The Impact of an Independent Judiciary on American Life and Law

The Framers established an independent judiciary because they realized that judges would sometimes have to make difficult decisions that the law requires but that are unpopular with a majority of the citizenry. Without the protections afforded to the judiciary by the Constitution, the federal courts may not have been able to issue decisions in the following cases that have had a dramatic impact on American life and law.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Separate schools are not equal.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The NAACP disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court unanimously reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."

This case demonstrates how judicial independence was necessary to protect the civil rights of all citizens. Due to the support of discriminatory laws in certain parts of the country, African-American citizens could not always turn to the elected branches of government to protect their constitutional rights. Instead, they turned to the federal courts. Being above politics and not directly influenced to public opinion, the Courts were able to provide these citizens with the relief the Constitution required.

Baker v. Carr (1962)
The votes of each citizen-elector must be weighted equally.
The Tennessee legislature drew electoral (voting) districts for state offices in a manner that gave more weight to the votes of rural voters than to urban voters. A group of urban voters filed suit claiming that these voting districts violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of Tennessee argued that the act of drawing voting districts is a political, not judicial, action that is beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts to review.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument and held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that voting districts be drawn in such a manner that gives (as near as possible) equality to each person's vote. In the subsequent case of Reynolds v. Simms, this principle of equality in voting came to be known as "one person, one vote."

This case demonstrates how judicial independence was/is necessary to protect the fundamental right of all citizens to vote. The judiciary recognized that the right to vote is of the utmost importance in a democratic society. Regardless of the political considerations involved when drawing electoral districts, the Courts recognized that any attempt to dilute the votes of law-abiding citizens violated their constitutional rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Indigent defendants must be provided legal representation without charge.
Clarence Earl Gideon was accused of committing a felony in Florida. Without the financial means to hire a lawyer, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request since it was not permitted under Florida law. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

This case demonstrates how an independent judiciary is necessary to preserve a fair judicial process. Although Florida law did not provide indigents with a right to an attorney in criminal proceedings, the Supreme Court recognized that a fair trial could not take place without at least affording Gideon the opportunity to be represented by a lawyer.

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
The President is not above the law.
The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendant's right to potentially exculpate evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

This case demonstrates how an independent judiciary is necessary to serve as a check on the excesses of government officials. By requiring the President to turn over these tapes, the Court was standing firm in the belief that no one, including the President, is above the law. Moreover, the President's subsequent decision to voluntarily comply with the Court's order demonstrated that he respected the rule of law and the courts that interpret it.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Even offensive speech, such as flag burning, is protected by the First Amendment.
To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive.

This case demonstrates how judicial independence is necessary to protect constitutional rights that even a majority of citizens finds offensive. The Court stated that, although very controversial, flag burning expresses an idea. Since the First Amendment was designed to protect the free expression of ideas, laws designed to criminalize such expression are unconstitutional.