Supreme Court of the United States Procedures: Crash Course Government and Politics #20

This week Craig Benzine talks about what happens when a case makes it to the Supreme Court of the United States (or the SCOTUS). We're going to focus on court procedure today. We talk about how to petition to get your case heard, how written arguments, or briefs, are made, what actually happens on the courtroom floor, and of course the variety of ways the SCOTUS issues opinions on cases.
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
Support is provided by Voqal: www.voqal.org
All Flickr.com images are licensed under Creative Commons by Attribution 2.0
creativecommons.org/licenses/...
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids

[@MrDylan2125]

Actually, there are way more 9-0 decisions than 5-4 decisions, even in an ideologically split court. 5-4 decisions get glamorized more in the media, but it turns out that most cases are not that controversial and the the Supreme Court justices share much more opinion in common than the average person would think.

[@KarumaGaming]

Well most issues of law and justice tend not to be very political or divisive. You'd think that if you became the highest ranking justice in the U.S. that you would be able to judge cases objectively.

[@johndanielson3777]

That’s true. Chief Justice Roberts admits that only half a dozen cases are the ones you see in news headlines The rest are typical boring cases that are most of the time 9-0

[@CrabTribe]

It would helpful for students if you all published a script for them to read along. Sometimes you go pretty fast and I have to rewind it for a key detail.

[@LisaMiller]

I've recommended these for a group I'm in. They are not all native English speakers, so I recommended they go to Settings in the lower right, choose Speed, then click on 0.75.

[@2Fast4Mellow]

Click the 'CC' button and you get closed captions. English is not my native language, so I often click like the closed captions. Not sure if the closed captions were available 3 years ago, I'm not an historian ;-)

[@angelamarin7698]

You can just put the subtitles and that's it. Problem solved.

[@ronaldbutler3497]

that makes it worse it then sounds like he is speaking at an odd pace making out for a lot of distraction in the end. He simply needs to slow down or let someone else talk. I never have problem like this on youtube so he needs to hear this and make some changes ASAP. @@LisaMiller

[@ronaldbutler3497]

@@LisaMiller I am also Native Ameri. and I don't run into this problem. I am very pissed that I cant listen to this the way it needs to be received.

[@geniusmp2001]

Plessy v. Ferguson was certainly a terrible decision, but it was used awesomely one time: to integrate the NFL. In 1933, the NFL banned minorities, so by 1946, people were used to very white football. Kenny Washington, an amazing baseball player, refused to pretend to be Puerto Rican, so professional baseball wouldn't let him play, and he turned to football. George Halas, coach for the Bears, tried to convince the league to integrate so he could sign Washington, but it failed. So the Cleveland Rams, who were planning a move to LA, took a shot. Why? Because the LA Coliseum was supported with taxpayer money. Which meant Plessy v. Ferguson, and the policy of separate but equal, applied. The Rams simply asked when the all black stadium would be built. Since the answer was, of course, never, the NFL no longer had a legal leg to stand on for their policy of banning minorities. The government was not about to create a separate but equal NFL for black players, so the NFL had to integrate. Kenny Washington became football's Jackie Robinson, only everybody forgot about him.

[@fraserclayton7468]

Matthew Prorok Wow that's really cool. I also find it disturbing but interesting that a lot of racial discrimination laws weren't actually introduced until the 1900's as before hand they had merely been conventions or had been changed in the post-civil war period.

[@Scopps94]

The introduction of Integration policies was a purpose to prevent and derail from the "separate but *equal* " narrative. Integration allowed whites to still dominate over black wealth. Therefore seperate but equal was a threat to white wealth, which was being overshadowed by black American progression during that period. So the introduction is integrating by color lines was never about together AND equal, but instead together BUT in a subjugated caste system.

[@Kelly_C]

lawyer goals

[@robertjarman3703]

1930s, are you kidding me? That's when the Nazis passed the Nuremburg laws.

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

@@Scopps94 What the hell are you on?

[@ifuxwutube]

The solicitor general doesn't "screen" any cases seeking cert. the solicitor general is part of the executive branch and primarily represents the federal government in Supreme Court litigation.

[@Koltronn]

I've been watching this since Ep. 1 and I still dont get this punching the eagle gag

[@maybebren]

Back on Craig's real channel, he has a gimmick of punching eagles whenever possible. No one truly knows why...

[@jlittlenz]

***** He needs a much bigger eagle, say a life size stuffed toy eagle.

[@lukelee7967]

***** Maybe it's just his thing. One day he thought "I'm going to punch a toy eagle."

[@fraserclayton7468]

Artifical Chamber Personal ***** And it also has an aura of 'Murica to it

[@mariuszj3826]

***** Don't try to understand it. Embrace it!

[@annmetier6514]

I had to watch this six times because I kept falling asleep. I often have trouble falling asleep so videos like these are a godsend.

[@Imagawa43]

All of these Crash Course videos on Government are awesome, they work for helping me review after a lecture in my college Political Science class; they have even helped me retain information and improve my over all grade. Plus I'm actually interested in the political process of things. These videos are great!

[@mikegrs1217]

just binged watched 20 episodes. good stuff, informative light hearted entertainment

[@ArmageddonAngel]

I liked the list of cases before the supreme Court. Spy versus spy, Kramer v. Costanza.

[@blairproctor4874]

ArmageddonAngel I have to watch these episodes 2-3 times just so I can read all the notes and things they throw in for fun. Helps with remembering the info though at the same time.

[@sundhaug92]

Green v green (sibling rivalry)

[@MrBashir999]

ArmageddonAngel Craig V Eagle.

[@saizai]

Um… CrashCourse, you have a major mistake there. The Solicitor General does _not_ choose what cases are on the discussion list or granted cert. The SG is often the attorney for the _respondent_ (if it's part of the US government), so the SG isn't exactly neutral. Sometimes SCOTUS asks the SG to file a brief about whether or not they should grant cert even if they're not representing the respondent, but that's basically a (very highly regarded) amicus brief. The SG does _not_ get to decide anything. Getting onto the discussion list happens if any single Justice says so. There's no stage before that, except if you count the clerks' briefing to the Justices. The "pool" is the set of clerks from the 8 Justices who are sharing their resources in preparing the tl;dr clerk briefs to the Justices - not a procedural stage. Also, not all of the holding's rationale is binding. Some is _dicta_, because it's not really necessary for the holding, and _dicta_ isn't binding.

[@49metal]

Sai This.

[@wholeNwon]

Sai PBS should hire you to proof read their scripts.

[@saizai]

wholeNwon Or, y'know, a lawyer who has actual knowledge of basic SCOTUS procedure. I'm not even a lawyer (though I did have a SCOTUS cert petition, s.ai/ifp, which the SG opposed).

[@wholeNwon]

Sai Congratulations on even writing a cert. petition. Some of the most important decisions were the results of petitions from individuals, hand-written on a "legal" pad. Gideon v. Wainwright comes immediately to mind. I think that the rules of format for submission of cert. petitions has changed from those day.

[@saizai]

wholeNwon Although I did contribute substantial edits, and I did the filings in the lower court, my _cert_ petition was primarily composed by my _pro bono_ counsel. ;-) (They also paid for the printing etc, which is fairly expensive.)

[@brycealley5457]

(0:23) "Co-Co Supreme" Okay, that really made me giggle Craig

[@AlanmanAaron]

John must've hated being in the same pool with Batman. Hank probably loved it though

[@Leonardo750100]

Good inference there lmao

[@thegodlyphoenix6121]

I like how the eagle is at the pool as well LOL

[@melanierodriguez5077]

@@thegodlyphoenix6121 and mario

[@jimmysteffen777]

This series is super informative of ur a crash course fan that lives in the U.S. you should watch

[@laurendanielle2786]

did he just end with a cliff hanger lol im ready for the next episode!!!

[@economath8164]

It's not always the Chief Justice who assigns the opinion of the court--it's the most senior justice in the majority who assigns the opinion. If the Chief is in the majority, then the Chief will assign the opinion because the Chief is always most senior.

[@herbiebrock4530]

Do we know exactly how many videos will be in this series, what topics they will cover and when the "complete set" will be finished? Thanks by the way for all you guys and gals do!

[@claudiamdo3069]

These are literally lawful chaotic and i love it

[@vijaynaik2206]

This is just SUPERB ! ...Man..

[@BriWhoSaysNi]

"CoCo Supreme" sounds like some kind of delightful, fancy cocoa drink. I'll take 2.

[@richarddellaferaattorney4611]

As always, you did a great job Craig! Keep it up!

[@oirodenet]

These get better and better as Craig gets used to being on film and the subjects get more interesting.

[@krombopulos_michael]

I think the years of doing his own videos before this have given him plenty of time to get used to being on film.

[@chramdial]

***** This guy is not funny at all. The material is getting better. Not the hosting. He is trying way too hard.

[@Natalia-jj1hi]

Quite the amusing way to learn about our government! :D

[@pneumaticoinvernale2370]

Very clear explanation. Simple, brief and still thorough. I'm italian and I study US Court System at University, so this video helped me a lot. Thanks man

[@AmandaBrownCPSReform]

My parental rights were wrongfully terminated and I have exhausted​ the appeals in my state: NC. I'm having to file a petition for writ of certiorari BY MYSELF bc I can't afford an attorney (also no one wants to go up a against CPS/the State) to the U.S. SUPREME COURT! This is SOOO heartbreaking and I only have 3 weeks to figure all of this stuff out and then HOPE that it gets heard!

[@fakeapplestore4710]

great explanation. but the little sideo comments are distracting

[@hockeynewfoundland]

Craig could probably make the Cubs.

[@FieldMarshalFry]

***** who are the cubs?

[@HereIsMyUsername]

Field Marshall Fry, they are an American Major League Baseball team. They kinda suck, no offense Cubs fans.

[@ThreeVid]

***** Is that a burn? To both of them?

[@route2070]

To Field Marshal, they have not won the championship since... 1908. To Colorful Colors, they have been pretty good this year.

[@Tytoalba777]

***** Seeing the way he punts, he could probably make it to the Vikes as well

[@jayjones7094]

Sometimes I smoke crack behind my school and I wake up in my history teacher's backyard

[@shanicegrande8631]

been watching all these videos cause i have an american government exam tommorrow!! im in college

[@lucybonomo]

You guys should do crash course Econ!!! College students would love it! I know I certainly would appreciate it

[@domenicfieldhouse5644]

is precedent exclusively created by the supreme court or can the lower courts set precedent within their jurisdiction

[@MyahhYup90]

bro does anyone know how I can get the transcript for these videos.

[@richard1701able]

Put you damn pants back on Stan, you're supposed to be a professional!

[@AusSP]

richard1701able But it's a (cert) pool party!

[@geeway5923]

@@AusSP oh, it is? will there be girls?

[@vinayaktripathi8883]

Could anyone send an amicus curiae or it has to be appointed by the judges?

[@bobwalsh3751]

Are there ever any pics in dissents?

[@eldukero]

Great video

[@kismet2md]

Hey could yall ever do physics before summer is over

[@misscall_callmenow]

So good! Love all the fun jokes haha.

[@therodolfool]

Cool video, I love Greg

[@child9125]

How many decisions get discussed each year??????

[@jeremybowling3037]

As pointed out in other comments, the language around the solicitor general is misleading. Most American Government textbooks point out that, next to the justices, the SG has the greatest power in shaping the flow of cases to the Supreme Court. The wording in the video mixes granting cert with the SG gatekeeping, which is misleading.

[@ravon1982]

Which POTUS had the most picks (judges) in there term.

[@jesyca1977]

Predilection: pre is a prefix... di is fore direction (in my side of town, we say d'mask or... you can still look for direction) ... and lection: without the s' for selection....Keepin' in cas'j/h.... (short for casual)Thanks for the predilections and the cash course!

[@Robstar100]

15th viewer..I've never been this early to a video...well I NEED to come up with something AMAZING, something everyone will LOVE,something NO ONE HAS DONE EVER BEFORE... first.

[@krk10002]

where can I buy an eagle toy to punch

[@jamesmoulton1466]

Craigslist

[@zoeyoung7293]

+James Moulton 10/10 man that was great

[@Tuckems]

James Moulton that was too good

[@Lildrummerboy714]

Jerry's BFF -Kramer v.Costanza Lmfao

[@SV67943]

Craig is rapidly becoming my favorite Crash Courser.

[@jpmoore949]

Marks v. United States (1977) rule of plurality?

[@dltnio]

Isn't the Federal Government's chief lawyer the attorney general, not the solicitor general?

[@jacobdrum]

The holding is the legal rule by which the outcome of the controversy is decided. The decision whether to affirm, vacate, or reverse the lower court's decision is the disposition.

[@jacobdrum]

If a Justice agrees with the *judgment* or the *disposition* of the case but using different legal reasoning, they concur. If a Justice agrees with the *holding*, they *join* the opinion, though they might still concur to make additional points.

[@HorzaPanda]

I wonder if it's possible to commission the Crash Course artist to draw one of my characters punching that guy to avenge the eagle? X3

[@ellieflynn8549]

this is how i'm studying for my AP gov exam, help

[@JohnMarshall2013]

+WheezyWaiter Respectfully, no, the Solicitor General has no say in what the Supreme Court chooses to grant cert for.

[@LilyTamblin]

cartoon John peed in the pool? whaaaa? And there are facts during the theme song? Two surprises today

[@JamesLewis2]

The video failed to mention another possibility when the Supreme Court makes a decision: There could be no opinion held by a majority of the Justices, but plurality opinions could hold as to the particular legal points in that case; plurality opinions that are not the Opinion of the Court do not, however, create precedent. Also, the Chief Justice only assigns who would write the Opinion of the Court if he or she is in the majority; otherwise, the most senior Associate Justice in the majority makes that decision.

[@saizai]

James Lewis There's also the possibility of a case being denied as improvidently granted, where they retroactively deny cert (which doesn't count as upholding or reversing the lower court decision).

[@shawnmcmillan7747]

I am always concerned about the eagle. Otherwise I really appreciate your talks. Shawn McMillan

[@geeway5923]

lemme guess, you're at least 40? you don't have to sign your comments, just so you know

[@cooperdavis8296]

1:47 So Mario and Batman are in the cert pool, I guess.

[@msrabiahealthcarecenterand2058]

I seen, Supreme Court of the United States procedures: crash course Government and politics # 20.

[@davidkimlive]

Brief on briefs featuring the Coco Supreme. (Probably won't make it to stage...)

[@rosasuarez2727]

what supreme court did he name twice and what is it about help anyone?

[@JohnMark-bx1ks]

Making tough big decision is hard, Add that to the complication of the process somehow it become tangled

[@Woodenfan]

I still wait for the day that Craig doesn't injure the eagle in any way :P

[@joshn2564]

Felt the need to point out a technicality in a banner in the Supreme Court that reads 'its time to make a decision". Problem is, the supreme court makes no judgement calls based on their personal beliefs, instead they are only Interpreters of the Constitution thus can only decree if a law is constitutional or not. Easy to confuse a judge as somebody who can make a judgement based off their moral compass, but in fact only elected representatives may create laws based on their personal preferences.

[@DuranmanX]

apparently the Cubs are supposed to win the World Series this year

[@route2070]

***** to Back to the Future II? Yes

[@Thumbsupurbum]

***** Not the first year that's been said. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[@MaryLopez-bv7ks]

jinx

[@IanPilgreen]

AP Gov. test tomorrow morning, so here we go

[@ryanleone7113]

I need an update

[@IanPilgreen]

@@ryanleone7113 Got a 5 on the AP Gov exam, finished my college degree a year early, and graduated last week.

[@Gabriel-bk3lm]

Matilda reference ^^

[@NickDAwsome]

Lol "Clearance Thomas doesn't speak"

[@Leone-qc2dn]

Where's the CC...

[@rohudaboss4060]

First you YEET the Eagle, then you beat the eagle

[@jacobdrum]

The holding of a single Justice can become binding precedent if no other opinion commands a majority and it is the narrowest holding among the various opinions.

[@economath8164]

Jacob Drum Close, but not quite. A one-justice opinion becomes binding only where--- (a) that opinion was in support of the case's judgment, (b) no opinion supporting the judgment commanded a majority of the bench, and (c) that opinion is the most narrow rationale. You have elements (b) and (c), but not (a).

[@jacobdrum]

J.D. Montgomery True; I had thought that the first element was implied but it was not stated so thank you for pointing that out. Either way, the video is also incomplete on that score.

[@BaritoneRicardo]

I very much enjoyed this and thank PBS for creating this great series of videos, but why is Craig Benzine punting the bald eagle? lol He is disrespecting one of our national symbols!

[@masonbrantley7703]

Try out for the Cubs😂

[@sophiemcfarland6754]

okay did I miss why he's got a thing for throwing/abusing the eagle? maybe a secret anger towards the us government's choice of birds?

[@bernardoconnor735]

not on 8 chan but on qmap since 17 stage 4 fighting bring it on drop the hammer Q we love you

[@dhartmahmed50]

1:50 batman!

[@benrichey438]

In Gideon vs Wainwright, Gideon appealed directly to the Supreme Court after the state trial court ruled against him. The Court accepted the case. He didn't exhaust all of the appellate courts before going to the SCOTUS. Explain that.

[@rossb2695]

+Ben Richey The Supreme CoCo can choose to hear a case directly, without it following the path from County, State, and Circuit Courts. This can happen if they feel the case represents the national interest, or if the case addresses a law or amendment that needs to interpreted to the current society, or is considered to vague and needs to be interpreted and fully explaining. Hope that helps as I assume you, as am I are studying for your AP test.

[@FirstRisingSouI]

Mario & Batman in the same swimming pool.

[@creativityhub1350]

Any supreme court cases on Native Americans?

[@maxanklowitz9888]

3:27 Justice Thomas spoke on may 4th 2020

[@drich188]

A cert is accepted based on 4 of the 9 justices agreeing to hear the case. If I remember correctly the number of supreme court justices isn't set at 9, it can change. How would that effect the number of judges needed for a case? How would that change things in general?

[@Adehead]

Not sure why you were doing that to an Eagle. But know was good

[@YGINW]

What happened to the other guy?

[@rissb6601]

Kramer!

[@BrantCasteel]

3:59 - The Chief Justice assigns the task of writing the court's opinion only when the Chief is sided with the majority. If he is not in the majority, the Justice on the majority side with the most seniority makes the assignment.

[@thevoicesoflogic]

Fan of the channel, but I must advise that you reexamine your research on the role of the Solicitor General. The comments made are misleading.

[@johndanielson3777]

He’s not exactly wrong. The Solicitor General is the federal governments top lawyer who argues cases on behalf of them at the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan was famously the solicited general before being appointed to the Court, as well as Thurgood Marshall.

[@robertcanty9756]

Wanting to trying out for the Cubs? I totally get the joke, because nobody ever truly wants to be a part of the Cubs :P

[@mustang6172]

If a dissenting opinion can't be used in a lower court, could a concurring opinion be used?

[@economath8164]

mustang6172 Both concurrences and dissents can be cited in lower courts. The difference, though, is that the lower courts are not bound to follow the concurrences or dissents, only the holding in the majority opinion (or, where no opinion commanded a majority, then the most narrow opinion of the side supporting the judgment).

[@evopivo6942]

What's all the white stuff on your shirt?

[@statewench2828]

hi Craig Tore sent me

[@nelynyc]

There has never been a time when the eagle didn't deserve to get punched.

[@keytonmoore2887]

1:06

[@DEWells]

Craig's playing quite fast and loose with essential terminology here (not to mention pronunciation-I've always heard "Suhr-SHEE-uh-RAHR-ee" and "uh-MEEHK-us KYUR-ay"). But, more importantly, the decision of the court (affirm, reverse, etc.) is called the "judgment." The "holding" is the minimum reasoning necessary to support the judgment. The holding is what is binding on future lower courts and even (if to a limited degree) on future decisions of the Supreme Court through the doctrine of stare decisis. Justices write concurring opinions, not usually because they disagree with the holding in the "Opinion of the Court" (which is the term of art for an opinion or a portion of an opinion signed by five or more justices), but because they want to clarify something about how they understand the case or how they believe the dissenting opinion is mistaken. If a concurring justice truly disagrees with the holding in the majority or plurality (when there is no majority) opinion, then the Justice will write an opinion "Concurring in the Judgment." This can result in cases that reach a "judgment," but don't have a "holding" because no five justices agree on a single reasoning that supports the judgment.

[@1slotmech]

Eagle abuse! Eagle abuse! Where's PETE (People for the Ethical Treatment of plastic Eagles) when you need them???

[@animalia5554]

Slotmech That eagle is a pirate. He steals fish from other birds. What idiot decided to make him our national bird I will never know.

[@elenadirectorofmiiss7942]

After the last year, we now know why Clarence Thomas never speaks... He's been told how to vote on it before the case ever got to SCOTUS.

[@carterarick]

you kicked an eagle! :-(

[@abnormalfillet4718]

2

[@rayevel8598]

Why we dun hv Physics :(

[@ChiIeboy]

I vote for "CoCo Supreme"

[@JimtheEvo]

Legal battles are not called X verses Y, you pronounce the v.s as and. So it should be Brown and the board of education.

[@krombopulos_michael]

So why does everything always phrase it as "X v. Y"? I have never seen a case phrased as "X and Y" before.

[@JimtheEvo]

assume they phrase it that way as it is how it is written and why would you say is differently! I'm trying to find a source to it, I remember who bought it to my attention, a lawyer who goes by Jack of kent on twitter.

[@krombopulos_michael]

JimTheEvo Well why would they write it that way if it's not supposed to be pronounced like that?

[@radioactivated]

Bullshit alert?

[@santihodge5278]

JimTheEvo wut?

[@wout4yt]

nice Jab at Clarence Thomas.. ^_^

[@ghuegel]

wouter vanmeert I don't think it was a jab, just a fact. And Clarence Thomas has explained that he thinks questions during the oral arguments are a waste of time because the arguments are already clear enough to make a decision without asking further questions.

[@economath8164]

***** The last time he spoke was like, 2009 or 2010, and that was only to crack a joke.

[@allanrempel437]

J.D. Montgomery Now I really want to know what the joke was.

[@economath8164]

Allan Rempel It was a death penalty case out of Louisiana being challenged on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Usually, the defendant is given two attorneys: first chair represents during the trial, and the co-counsel/second chair is there to focus on fact-finding about the defendant for the sentencing phase. In that case, the 2nd chair (a Yale Law grad) at the time of the trial was experienced enough to be the 2nd chair, but not 1st chair. The essence of Thomas's joke was that providing a Yale Law grad wouldn't have amounted to sufficiently qualified counsel regardless of experience. (Thomas himself is a Yale Law grad.)

[@geniusmp2001]

***** Can you watch Supreme Court arguments on CSPAN? Because they still don't allow video, if I recall correctly.