Guiding Principles of the American Legal System

Underlying the operation of the hundreds of courts, both federal and state, and the actions of the thousands of men and women who serve in these courts that comprise the American legal system are four basic principles: equal justice under the law, due process of law, the adversary system of justice, and the presumption of innocence. What do each of these principles mean? Why is each important in the system of justice?

Equal Justice under the Law

The phrase “equal justice under the law” refers to the goal of the American court system to treat all persons alike under the law. It provides that every person, whether rich or poor, of whatever race or ethnic group, whether young or old, is entitled to the full protection of the law. The equal justice principle means that all the constitutional freedoms, such as the right to a speedy trial and trial before a jury of one's peers, are to be granted to all Americans.

Due Process of Law

Closely related to the principle of equal justice is the principle of due process of law. Due process is difficult to define precisely, but in general it has to do with the requirement that a law must be applied in a fair manner. The due process principle is contained in the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution. There are two kinds of due process: procedural due process and substantive due process.

Procedural due process of law requires that certain procedures must be followed in the course of carrying out a law so that an individual's basic freedoms as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are not violated. For example, an individual who is arrested must be warned that anything he or she says may be used as evidence. Similarly, a teenager cannot be declared a delinquent by a court without a formal hearing at which evidence is presented.

Substantive due process has to do with the content of a law, as opposed to the way a law is administered. If a law is found to be unreasonable, it is ruled as violating substantive due process. Here are some examples of laws that the Supreme Court has found to be unreasonable and consequently to violate substantive due process: a law that limits dwellings to single families, thus preventing grandparents from living with their grandchildren; a school board regulation that prevents a female teacher from returning to work before three months after the birth of her child; a law that requires all children to attend public schools and, hence, that does not permit them to attend non-public schools.

The adversary system

American courts operate according to the adversary system of justice. Under the adversary system the courtroom is held to be a kind of arena in which lawyers for the opposing sides try to present their strongest cases. The lawyer for each side feels duty bound to do all that is legally permissible to advance the cause of his or her client. The judge in the court has an impartial role and is expected to be as fair to both sides as possible.

The adversary system has been attacked by some observers of the judicial system. They claim that it encourages lawyers to ignore evidence not favorable to their side and to be more concerned about victory for their clients than about the triumph of justice. Supporters of the adversary system, on the other hand, maintain that it is the best way to bring out the facts of a case. They claim, further, that it places proper restraints on the role of the judge in a case. They point to the fact that in some countries that do not have the adversary system, judges assume a more active role, permitting them to favor one side or the other.

Presumption of Innocence

In this system of justice, the police power of the government is balanced against the presumption that a person accused of a crime is innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The notion of presumed innocence is not mentioned in the Constitution, but it is deeply rooted in English legal heritage. The burden of proving an accusation against a defendant falls on the prosecution. Unless the prosecution succeeds in proving the accusation, the defendant must be declared to be not guilty of the crime.

The Supreme Court

The judicial branch is one of the three branches of US federal government and operates the system of law courts. The Supreme Court in Washington, DC is the highest court in the US, and is very powerful. It has nine judges, called justices. Traditionally, they are called the nine old men, although there has been one woman justice. The head of the court has the title of Chief Justice of the United States. Justices are appointed by the President, although the Senate must confirm (= give its approval to) the choice. There has been only one African-American justice.

Some of the power of the Supreme Court was given to it in the Constitution. In 1803, in a famous case called Marbury v Madison, the Court gave itself the additional power of judicialreview. This means that it has the power to decide if a law is constitutional (= follows the principles of the Constitution). If a law is said to be unconstitutional it cannot be put into effect unless it is added to the Constitution, a long and difficult process that has succeeded only 27 times in more than 200 years. In this way the Supreme Court has the power to block laws made by the US government and state and local laws.

The Supreme Court is a court of appeal and hears cases on appeal that were first heard in the lower courts. It can hear only a small number of appeals and so tries to choose cases that involve important principles of law. Once the Court has decided a case, lower courts use it as a precedent, e.g. they follow the Supreme Court's decision in similar cases.

Many of the Supreme Court's decisions are famous because they changed some aspect of US life. For instance, in the cases Scott v Sandford (1857), Plessy v Ferguson (1896) and Brown v Board of Education (1954) the Court made important decisions about the rights of African Americans. In Miranda v Arizona (1966) the Court said that police officers must inform the people they arrest of their constitutional rights. In 1978, the decision in Regents of the University of California v Bakke upheld (= supported) affirmative action but made reverse discrimination illegal. This means that, when trying to give more opportunities to women, African Americans and minority groups, people cannot deny members of other groups fair treatment. The Roe v Wade decision of 1973 gave women across the US the right to abortion. The decision in US v Nixon (1974) required President Nixon to hand over evidence that later led to his having to resign.

The “Miranda decision” – an important decision reached in 1966 by the US Supreme Court, affecting police procedures. It said that people who are arrested for a crime must be informed of their rights under the US Constitution. These are the right to remain silent and the right to have a lawyer. They must also be told that anything they say can be used against them in court. The name comes from the court case of Miranda v State of Arizona.

«Формула Миранды»: в 1963 г. Эрнесто Миранда был задержан и осужден на 20 лет за изнасилование. В 1966 г. Верховный суд США постановил, что при аресте необходимо произносить формулу Миранды: «не считать уликой признания, если дававший их не был уведомлен о своих правах».