor. As Adam Lioz wrote in The American Prospect, "[T]he wealthy prefer policies that make them even richer ... and government responds almost exclusively to their preferences. He who pays the piper calls the tune."

Why has the United States seen such an expansion of special interest money in its electoral system? One does not have to look much further than the federal courts. In a series of high-profile decisions, the Supreme Court has turned campaign finance law upside down.

In a 1976 case known as Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court determined that spending money for political campaign purposes was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. This money-is-speech rationale was used to strike down portions of the campaign finance reforms that followed the Watergate scandal. It has also been used to open the floodgates for more money in politics.

In the now infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, five justices appointed by Republican presidents held that, although entities such as corporations could not contribute directly to individual political campaigns, they could contribute unlimited amounts of money to independent political action committees, or PACs. This decision caused an "explosion of political money," epitomized by the continued growth of super PACs-independent entities that can raise unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions, and individuals but are prohibited from coordinating with a political candidate's campaign.

This ruling prompted an impassioned dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens and three justices appointed by Democratic presidents. They lamented that, "While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The Supreme Court continued to loosen restrictions on campaign funding in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which the same five justices appointed by Republican presidents struck down the aggregate campaign contribution limits, which restricted how much money a donor could contribute to all candidates for federal office combined. The Court held that this limitation was a violation of the First Amendment.

In McCutcheon, four justices appointed by Democratic presidents dissented and would have upheld the reasonable contribution limits that Congress imposed. The lower federal courts have been obligated to follow the decision, prompting one federal judge to exclaim, "Today's reality is that the voices of ' we the people ' are too often drowned out by the few who have great resources."

These two opinions bookend the campaign finance revolution that has taken place under Chief Justice John Roberts. All told, the Roberts Court has struck down seven campaign finance regulations.

This revolution has had dire consequences. To campaign finance expert Richard Briffault, "[t]he rise of super PACs suggests that the real impact of Citizens United may be the re-validation of the unlimited use of private wealth generally in elections, not just spending by corporations and unions."

The last presidential election is a case in point. During the 2012 election cycle, super PACs "spent more than $1 billion, including more than $300 million contributed by donors whose identities were never disclosed." These amounts triple the amounts spent by outside groups in either 2008 or 2010. And it seems that the amount of money corporations and shady super PACs spend on elections will only continue to increase. Unfortunately, Justice Stephen Breyer's concern in McCutcheon appears to be prophetic: "Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard."

Voting rights

In the years of Jim Crow and segregation, voters faced overt challenges to their right to vote, including grandfather clauses, poll taxes, literacy tests, and blatant intimidation and violence. In response to these oppressive and undemocratic practices, legal protections, such as the Voting Rights Act, or VRA, of 1965, were passed in order to help ensure that eligible voters could exercise their right to vote. The VRA has been called the nation's most powerful civil rights law. However, as a nation, we are still far from ensuring that all Americans have equal access to the polls.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, in 2013 alone, 33 states introduced at least 92 restrictive voting bills.On top of that, researchers found that higher voter turnout among minorities in a given state increased the likelihood that the state would propose restrictive voting laws. These restrictive measures have been found to have a disproportionate effect on people of color, those for whom English is a second language, young people, the indigent, and the elderly.

U.S. federal courts play a large role in enforcing the laws that protect voters from discrimination and intimidation. In 2013, in Shelby County v. Holder, five Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents gutted the VRA by ruling that the formula stipulated in Section 4(b) to determine which states were subject to Section 5 "preclearance" before the implementation of changes to state or local voting laws was unconstitutional.

The ruling made it harder for the federal government, including the courts, to hold states accountable for discriminatory voting practices. The four justices appointed by Democratic presidents wanted to keep the VRA protections in place.

Although Shelby County was a setback for voters, other sections of the VRA still exist and are being used to fight voting-related discrimination and to require states to provide appropriate assistance to large populations of eligible voters that speak foreign languages. Recently in Texas, a federal judge who was appointed by a Democratic president determined that the state's new voting law intentionally discriminated against communities of color, violated the VRA, and constituted an unconstitutional poll tax that could disenfranchise nearly 600,000 registered Texans.

For this reason, America's federal courts will continue to determine how to apply these protections in order to help ensure that all voters have an equal right to vote.

Conclusion

In 1929, legendary civil rights lawyer Charles Hamilton Houston said, "A lawyer's either a social engineer or ... a parasite on society." He described a social engineer as "a highly skilled, perceptive, sensitive lawyer who [understands] the Constitution of the United States and [knows] how to explore its uses in the solving of problems of ... local communities" and in "bettering conditions of the underprivileged citizens." In this light, Houston believed that lawyers should use their training and their prestige in the community to better society and to promote justice. When articulating the ideal temperament of a judge, President Obama evoked Houston's sentiments by listing "empathy" as a key trait.

Collectively, this means that judges must understand the real-world implications of legal decisions. This is a critical ability because the federal courts have an impact on every issue that affects Americans' daily lives. U.S. federal courts ensure equality, defend civil rights, protect the environment, affect the health of America's democracy, and keep the nation safe. While Americans often feel that the federal courts are untouchable, it is important to know that they can play a large role in how these courts rule, as those responsible for filling the benches of U.S. federal courts are responsive to the democratic process and the input of American citizens.

Presidents nominate judges who share their beliefs and values. And because they serve for life, federal judges have a huge impact on the issues that affect the lives of all Americans. Control of the Senate also matters, as senators are responsible for confirming or rejecting the president's nominees. Senators play a large role in identifying lawyers for the White House to nominate and can control the pace of the nomination process.

The first step in the process toward confirming judges who understand the real-world implications of legal decisions is to continue working to appoint judges who meaningfully reflect America's diverse experiences. The United States needs its courts to be staffed with Houston's social engineers-those who faithfully adhere to the rule of law but who are equally faithful to their constitutional obligations to promote justice and fairness. Instead of siding with ideological pursuits, America's judges must uphold the Constitution and the nation's laws.
Michele Jawando is the Vice President of Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress. Sean Wright is the Policy Analyst for Legal Progress at the Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Courts Matter - Center for American Progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF and Scribd versions. No matter the issue-whether it's marriage equality, voting rights, health care, or immigration-the U.S. federal courts play a vital role in the lives of all Americans. There are two types of courts: state and federal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This sketch by Cass Gilbert, drawn October 21, 1926, is his first known drawing of what would become the Supreme Court Building. It closely models an earlier conjectural proposal drawn circa 1923 by Henry Bacon, who is best known for the Lincoln Memorial.
Cass Gilbert, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Click on the arrows or dots to see the next photograph.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This sketch by Cass Gilbert, drawn October 21, 1926, is his first known drawing of what would become the Supreme Court Building. It closely models an earlier conjectural proposal drawn circa 1923 by Henry Bacon, who is best known for the Lincoln Memorial.