The Supreme Court of the
United States
United States (sometimes colloquially
referred to by the acronym SCOTUS[2]) is the highest federal court of
the United States. Established pursuant to Article Three of the United
States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely
discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and
state court cases involving issues of federal law plus original
jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the
United States, the Supreme Court is generally the final interpreter of
federal law including the
United States
United States Constitution, but it may act
only within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction. The
Court may decide cases having political overtones but does not have
power to decide nonjusticiable political questions, and its
enforcement arm is in the executive rather than judicial branch of
government.
According to federal statute, the Court normally consists of the Chief
Justice of the
United States
United States and eight associate justices who are
nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once
appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire,
or are removed after impeachment (though no justice has ever been
removed).[3] In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized
as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and
of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and it is worth
noting that while a far greater number of cases in recent history have
been decided unanimously, decisions in cases of the highest profile
have often come down to just one single vote, thereby exposing the
justices' ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or
political categories. The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in
Washington, D.C.
Contents
1 History
1.1 Earliest beginnings to Marshall
1.2 From Taney to Taft
1.3 The
New Deal
New Deal era
1.4 Warren and Burger
1.5 Rehnquist and Roberts
2 Composition
2.1 Size of the Court
2.2 Appointment and confirmation
2.2.1 Recess appointments
2.3 Tenure
3 Membership
3.1 Current justices
3.2 Court demographics
3.3 Retired justices
3.4
Seniority and seating
3.5 Salary
3.6 Judicial leanings
4 Facilities
5 Jurisdiction
5.1 Justices as Circuit Justices
6 Process
6.1 Case selection
6.2 Oral argument
6.3 Supreme Court bar
6.4 Decision
6.5 Published opinions
6.5.1 Citations to published opinions
7 Institutional powers and constraints
8 Law clerks
8.1 Politicization of the Court
9 Criticism
9.1 Judicial activism
9.2 Failing to protect individual rights
9.3 Supreme Court has too much power
9.4 Courts are poor check on executive power
9.5 Federal versus state power
9.6 Secretive proceedings
9.7 Judicial interference in political disputes
9.8 Not choosing enough cases to review
9.9 Lifetime tenure
9.10 Accepting gifts
10 See also
11 References
11.1 Bibliography
12 Further reading
13 External links
History[edit]
Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The ratification of the
United States
United States Constitution established the
Supreme Court in 1789. Its powers are detailed in Article Three of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court was the only court specifically
established by the Constitution while all other federal courts were
created by Congress. Congress is also responsible for conferring the
title of "justice" to its members, who are known to scold lawyers for
inaccurately referring to them as "judge", even though it is the term
used in the Constitution.[4]
The Court first convened on February 2, 1790,[5] with six judges where
only five of its six initial positions were filled. According to
historian Fergus Bordewich, in its first session: "[T]he Supreme Court
convened for the first time at the Royal Exchange Building on Broad
Street, a few steps from Federal Hall. Symbolically, the moment was
pregnant with promise for the republic, this birth of a new national
institution whose future power, admittedly, still existed only in the
eyes and minds of just a few visionary Americans. Impressively
bewigged and swathed in their robes of office, Chief Justice John Jay
and three associate justices —
William Cushing
William Cushing of Massachusetts,
James Wilson
James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and John Blair of Virginia — sat
augustly before a throng of spectators and waited for something to
happen. Nothing did. They had no cases to consider. After a week of
inactivity, they adjourned until September, and everyone went
home."[6]
The sixth member, James Iredell, was not confirmed until May 12, 1790.
Because the full Court had only six members, every decision that it
made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to
two).[7] However, Congress has always allowed less than the Court's
full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four
justices in 1789.[8]
Earliest beginnings to Marshall[edit]
Main articles: Jay Court, Rutledge Court, Ellsworth Court, and
Marshall Court
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the
Court heard few cases; its first decision was
West v. Barnes
West v. Barnes (1791), a
case involving a procedural issue.[9] The Court lacked a home of its
own and had little prestige,[10] a situation not helped by the
highest-profile case of the era,
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which was
reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh
Amendment.[11]
Chief Justice Marshall
The Court's power and prestige grew substantially during the Marshall
Court (1801–35).[12] Under Marshall, the Court established the power
of judicial review over acts of Congress,[13] including specifying
itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v.
Madison)[14][15] and made several important constitutional rulings
giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal
government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,
McCulloch v. Maryland
McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[16][17][18][19]
The
Marshall Court
Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his
opinion seriatim,[20] a remnant of British tradition,[21] and instead
issuing a single majority opinion.[20] Also during Marshall's tenure,
although beyond the Court's control, the impeachment and acquittal of
Justice
Samuel Chase
Samuel Chase in 1804–05 helped cement the principle of
judicial independence.[22][23]
From Taney to Taft[edit]
Main articles: Taney Court, Chase Court, Waite Court, Fuller Court,
White Court, and Taft Court
The
Taney Court
Taney Court (1836–64) made several important rulings, such as
Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the
subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of
the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing
with certain subjects.[24] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered
for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[25] which helped precipitate
the Civil War.[26] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and
Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments
to the Constitution[19] and developed the doctrine of substantive due
process (Lochner v. New York;[27] Adair v. United States).[28]
Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–30), the Court held that the
Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of
Rights against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[29] grappled with the
new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of
New Jersey
New Jersey v. United
States), upheld the constitutionality of military conscription
(Selective Draft Law Cases)[30] and brought the substantive due
process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's
Hospital).[31]
The
New Deal
New Deal era[edit]
Main articles: Hughes Court, Stone Court, and Vinson Court
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–53), the Court
gained its own accommodation in 1935[32] and changed its
interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the
powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin
Roosevelt's
New Deal
New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v.
Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn,
United States
United States v. Darby and United States
v. Butler).[33][34][35] During World War II, the Court continued to
favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens
(Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance
(Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was
soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette),
and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.
Warren and Burger[edit]
Main articles:
Warren Court
Warren Court and Burger Court
The
Warren Court
Warren Court (1953–69) dramatically expanded the force of
Constitutional civil liberties.[36] It held that segregation in public
schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education,
Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe and Green v. County School Bd.)[37] and that
traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote
(Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v.
Connecticut),[38] limited the role of religion in public school (most
prominently
Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v.
Schempp),[39][40] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights
against the States—prominently
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule)
and
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[41][42]—and
required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by
police (Miranda v. Arizona).[43] At the same time, however, the Court
limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v.
Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken run of
antitrust victories.[44]
The
Burger Court
Burger Court (1969–86) marked a conservative shift.[45] It also
expanded Griswold's right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe
v. Wade),[46] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke)[47] and campaign finance regulation
(Buckley v. Valeo),[48] and dithered on the death penalty, ruling
first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[49]
then that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v.
Georgia).[49][50][51]
Rehnquist and Roberts[edit]
Main articles:
Rehnquist Court
Rehnquist Court and Roberts Court
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005
The
Rehnquist Court
Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of
judicial enforcement of federalism,[52] emphasizing the limits of the
Constitution's affirmative grants of power (
United States
United States v. Lopez)
and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v.
Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[53][54][55][56][57] It struck down
single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United
States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive
due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[58] and the line item veto (Clinton
v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris)
and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood
v. Casey).[59] The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the
electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, was
especially controversial.[60][61]
The
Roberts Court
Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more
conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[62][63] Some of its major
rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil
procedure (Twombly-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[64] climate
change (Massachusetts v. EPA), same-sex marriage (
United States
United States v.
Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) and the Bill of Rights, notably in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[65]
Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment)[66] and
Baze v. Rees
Baze v. Rees (Eighth
Amendment).[67][68]
Composition[edit]
Size of the Court[edit]
Article III of the
United States
United States Constitution does not specify the
number of justices. The
Judiciary Act of 1789
.svg/280px-Great_Seal_of_the_United_States_(obverse).svg.png)
Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the
appointment of six "judges". Although an 1801 act would have reduced
the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, an 1802
act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size
to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's
boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the
growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and
ten in 1863.[69]
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act
providing that the next three justices to retire would not be
replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition.
Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In
1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices
to nine,[70] where it has since remained.
President
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937.
His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each
incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months
and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The
proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly
judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to
"pack" the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New
Deal.[71] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in
Congress.[72] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within
months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator
Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices
and elevated
Harlan Fiske Stone
Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[73]
Appointment and confirmation[edit]
Main article: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the
United States
The
Roberts Court
Roberts Court (April 2017 – present). Front row (left to right):
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy,
John Roberts
John Roberts (Chief Justice),
Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer. Back row (left to right): Elena
Kagan, Samuel A. Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, and Neil Gorsuch.
The U.S. Constitution states that the President "shall nominate, and
by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges
of the Supreme Court."[74] Most presidents nominate candidates who
broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions
may end up being contrary to a president's expectations. Because the
Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a
president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate
confirmation.
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable
attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to
confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record
aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts
hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full
Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's
practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The
first nominee to appear before the committee was
Harlan Fiske Stone
Harlan Fiske Stone in
1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and
the modern practice of questioning began with
John Marshall
John Marshall Harlan II
in 1955.[75] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full
Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate
has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently
Robert Bork, nominated by President
Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan in 1987.
Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in
committee to block a nomination, prior to 2017 a nomination could be
blocked by filibuster once debate had begun in the full Senate.
President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe
Fortas to succeed
Earl Warren
Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was the first
successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It included both
Republican and Democratic senators concerned with Fortas's ethics.
President Donald Trump's nomination of
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch to the seat
vacated by
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia was the second. Unlike the Fortas
filibuster, however, only Democratic Senators voted against cloture on
the Gorsuch nomination, citing his perceived conservative judicial
philosophy, and the Republican majority's prior refusal to take up
President Barack Obama's nomination of
Merrick Garland
Merrick Garland to fill the
vacancy.[76][77] This led the Republican majority to change the rules
and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.[78]
Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the
Senate. A president may withdraw a nomination before an actual
confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the
Senate will reject the nominee; this occurred most recently with the
nomination of
Harriet Miers
Harriet Miers in 2006. The Senate may also fail to act
on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. For example,
President Dwight Eisenhower's first nomination of
John Marshall
John Marshall Harlan
II in November 1954 was not acted on by the Senate; Eisenhower
re-nominated Harlan in January 1955, and Harlan was confirmed two
months later. Most recently, as previously noted, the Senate failed to
act on the March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland; the nomination
expired in January 2017, and the vacancy was later filled by President
Trump's appointment of Neil Gorsuch.[79]
Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and
sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must
be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[80] The seniority
of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the
confirmation or swearing-in date.[81]
Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From
the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically
approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the
present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this
is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role
than in the past.[82] According to the Congressional Research Service,
the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote
since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or
2.3 months).[83][84]
Recess appointments[edit]
When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary
appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only
until the end of the next Senate session (less than two years). The
Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the
two chief justices and eleven associate justices who have received
recess appointments, only Chief Justice
John Rutledge
John Rutledge was not
subsequently confirmed.[85]
No president since
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment
to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even
in lower federal courts.[86] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three
such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate"
resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made
in "unusual circumstances."[87] Such resolutions are not legally
binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of
guiding executive action.[87][88]
The Supreme Court's 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v.
Noel Canning limited the ability of the President to make recess
appointments (including appointments to the Supreme Court), ruling
that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session (or in recess).
Writing for the Court, Justice Breyer stated, "We hold that, for
purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session
when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the
capacity to transact Senate business."[89] This ruling allows the
Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of pro-forma
sessions.[90]
Tenure[edit]
The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices
during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The
term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the
remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by
Congress, resign, or retire.[91] Only one justice has been impeached
by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was
acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[92] Moves to impeach sitting
justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas
was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe
Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969), but they
did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a
justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but
unable (or unwilling) to resign.[93]
Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be
unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in
the early 1970s when
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William Rehnquist
were nominated to replace
Hugo Black
Hugo Black and
John Marshall
John Marshall Harlan II, who
retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time
passes between nominations, such as the eleven years between Stephen
Breyer's nomination in 1994 to succeed
Harry Blackmun
Harry Blackmun and the
nomination of
John Roberts
John Roberts in 2005 to fill the seat of Sandra Day
O'Connor (though Roberts' nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for
the role of Chief Justice after Rehnquist died).
Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to
appoint at least one justice.
William Henry Harrison
William Henry Harrison died a month
after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an
appointment during that presidential term. Likewise, Zachary Taylor
died 16 months after taking office, but his successor (Millard
Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that
term. Andrew Johnson, who became president after the assassination of
Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a
reduction in the size of the Court.
Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter is the only person
elected president to have left office after at least one full term
without having the opportunity to appoint a justice. Somewhat
similarly, presidents James Monroe, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George
W. Bush each served a full term without an opportunity to appoint a
justice, but made appointments during their subsequent terms in
office. No president who has served more than one full term has gone
without at least one opportunity to make an appointment.
Three presidents have appointed justices who together served more than
a century. Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D.
Roosevelt.[94]
Membership[edit]
See also: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
Current justices[edit]
The court is currently filled with nine Justices. The most recent
justice to join to the court was Neil Gorsuch, who was nominated by
President
Donald Trump
Donald Trump on January 31, 2017, and confirmed on April 7,
2017, by the U.S. Senate.
Name
Birth
Appointed by
Senate confirmation vote
Age at appointment
Current age
First day /
Length of service
Previous positions
Succeeded
Roberts, JohnJohn Roberts
(Chief Justice)
000000001955-01-27-0000January 27, 1955
Buffalo, New York
Bush, George W.George W. Bush
78–22
50
7001630000000000000♠63
000000002005-09-29-0000September 29, 2005
12 years, 6 months
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2003–2005);
Principal Deputy Solicitor General (1989–1993);
Associate Counsel to the President (1982–1986)
William Rehnquist
Kennedy, AnthonyAnthony Kennedy
000000001936-07-23-0000July 23, 1936
Sacramento, California
Reagan, RonaldRonald Reagan
97–0
51
7001810000000000000♠81
000000001988-02-18-0000February 18, 1988
30 years, 1 month
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1975–1988);
Private practice (1963–1975)
Lewis Powell
Thomas, ClarenceClarence Thomas
000000001948-06-23-0000June 23, 1948
Pin Point, Georgia
Bush, George H. W.George H. W. Bush
52–48
43
7001690000000000000♠69
000000001991-10-23-0000October 23, 1991
26 years, 5 months
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1990–1991);
Chairman,
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982–1990);
Assistant Attorney General in
Missouri
Missouri under State Attorney General
John Danforth
John Danforth (1974–1977)
Thurgood Marshall
Ginsburg, Ruth BaderRuth Bader Ginsburg
000000001933-03-15-0000March 15, 1933
Brooklyn, New York
Clinton, BillBill Clinton
96–3
60
7001850000000000000♠85
000000001993-08-10-0000August 10, 1993
24 years, 7 months
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1980–1993);
General Counsel,
American Civil Liberties Union
American Civil Liberties Union (1973–1980)
Byron White
Breyer, StephenStephen Breyer
000000001938-08-15-0000August 15, 1938
San Francisco, California
87–9
55
7001790000000000000♠79
000000001994-08-03-0000August 3, 1994
23 years, 8 months
Chief Judge,
Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit
First Circuit (1990–1994);
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit
First Circuit (1980–1990)
Harry Blackmun
Alito, SamuelSamuel Alito
000000001950-04-01-0000April 1, 1950
Trenton, New Jersey
George W. Bush
58–42
55
7001680000000000000♠68
000000002006-01-31-0000January 31, 2006
12 years, 2 months
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990–2006);
U.S. Attorney for the District of
New Jersey
New Jersey (1987–1990);
Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985–1987);
Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981–1985)
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sotomayor, SoniaSonia Sotomayor
000000001954-06-25-0000June 25, 1954
The Bronx, New York
Obama, BarackBarack Obama
68–31
55
7001630000000000000♠63
000000002009-08-08-0000August 8, 2009
8 years, 7 months
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1998–2009);
District Judge, District Court for the Southern District of New York
(1992–1998)
David Souter
Kagan, ElenaElena Kagan
000000001960-04-28-0000April 28, 1960
Manhattan, New York
63–37
50
7001570000000000000♠57
000000002010-08-07-0000August 7, 2010
7 years, 8 months
Solicitor General of the
United States
United States (2009–2010);
Dean of Harvard Law School
Dean of Harvard Law School (2003–2009);
Associate
White House Counsel
White House Counsel (1995–1999);
Deputy Director of the
Domestic Policy Council
Domestic Policy Council (1995–1999);
John Paul Stevens
Gorsuch, NeilNeil Gorsuch
000000001967-08-29-0000August 29, 1967
Denver, Colorado
Trump, DonaldDonald Trump
54–45
49
7001500000000000000♠50
000000002017-04-10-0000April 10, 2017
11 months and 27 days
Circuit Judge,
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006–2017);
Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General and Acting Associate
Attorney General (2005–2006);
Antonin Scalia
Court demographics[edit]
Main article: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
The Court currently has six male and three female justices. Among the
nine justices, there is one African-American (Justice Thomas) and one
Hispanic
Hispanic (Justice Sotomayor). Two of the justices were born to at
least one immigrant parent: Justice Alito's parents were born in
Italy,[95][96] and Justice Ginsburg's father was born in Russia.[97]
At least five justices are
Roman Catholics
Roman Catholics and three are Jewish; it is
unclear whether
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an
Episcopalian.[98] The average age is 67 years and 4 months. Every
current justice has an
Ivy League
Ivy League background.[99] Four justices are
from the state of New York, two from California, one from New Jersey,
one from Georgia, and one from Colorado.[100] In the 19th century,
every justice was a man of European descent (usually Northern
European), and almost always Protestant. Concerns about diversity
focused on geography, to represent all regions of the country, rather
than religious, ethnic, or gender diversity.[101]
Most justices have been Protestants, including 36 Episcopalians, 19
Presbyterians, 10 Unitarians, 5 Methodists, and 3 Baptists.[102][103]
The first Catholic justice was Roger Taney in 1836,[104] and 1916 saw
the appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis.[105]
Several Catholic and Jewish justices have since been appointed, and in
recent years the situation has reversed. The Court currently has at
least five Catholic justices, and three Jewish justices.[98]
Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity began to increase in the late
20th century.
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall became the first African American
justice in 1967.[105]
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female
justice in 1981.[105] Marshall was succeeded by African-American
Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas in 1991.[106] O'Connor was joined by Ruth Bader
Ginsburg in 1993.[107] After O'Connor's retirement Ginsburg was joined
in 2009 by Sonia Sotomayor, the first
Hispanic
Hispanic and Latina
justice;[105] and in 2010 by Elena Kagan, for a total of four female
justices in the Court's history.[107]
There have been six foreign-born justices in the Court's history:
James Wilson
James Wilson (1789–1798), born in Caskardy, Scotland; James Iredell
(1790–1799), born in Lewes, England; William Paterson (1793–1806),
born in County Antrim, Ireland; David Brewer (1889–1910), born in
Smyrna, Turkey;
George Sutherland
George Sutherland (1922–1939), born in
Buckinghamshire, England; and
Felix Frankfurter
Felix Frankfurter (1939–1962), born in
Vienna, Austria.[105]
Retired justices[edit]
There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court
of the United States: John Paul Stevens,
Sandra Day O'Connor
Sandra Day O'Connor and David
Souter. As retired justices, they no longer participate in the work of
the Supreme Court, but may be designated for temporary assignments to
sit on lower federal courts, usually the
United States
United States Courts of
Appeals. Such assignments are formally made by the Chief Justice, on
request of the chief judge of the lower court and with the consent of
the retired justice. In recent years, Justice O'Connor has sat with
several Courts of Appeals around the country, and Justice Souter has
frequently sat on the First Circuit, the court of which he was briefly
a member before joining the Supreme Court.
The status of a retired justice is analogous to that of a circuit or
district court judge who has taken senior status, and eligibility of a
supreme court justice to assume retired status (rather than simply
resign from the bench) is governed by the same age and service
criteria.
In recent times, justices tend to strategically plan their decisions
to leave the bench with personal, institutional, ideological, partisan
and sometimes even political factors playing a role.[108][109] The
fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step
down. The desire to maximize the Court's strength and legitimacy
through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and
during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for
institutional health. Finally, especially in recent decades, many
justices have timed their departure to coincide with a philosophically
compatible president holding office, to ensure that a like-minded
successor would be appointed.[110][111]
Name
Date of birth
Appointed by
Retired under
Confirmation vote
Age at appointment
Current age
First day
Date of retirement
Length of tenure
John Paul Stevens
000000001920-04-20-0000April 20, 1920
Chicago, Illinois
Gerald Ford
Barack Obama
98–0
55
7001970000000000000♠97
December 19, 1975
June 29, 2010 (age 90)
34 years, 6 months and 10 days
Sandra Day O'Connor
000000001930-03-26-0000March 26, 1930
El Paso, Texas
Ronald Reagan
George W. Bush
99–0
51
7001880000000000000♠88
September 25, 1981
January 31, 2006 (age 75)
24 years, 4 months and 6 days
David Souter
000000001939-09-17-0000September 17, 1939
Melrose, Massachusetts
George H. W. Bush
Barack Obama
90–9
51
7001780000000000000♠78
000000001990-10-09-0000October 9, 1990
June 29, 2009 (age 69)
18 years, 8 months and 20 days
Seniority and seating[edit]
Many of the internal operations of the Court are organized by
seniority of justices; the chief justice is considered the most senior
member of the court, regardless of the length of his or her service.
The associate justices are then ranked by the length of their service.
The interior of the
United States
United States Supreme Court
During Court sessions, the justices sit according to seniority, with
the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on
alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief
Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice
seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore,
the current court sits as follows from left to right, from the
perspective of those facing the Court: Kagan, Alito, Ginsburg, Kennedy
(most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Thomas,
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch. In the official yearly Court
photograph, justices are arranged similarly, with the five most senior
members sitting in the front row in the same order as they would sit
during Court sessions (The most recent photograph includes Ginsburg,
Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Breyer), and the four most junior justices
standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during
Court sessions (Kagan, Alito, Sotomayor, Gorsuch).
In the justices' private conferences, current practice is for them to
speak and vote in order of seniority to begin with the chief justice
first and end with the most junior associate justice. The most junior
associate justice in these conferences is charged with any menial
tasks the justices may require as they convene alone, such as
answering the door of their conference room, serving beverages and
transmitting orders of the court to the clerk.[112] Justice Joseph
Story served the longest as junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to
September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice Stephen Breyer
follows very closely behind serving from August 3, 1994, to January
31, 2006, for a total of 4,199 days.[113] Justice
Elena Kagan
.jpg/440px-Elena_Kagan_Official_SCOTUS_Portrait_(2013).jpg)
Elena Kagan comes in
at a distant third serving from August 6, 2010, to April 10, 2017, for
a total of 2439 days.
Salary[edit]
Main article: Federal judge salaries in the United States
As of 2017, associate justices are paid $251,800 and the chief justice
$263,300.[114] Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once
a justice meets age and service requirements, the justice may retire.
Judicial pensions are based on the same formula used for federal
employees, but a justice's pension, as with other federal courts
judges, can never be less than their salary at the time of retirement.
Judicial leanings[edit]
See also: Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices
Although justices are nominated by the president in power, justices do
not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties,
as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches.
Jurists are, however, informally categorized in legal and political
circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such
leanings, however, generally refer to legal outlook rather than a
political or legislative one. The nominations of justices are endorsed
by individual politicians in the legislative branch who vote their
approval or disapproval of the nominated justice.
Following the confirmation of
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch in 2017, the Court consists
of five justices appointed by Republican presidents and four appointed
by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice
Roberts and associate justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, appointed
by Republican presidents, comprise the Court's conservative wing.
Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, appointed by
Democratic presidents, comprise the Court's liberal wing. Justice
Kennedy, appointed by Republican president Reagan, is generally
considered "a conservative who has occasionally voted with
liberals",[115] and up until Justice Scalia's death, he was often the
swing vote that determined the outcome of cases divided between the
conservative and liberal wings.[116][117][118] Gorsuch had a track
record as a reliably conservative judge in the 10th circuit.[119]
Tom Goldstein
Tom Goldstein argued in an article in
SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the
popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological
lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant
part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions."[120] He
pointed out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided
unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely
one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide
(fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included).
He also pointed to several cases that defied the popular conception of
the ideological lines of the Court.[121] Goldstein further argued that
the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals (usually
cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly
misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or
argument) were an illustration that the conservative justices had not
been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated that the
critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts
of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and
be disrespectful of precedent, also lacked merit: Thomas has most
often called for overruling prior precedent (even if long standing)
that he views as having been wrongly decided, and during the 2009 term
Scalia and Thomas voted most often to invalidate legislation.
According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms
from 2000 to 2011, an average of 19 of the opinions on major issues
(22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average of 70% of those
split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally
perceived ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over
that period, the conservative bloc has been in the majority about 62%
of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines, which
represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.[122]
In the October 2010 term, the Court decided 86 cases, including 75
signed opinions and 5 summary reversals (where the Court reverses a
lower court without arguments and without issuing an opinion on the
case).[123][124] Four were decided with unsigned opinions, two cases
affirmed by an equally divided Court, and two cases were dismissed as
improvidently granted. Justice Kagan recused herself from 26 of the
cases due to her prior role as
United States
United States Solicitor General. Of the
80 cases, 38 (about 48%, the highest percentage since the October 2005
term) were decided unanimously (9–0 or 8–0), and 16 decisions were
made by a 5–4 vote (about 20%, compared to 18% in the October 2009
term, and 29% in the October 2008 term).[125] However, in fourteen of
the sixteen 5–4 decisions, the Court divided along the traditional
ideological lines (with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the
liberal side, and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on the
conservative, and Kennedy providing the "swing vote"). This represents
87% of those 16 cases, the highest rate in the past 10 years. The
conservative bloc, joined by Kennedy, formed the majority in 63% of
the 5–4 decisions, the highest cohesion rate of that bloc in the
Roberts Court.[123][126][127][128][129]
In the October 2011 term, the Court decided 75 cases. Of these, 33
(44%) were decided unanimously, and 15 (20%, the same percentage as in
the previous term) were decided by a vote of 5–4. Of the latter 15,
the Court divided along the perceived ideological lines 10 times with
Justice Kennedy joining the conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia,
Thomas and Alito) five times and with the liberal justices (Ginsburg,
Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan) five times.[122][130][131]
In the October 2012 term, the Court decided 78 cases. Five of them
were decided in unsigned opinions. 38 out of the 78 decisions
(representing 49% of the decisions) were unanimous in judgement, with
24 decisions being completely unanimous (a single opinion with every
justice that participated joining it). This was the largest percentage
of unanimous decisions that the Court had in ten years, since the
October 2002 term (when 51% of the decisions handed down were
unanimous). The Court split 5–4 in 23 cases (29% of the total); of
these, 16 broke down along the traditionally perceived ideological
lines, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and
Alito on one side, Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan on
the other, and Justice Kennedy holding the balance. Of these 16 cases,
Justice Kennedy sided with the conservatives on 10 cases, and with the
liberals on 6. Three cases were decided by an interesting alignment of
justices, with Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Kennedy,
Thomas, Breyer and Alito in the majority, with Justices Scalia,
Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the minority. The greatest agreement
between justices was between Ginsburg and Kagan, who agreed on 72 of
the 75 (96%) cases, in which both voted; the lowest agreement between
justices was between Ginsburg and Alito, who agreed only on 45 out of
77 (54%) cases, in which they both participated. Justice Kennedy was
in the majority of 5–4 decisions on 20 out of 24 (83%) cases, and in
71 of 78 (91%) cases during the term, in line with his position as the
"swing vote" of the Court.[132][133]
Facilities[edit]
The present U.S. Supreme Court building as viewed from the front
From the 1860s until the 1930s, the court sat in the Old Senate
Chamber of the U.S. Capitol.
Main article:
United States
United States Supreme Court Building
The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants'
Exchange Building in New York City. When Philadelphia became the
capital, the Court met briefly in
Independence Hall
Independence Hall before settling in
Old City Hall from 1791 until 1800. After the government moved to
Washington, D.C., the Court occupied various spaces in the United
States Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own
purpose-built home. The four-story building was designed by Cass
Gilbert in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings
of the Capitol and Library of Congress, and is clad in marble. The
building includes the courtroom, justices' chambers, an extensive law
library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services including a
gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the
Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force separate
from the Capitol Police.[134]
Located across First Street from the
United States
United States Capitol at One
First Street NE and Maryland Avenue,[135][136] the building is open to
the public from 9 am to 4:30 pm weekdays but closed on
weekends and holidays.[135] Visitors may not tour the actual courtroom
unaccompanied. There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a
half-hour informational film.[134] When the Court is not in session,
lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30 am to
3:30 pm and reservations are not necessary.[134] When the Court
is in session the public may attend oral arguments, which are held
twice each morning (and sometimes afternoons) on Mondays, Tuesdays,
and Wednesdays in two-week intervals from October through late April,
with breaks during December and February. Visitors are seated on a
first-come first-served basis. One estimate is there are about 250
seats available.[137] The number of open seats varies from case to
case; for important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and
wait through the night. From mid-May until the end of June, the court
releases orders and opinions beginning at 10 am, and these 15 to
30-minute sessions are open to the public on a similar basis.[134]
Supreme Court Police
Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.[135]
Jurisdiction[edit]
Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from Marbury v.
Madison, in which Chief Justice
John Marshall
John Marshall outlined the concept of
judicial review
Main article: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
Congress is authorized by Article III of the federal Constitution to
regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court
has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between two or more
states,[138] but may decline to hear such cases.[139] It also
possesses original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction to hear "all
actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers,
consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties; all
controversies between the
United States
United States and a State; and all actions
or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or
against aliens."[140]
In 1906, the Court asserted its original jurisdiction to prosecute
individuals for contempt of court in
United States
United States v. Shipp.[141] The
resulting proceeding remains the only contempt proceeding and only
criminal trial in the Court's history.[142][143] The contempt
proceeding arose from the lynching of Ed Johnson in Chattanooga,
Tennessee
Tennessee the evening after Justice
John Marshall
John Marshall Harlan granted
Johnson a stay of execution to allow his lawyers to file an appeal.
Johnson was removed from his jail cell by a lynch mob—aided by the
local sheriff who left the prison virtually unguarded—and hung from
a bridge, after which a deputy sheriff pinned a note on Johnson's body
reading: "To Justice Harlan. Come get your nigger now."[142] The local
sheriff, John Shipp, cited the Supreme Court's intervention as the
rationale for the lynching. The Court appointed its deputy clerk as
special master to preside over the trial in
Chattanooga
Chattanooga with closing
arguments made in Washington before the Supreme Court justices, who
found nine individuals guilty of contempt, sentencing three to 90 days
in jail and the rest to 60 days in jail.[142][143][144]
In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate
jurisdiction, including the ability to issue writs of mandamus and
writs of prohibition to lower courts. It considers cases based on its
original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the
Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction
cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more
states.[citation needed]
The Court's appellate jurisdiction consists of appeals from federal
courts of appeal (through certiorari, certiorari before judgment, and
certified questions),[145] the
United States
United States
Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces (through certiorari),[146] the Supreme Court of Puerto
Rico (through certiorari),[147] the Supreme Court of the Virgin
Islands (through certiorari),[148] the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals (through certiorari),[149] and "final judgments or decrees
rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be
had" (through certiorari).[149] In the last case, an appeal may be
made to the Supreme Court from a lower state court if the state's
highest court declined to hear an appeal or lacks jurisdiction to hear
an appeal. For example, a decision rendered by one of the Florida
District Courts of Appeal can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if
(a) the
Supreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida declined to grant certiorari, e.g.
Florida Star v. B. J. F., or (b) the district court of appeal issued a
per curiam decision simply affirming the lower court's decision
without discussing the merits of the case, since the Supreme Court of
Florida lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of such decisions.[150] The
power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts,
rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of
1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin
v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and
Cohens v. Virginia
Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme
Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct
appeals from state court decisions, although there are several devices
that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases. It has to be
noted that this "collateral review" often only applies to individuals
on death row and not through the regular judicial system.[151]
Since Article Three of the
United States
United States Constitution stipulates that
federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies", the
Supreme Court cannot decide cases that are moot and it does not render
advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For
example, in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), the Court
dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law school
affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated
since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claim
would not be able to redress any injury he had suffered. However, the
Court recognizes some circumstances where it is appropriate to hear a
case that is seemingly moot. If an issue is "capable of repetition yet
evading review", the Court will address it even though the party
before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable
result. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and other abortion cases,
the Court addresses the merits of claims pressed by pregnant women
seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because it takes
longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case
through the lower courts to the Supreme Court. Another mootness
exception is voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct, in which the
Court considers the probability of recurrence and plaintiff's need for
relief.[152]
Justices as Circuit Justices[edit]
The
United States
United States is divided into thirteen circuit courts of appeals,
each of which is assigned a "circuit justice" from the Supreme Court.
Although this concept has been in continuous existence throughout the
history of the republic, its meaning has changed through time.
Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each justice was required to "ride
circuit", or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases
alongside local judges. This practice encountered opposition from many
justices, who cited the difficulty of travel. Moreover, there was a
potential for a conflict of interest on the Court if a justice had
previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding
was abolished in 1891.
Today, the circuit justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing
with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may
be addressed by a single justice. These include applications for
emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases)
and injunctions pursuant to the
All Writs Act
All Writs Act arising from cases
within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for
extensions of time. In the past, circuit justices also sometimes ruled
on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and
applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal.
Ordinarily, a justice will resolve such an application by simply
endorsing it "granted" or "denied" or entering a standard form of
order. However, the justice may elect to write an opinion—referred
to as an in-chambers opinion—in such matters if he or she wishes.
A circuit justice may sit as a judge on the
Court of Appeals of that
circuit, but over the past hundred years, this has rarely occurred. A
circuit justice sitting with the
Court of Appeals has seniority over
the chief judge of the circuit.
The chief justice has traditionally been assigned to the District of
Columbia Circuit, the Fourth Circuit (which includes Maryland and
Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia), and since
it was established, the Federal Circuit. Each associate justice is
assigned to one or two judicial circuits.
As of June 27, 2017, the allotment of the justices among the circuits
is:[153]
Circuit
Justice
District of Columbia Circuit
Chief Justice Roberts
First Circuit
Justice Breyer
Second Circuit
Justice Ginsburg
Third Circuit
Justice Alito
Fourth Circuit
Chief Justice Roberts
Fifth Circuit
Justice Alito
Sixth Circuit
Justice Kagan
Seventh Circuit
Justice Kagan
Eighth Circuit
Justice Gorsuch
Ninth Circuit
Justice Kennedy
Tenth Circuit
Justice Sotomayor
Eleventh Circuit
Justice Thomas
Federal Circuit
Chief Justice Roberts
Four of the current justices are assigned to circuits on which they
previously sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C.
Circuit), Justice Breyer (First Circuit), Justice Alito (Third
Circuit), and Justice Kennedy (Ninth Circuit).
Process[edit]
Main article: Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each
October, and continues until June or early July of the following year.
Each term consists of alternating periods of around two weeks known as
"sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings
during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during
recesses.
Case selection[edit]
Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs
of certiorari, commonly referred to as "cert". The Court may review
any case in the federal courts of appeals "by writ of certiorari
granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal
case."[154] Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the
highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those
judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional
law.[155] The party that appealed to the Court is the petitioner and
the non-mover is the respondent. All case names before the Court are
styled petitioner v. respondent, regardless of which party initiated
the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are
brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in
State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. If the defendant is convicted,
and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme
court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes Miranda
v. Arizona.
There are situations where the Court has original jurisdiction, such
as when two states have a dispute against each other, or when there is
a dispute between the
United States
United States and a state. In such instances, a
case is filed with the Supreme Court directly. Examples of such cases
include
United States
United States v. Texas, a case to determine whether a parcel
of land belonged to the
United States
United States or to Texas, and Virginia v.
Tennessee, a case turning on whether an incorrectly drawn boundary
between two states can be changed by a state court, and whether the
setting of the correct boundary requires Congressional approval.
Although it has not happened since 1794 in the case of Georgia v.
Brailsford,[156] parties in an action at law in which the Supreme
Court has original jurisdiction may request that a jury determine
issues of fact.[157] Two other original jurisdiction cases involve
colonial era borders and rights under navigable waters in New Jersey
v. Delaware, and water rights between riparian states upstream of
navigable waters in Kansas v. Colorado.
A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called a
conference. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by
themselves; the public and the Justices' clerks are excluded. The rule
of four permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of
certiorari. If it is granted, the case proceeds to the briefing stage;
otherwise, the case ends. Except in death penalty cases and other
cases in which the Court orders briefing from the respondent, the
respondent may, but is not required to, file a response to the cert
petition.
The court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons",
spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:
Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a
provision of the federal Constitution
Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course
of judicial proceedings
Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review
a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous
decision of the Court.
When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing
interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by
different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this
situation a "circuit split." If the court votes to deny a cert
petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come
before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert
petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision
of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.
To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Court each
year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives each year,
it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or
fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as
the "cert pool." Currently, all justices except for Justices Alito and
Gorsuch participate in the cert pool.[158][159][160] [161]
Oral argument[edit]
When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral
argument. Both parties will file briefs on the merits of the case, as
distinct from the reasons they may have argued for granting or denying
the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the
Court, amici curiae, or "friends of the court", may also file briefs.
The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from
October through April. Each side has thirty minutes to present its
argument (the Court may choose to give more time, though this is
rare),[162] and during that time, the Justices may interrupt the
advocate and ask questions. The petitioner gives the first
presentation, and may reserve some time to rebut the respondent's
arguments after the respondent has concluded. Amici curiae may also
present oral argument on behalf of one party if that party agrees. The
Court advises counsel to assume that the Justices are familiar with
and have read the briefs filed in a case.
Supreme Court bar[edit]
In order to plead before the court, an attorney must first be admitted
to the court's bar. Approximately 4,000 lawyers join the bar each
year. The bar contains an estimated 230,000 members. In reality,
pleading is limited to several hundred attorneys. The rest join for a
one-time fee of $200, earning the court about $750,000 annually.
Attorneys can be admitted as either individuals or as groups. The
group admission is held before the current justices of the Supreme
Court, wherein the Chief Justice approves a motion to admit the new
attorneys.[163] Lawyers commonly apply for the cosmetic value of a
certificate to display in their office or on their resume. They also
receive access to better seating if they wish to attend an oral
argument.[164] Members of the Supreme Court Bar are also granted
access to the collections of the Supreme Court Library.[165]
Decision[edit]
At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for
decision. Cases are decided by majority vote of the Justices. It is
the Court's practice to issue decisions in all cases argued in a
particular Term by the end of that Term. Within that Term, however,
the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set
time after oral argument. At the conclusion of oral argument, the
Justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes
are tallied, and the most senior Justice in the majority assigns the
initial draft of the Court's opinion to a Justice on his or her side.
Drafts of the Court's opinion, as well as any concurring or dissenting
opinions,[166] circulate among the Justices until the Court is
prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case. Since
recording devices are banned inside the courtroom of the United States
Supreme Court Building, the delivery of the decision to the media is
done via paper copies and is known as the Running of the
Interns.[167][168]
It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides
evenly on a case. If that occurs, then the decision of the court below
is affirmed, but does not establish binding precedent. In effect, it
results in a return to the status quo ante. For a case to be heard,
there must be a quorum of at least six justices.[169] If a quorum is
not available to hear a case and a majority of qualified justices
believes that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next
term, then the judgment of the court below is affirmed as if the Court
had been evenly divided. For cases brought to the Supreme Court by
direct appeal from a
United States
United States District Court, the Chief Justice
may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals
for a final decision there.[170] This has only occurred once in U.S.
history, in the case of
United States
United States v. Alcoa (1945).[171]
Published opinions[edit]
The Court's opinions are published in three stages. First, a slip
opinion is made available on the Court's web site and through other
outlets. Next, several opinions and lists of the court's orders are
bound together in paperback form, called a preliminary print of United
States Reports, the official series of books in which the final
version of the Court's opinions appears. About a year after the
preliminary prints are issued, a final bound volume of U.S. Reports is
issued. The individual volumes of U.S. Reports are numbered so that
users may cite this set of reports—or a competing version published
by another commercial legal publisher but containing parallel
citations—to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs
to find the cases quickly and easily.
As of the beginning of October 2016 term[ref], there are:
564 final bound volumes of U.S. Reports, covering cases through the
end of October 2010 term, which ended on September 28, 2011.[172]
16 volumes' worth of opinions available in slip opinion form (volumes
565–580)[173]
As of March 2012[update], the U.S. Reports have published a total
of 30,161 Supreme Court opinions, covering the decisions handed down
from February 1790 to March 2012.[citation needed] This figure does
not reflect the number of cases the Court has taken up, as several
cases can be addressed by a single opinion (see, for example, Parents
v. Seattle, where
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education
Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was
also decided in the same opinion; by a similar logic, Miranda v.
Arizona actually decided not only Miranda but also three other cases:
Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v.
Stewart). A more unusual example is The Telephone Cases, which
comprise a single set of interlinked opinions that take up the entire
126th volume of the U.S. Reports.
Opinions are also collected and published in two unofficial, parallel
reporters: Supreme Court Reporter, published by West (now a part of
Thomson Reuters), and
United States
United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers'
Edition (simply known as Lawyers' Edition), published by LexisNexis.
In court documents, legal periodicals and other legal media, case
citations generally contain cites from each of the three reporters;
for example, citation to Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission is presented as Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n,
585 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010), with "S. Ct."
representing the Supreme Court Reporter, and "L. Ed." representing the
Lawyers' Edition.[174][175]
Citations to published opinions[edit]
Main article: Case citation § Supreme Court of the United States
Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form "vol U.S.
page, pin (year)", where vol is the volume number, page is the page
number on which the opinion begins, and year is the year in which the
case was decided. Optionally, pin is used to "pinpoint" to a specific
page number within the opinion. For instance, the citation for Roe v.
Wade is 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which means the case was decided in 1973
and appears on page 113 of volume 410 of U.S. Reports. For opinions or
orders that have not yet been published in the preliminary print, the
volume and page numbers may be replaced with "___".
Institutional powers and constraints[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help
improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2017)
(Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This article is part of a series on the
Politics of the
United States
United States of America
Federal Government
Constitution of the United States
Law
Taxation
Legislature
United States
United States Congress
House of Representatives
Speaker
Paul Ryan
.jpg/440px-Speaker_Paul_Ryan_official_photo_(cropped_2).jpg)
Paul Ryan (R)
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R)
Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi
Nancy Pelosi (D)
Congressional districts
United States
United States Senate
President
Mike Pence
Mike Pence (R)
President Pro Tempore
Orrin Hatch
Orrin Hatch (R)
President Pro Tempore Emeritus
Patrick Leahy
Patrick Leahy (D)
Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell
Mitch McConnell (R)
Minority Leader
Chuck Schumer
Chuck Schumer (D)
Executive
President of the United States
Donald Trump
Donald Trump (R)
Vice President of the United States
Mike Pence
Mike Pence (R)
Cabinet
Federal agencies
Executive Office
Judiciary
Supreme Court of the United States
Chief Justice John Roberts
Kennedy
Thomas
Ginsburg
Breyer
Alito
Sotomayor
Kagan
Gorsuch
Courts of Appeals
District Courts (list)
Other tribunals
Elections
Presidential elections
Midterm elections
Off-year elections
Political parties
Democratic
Republican
Third parties
Federalism
State Government
Governors
Legislatures (List)
State courts
Local government
Other countries
Atlas
v
t
e
The Federal court system and the judicial authority to interpret the
Constitution received little attention in the debates over the
drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The power of judicial
review, in fact, is nowhere mentioned in it. Over the ensuing years,
the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended
by the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack
of evidence bearing on the question either way.[176] Nevertheless, the
power of judiciary to overturn laws and executive actions it
determines are unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established
precedent. Many of the
Founding Fathers
_1978,_MiNr_2293.jpg/300px-Stamps_of_Germany_(DDR)_1978,_MiNr_2293.jpg)
Founding Fathers accepted the notion of
judicial review; in Federalist No. 78,
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton wrote: "A
Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a
fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its
meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from
the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable
variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and
validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the
Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."
The Supreme Court firmly established its power to declare laws
unconstitutional in
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the
American system of checks and balances. In explaining the power of
judicial review, Chief Justice
John Marshall
John Marshall stated that the authority
to interpret the law was the particular province of the courts, part
of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. His
contention was not that the Court had privileged insight into
constitutional requirements, but that it was the constitutional duty
of the judiciary, as well as the other branches of government, to read
and obey the dictates of the Constitution.[176]
Since the founding of the republic, there has been a tension between
the practice of judicial review and the democratic ideals of
egalitarianism, self-government, self-determination and freedom of
conscience. At one pole are those who view the Federal Judiciary and
especially the Supreme Court as being "the most separated and least
checked of all branches of government."[177] Indeed, federal judges
and justices on the Supreme Court are not required to stand for
election by virtue of their tenure "during good behavior", and their
pay may "not be diminished" while they hold their position (Section 1
of Article Three). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only
one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has
been removed from office. At the other pole are those who view the
judiciary as the least dangerous branch, with little ability to resist
the exhortations of the other branches of government.[176] The Supreme
Court, it is noted, cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it
relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence
to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in
1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision
in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the
Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "
John Marshall
John Marshall has made
his decision; now let him enforce it!";[178] however, this alleged
quotation has been disputed. Some state governments in the South also
resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment
Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President
Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States
v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however,
ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Supreme Court decisions can be (and have been) purposefully overturned
by constitutional amendment, which has happened on five occasions:
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) – overturned by the Eleventh Amendment
(1795)
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – overturned by the Thirteenth
Amendment (1865) and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895) – overturned by the
Sixteenth Amendment (1913)
Minor v. Happersett
Minor v. Happersett (1875) – overturned by the Nineteenth Amendment
(1920)
Oregon v. Mitchell
Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) – overturned by the Twenty-sixth Amendment
(1971)
When the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws
rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse
the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly
Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is
not immune from political and institutional consideration: lower
federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal
innovations, as do law enforcement officials.[179]
In addition, the other two branches can restrain the Court through
other mechanisms. Congress can increase the number of justices, giving
the President power to influence future decisions by appointments (as
in Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan discussed above). Congress can pass
legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and
other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested
by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate
jurisdiction is granted "with such Exceptions, and under such
Regulations as the Congress shall make." The Court sanctioned such
congressional action in the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle
(1869), though it rejected Congress' power to dictate how particular
cases must be decided in
United States
United States v. Klein (1871).
On the other hand, through its power of judicial review, the Supreme
Court has defined the scope and nature of the powers and separation
between the legislative and executive branches of the federal
government; for example, in
United States
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export
Corp. (1936), Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), and notably in
Goldwater v. Carter
Goldwater v. Carter (1979), (where it effectively gave the Presidency
the power to terminate ratified treaties without the consent of
Congress or the Senate). The Court's decisions can also impose
limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in Humphrey's
Executor v.
United States
United States (1935), the Steel Seizure Case (1952), and
United States
United States v. Nixon (1974).
Law clerks[edit]
See also:
Law clerk
_-_THE_SUPREME_COURT_JUSTICES_AND_THEIR_LAW_CLERKS.jpg/440px-Flickr_-_Government_Press_Office_(GPO)_-_THE_SUPREME_COURT_JUSTICES_AND_THEIR_LAW_CLERKS.jpg)
Law clerk and List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the
United States
Each Supreme Court justice hires several law Clerks to review
petitions for writ of certiorari, research them, prepare bench
memorandums, and draft opinions. Associate justices are allowed four
clerks. The chief justice is allowed five clerks, but Chief Justice
Rehnquist hired only three per year, and Chief Justice Roberts usually
hires only four.[180] Generally, law clerks serve a term of one to two
years.
The first law clerk was hired by Associate Justice
Horace Gray
Horace Gray in
1882.[180][181]
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and
Louis Brandeis
Louis Brandeis were the
first Supreme Court justices to use recent law school graduates as
clerks, rather than hiring a "stenographer-secretary".[182] Most law
clerks are recent law school graduates.
The first female clerk was Lucile Lomen, hired in 1944 by Justice
William O. Douglas.[180] The first African-American, William T.
Coleman, Jr., was hired in 1948 by Justice Felix Frankfurter.[180] A
disproportionately large number of law clerks have obtained law
degrees from elite law schools, especially Harvard, Yale, the
University of Chicago, Columbia, and Stanford. From 1882 to 1940, 62%
of law clerks were graduates of Harvard Law School.[180] Those chosen
to be Supreme Court law clerks usually have graduated in the top of
their law school class and were often an editor of the law review or a
member of the moot court board. By the mid-1970s, clerking previously
for a judge in a federal court of appeals had also become a
prerequisite to clerking for a Supreme Court justice.[183]
Seven Supreme Court justices previously clerked for other justices:
Byron White
Byron White for Frederick M. Vinson,
John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens for Wiley
Rutledge,
William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist for Robert H. Jackson,
Stephen Breyer
Stephen Breyer for
Arthur Goldberg,
John Roberts
John Roberts for William Rehnquist,
Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan for
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall and
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch for both
Byron White
Byron White and Anthony
Kennedy. Gorsuch is the first justice to serve alongside a justice for
whom he or she clerked.
Several current Supreme Court justices have also clerked in the
federal courts of appeals:
John Roberts
John Roberts for Judge
Henry Friendly
Henry Friendly of
the
United States
United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Justice
Samuel Alito
Samuel Alito for Judge
Leonard I. Garth of the
United States
United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Elena Kagan
Elena Kagan for Judge
Abner J. Mikva
Abner J. Mikva of
the
United States
United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit, and
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch for Judge
David B. Sentelle of the United
States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Politicization of the Court[edit]
Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often
given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court
clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into
the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review
of Vanderbilt University Law School.[184][185] "As law has moved
closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and
predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that
have been pressed in and through the courts", former federal court of
appeals judge
J. Michael Luttig said.[184] David J. Garrow, professor
of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had
thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. "We are
getting a composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be
like the House of Representatives", Professor Garrow said. "Each side
is putting forward only ideological purists."[184]
According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring
trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a
superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a
legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of
law."[184] A poll conducted in June 2012 by
The New York Times
The New York Times and CBS
News showed just 44% of
Americans
Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court
is doing. Three-quarters said justices' decisions are sometimes
influenced by their political or personal views.[186]
Criticism[edit]
The court has been the object of criticisms on a range of issues.
Among them:
Judicial activism[edit]
The Supreme Court has been criticized for not keeping within
Constitutional bounds by engaging in judicial activism, rather than
merely interpreting law and exercising judicial restraint. Claims of
judicial activism are not confined to any particular ideology.[187] An
often cited example of conservative judicial activism is the 1905
decision in Lochner v. New York, which has been criticized by many
prominent thinkers, including Robert Bork, Justice Antonin Scalia, and
Chief Justice John Roberts,[187][188] and which was reversed in the
1930s.[189][190][191] An often cited example of liberal judicial
activism is
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion in part on
the basis of the "right to privacy" inferred from the Fourteenth
Amendment, a reasoning that some critics argued was circuitous.[187]
Legal scholars,[192][193] justices,[194] and presidential
candidates[195] have criticized the Roe decision. The progressive
Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education decision has been criticized by
conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan[196] and former presidential
contender Barry Goldwater.[197] More recently, Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission was criticized for expanding upon the
precedent in
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) that the
First Amendment applies to corporations.[198] Lincoln warned,
referring to the Dred Scott decision, that if government policy became
"irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will
have ceased to be their own rulers."[199] Former justice Thurgood
Marshall justified judicial activism with these words: "You do what
you think is right and let the law catch up."[200] During different
historical periods, the Court has leaned in different
directions.[201][202] Critics from both sides complain that
activist-judges abandon the Constitution and substitute their own
views instead.[203][204][205] Critics include writers such as Andrew
Napolitano,[206] Phyllis Schlafly,[207] Mark R. Levin,[208] Mark I.
Sutherland,[209] and James MacGregor Burns.[210][211] Past presidents
from both parties have attacked judicial activism, including Franklin
D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.[212][213] Failed
Supreme Court nominee
Robert Bork
Robert Bork wrote: "What judges have wrought is
a coup d'état, – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d'état
nonetheless."[214] Senator
Al Franken
Al Franken quipped that when politicians
talk about judicial activism, "their definition of an activist judge
is one who votes differently than they would like."[215] One law
professor claimed in a 1978 article that the Supreme Court is in some
respects "certainly a legislative body."[216]
Failing to protect individual rights[edit]
Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual
rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery;[217] Plessy v
Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but
equal;[218]
Kelo v. City of New London
Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by
prominent politicians, including
New Jersey
New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as
undermining property rights.[219][220] Some critics suggest the 2009
bench with a conservative majority has "become increasingly hostile to
voters" by siding with Indiana's voter identification laws which tend
to "disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver's licenses,
especially poor and minority voters", according to one report.[221]
Senator
Al Franken
Al Franken criticized the Court for "eroding individual
rights."[215] However, others argue that the Court is too protective
of some individual rights, particularly those of people accused of
crimes or in detention. For example, Chief Justice
Warren Burger
Warren Burger was
an outspoken critic of the exclusionary rule, and Justice Scalia
criticized the Court's decision in
Boumediene v. Bush
Boumediene v. Bush for being too
protective of the rights of Guantanamo detainees, on the grounds that
habeas corpus was "limited" to sovereign territory.[222]
Supreme Court has too much power[edit]
This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism.
George Will
George Will wrote that the Court has an "increasingly central role in
American governance."[223] It was criticized for intervening in
bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker Chrysler Corporation
in 2009.[224] A reporter wrote that "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's
intervention in the Chrysler bankruptcy" left open the "possibility of
further judicial review" but argued overall that the intervention was
a proper use of Supreme Court power to check the executive
branch.[224] Warren E. Burger, before becoming Chief Justice, argued
that since the Supreme Court has such "unreviewable power" it is
likely to "self-indulge itself" and unlikely to "engage in
dispassionate analysis".[225]
Larry Sabato
Larry Sabato wrote "excessive authority
has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court."[226]
Courts are poor check on executive power[edit]
British constitutional scholar
Adam Tomkins sees flaws in the American
system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as
checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; he argues that
because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to
navigate their way through the system, their ability to restrain other
branches is severely weakened.[227][228] In contrast, the Federal
Constitutional Court of Germany for example, can directly declare a
law unconstitutional upon request.
Federal versus state power[edit]
There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary
between federal and state power. While Framers such as James
Madison[229] and Alexander Hamilton[230] argued in The Federalist
Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the
power of state governments,[231][232][233][234] others argue that
expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers'
wishes.[235] The Tenth Amendment to the
United States
United States Constitution
explicitly grants "powers not delegated to the
United States
United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people." The Supreme Court has been
criticized for giving the federal government too much power to
interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed
the federal government to misuse the
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause by upholding
regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate
commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating
interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly
interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause
was used by the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals to uphold the
Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species of insect
near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no
commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme
Court let that ruling stand without comment in 2005.[236] Chief
Justice
John Marshall
John Marshall asserted Congress's power over interstate
commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost
extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in
the Constitution."[237] Justice Alito said congressional authority
under the
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause is "quite broad."[238] Modern day theorist
Robert B. Reich
Robert B. Reich suggests debate over the
Commerce Clause
Commerce Clause continues
today.[237] Advocates of states' rights such as constitutional scholar
Kevin Gutzman
Kevin Gutzman have also criticized the Court, saying it has misused
the Fourteenth Amendment to undermine state authority. Justice
Brandeis, in arguing for allowing the states to operate without
federal interference, suggested that states should be laboratories of
democracy.[239] One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court
rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."[240]
However, others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that
extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state
level."[241]
Secretive proceedings[edit]
The Court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden
from public view.[242] According to a review of Jeffrey Toobin's
expose The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court; "Its
inner workings are difficult for reporters to cover, like a closed
'cartel', only revealing itself through 'public events and printed
releases, with nothing about its inner workings.'[243] The reviewer
writes: "few (reporters) dig deeply into court affairs. It all works
very neatly; the only ones hurt are the American people, who know
little about nine individuals with enormous power over their
lives."[243]
Larry Sabato
Larry Sabato complains about the Court's
"insularity."[226] A
Fairleigh Dickinson University
Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in
2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that televising Court
hearings would "be good for democracy", and 50% of voters stated they
would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.[244][245] In
recent years, many justices have appeared on television, written books
and made public statements to journalists.[246][247] In a 2009
interview on C-SPAN, journalists
Joan Biskupic (of USA Today) and Lyle
Denniston (of SCOTUSblog) argued that the Court is a "very open"
institution with only the justices' private conferences inaccessible
to others.[246] In October 2010, the Court began the practice of
posting on its website recordings and transcripts of oral arguments on
the Friday after they occur.
Judicial interference in political disputes[edit]
Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into
the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of
the other two branches of government. The
Bush v. Gore
Bush v. Gore decision, in
which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election
and effectively chose
George W. Bush
George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized
extensively, particularly by liberals.[243][248][249][250][251][252]
Another example are Court decisions on apportionment and
re-districting: in Baker v. Carr, the court decided it could rule on
apportionment questions; Justice Frankfurter in a "scathing dissent"
argued against the court wading into so-called political
questions.[253]
Not choosing enough cases to review[edit]
Senator
Arlen Specter
Arlen Specter said the Court should "decide more cases".[215]
On the other hand, although Justice Scalia acknowledged in a 2009
interview that the number of cases that the Court hears now is smaller
today than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that
he has not changed his standards for deciding whether to review a
case, nor does he believe his colleagues have changed their standards.
He attributed the high volume of cases in the late 1980s, at least in
part, to an earlier flurry of new federal legislation that was making
its way through the courts.[246]
Lifetime tenure[edit]
Critic
Larry Sabato
Larry Sabato wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure,
combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give
long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the
views of past generations better than views of the current day."[226]
Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office
despite medical deterioration based on longevity.[254] James MacGregor
Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with
the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the
times."[210] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for
justices, as proposed by Levinson[255] and Sabato[226][256] as well as
a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein,[257] among
others.[258] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings
substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political
pressure.
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton in
Federalist 78
Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can
contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in
office."[259]
Accepting gifts[edit]
The 21st century has seen increased scrutiny of justices accepting
expensive gifts and travel. All of the members of the Roberts Court
have accepted travel or gifts. In 2012, Justice Sonia Sotomayor
received $1.9 million in advances from her publisher Knopf
Doubleday.[260] Justice Scalia and others took dozens of expensive
trips to exotic locations paid for by private donors.[261] Private
events sponsored by partisan groups that are attended by both the
justices and those who have an interest in their decisions have raised
concerns about access and inappropriate communications.[262] Stephen
Spaulding, the legal director at Common Cause, said: "There are fair
questions raised by some of these trips about their commitment to
being impartial."[261]
See also[edit]
Supreme Court of the
United States
United States portal
Government of the
United States
United States portal
Law portal
Donald Trump
Donald Trump Supreme Court candidates
Federal judicial appointment history
List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
by court composition
by seat
by time in office
List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
List of law schools attended by
United States
United States Supreme Court Justices
List of
United States
United States Chief Justices by time in office
Lists of
United States
United States Supreme Court cases
Oyez Project
Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
Segal–Cover score
Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States
Landmark Supreme Court decisions (selection)
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison (1803, judicial review)
McCulloch v. Maryland
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819, implied powers)
Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824, interstate commerce)
Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857, slavery)
Plessy v. Ferguson
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, separate but equal treatment of races)
Brown v. Board of Education
Brown v. Board of Education (1954, school segregation of races)
Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale (1962, state-sponsored prayers in public schools)
Abington School District v. Schempp
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963,
Bible
Bible readings and
recitation of the
Lord's prayer
_-_James_Tissot.jpg/340px-Brooklyn_Museum_-_The_Lord's_Prayer_(Le_Pater_Noster)_-_James_Tissot.jpg)
Lord's prayer in U.S. public schools)
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963, right to an attorney)
Griswold v. Connecticut
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, privacy in marriage)
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona (1966, rights of those detained by police)
In re Gault
In re Gault (1967, rights of juvenile suspects)
Loving v. Virginia
Loving v. Virginia (1967, interracial marriage)
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971, religious activities in public schools)
New York Times Co. v.
United States
United States (1971, freedom of the press)
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972, privacy for unmarried people)
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade (1973, abortion)
Miller v. California
Miller v. California (1973, obscenity)
United States
United States v. Nixon (1974, executive privilege)
Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo (1976, campaign finance)
Bowers v. Hardwick
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986, sodomy)
Bush v. Gore
Bush v. Gore (2000, presidential election)
Lawrence v. Texas
Lawrence v. Texas (2003, sodomy, privacy)
District of Columbia v. Heller
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008, gun rights)
Citizens United v. FEC
Citizens United v. FEC (2010, campaign finance)
United States
United States v. Windsor (2013, same-sex marriage)
Shelby County v. Holder
Shelby County v. Holder (2013, voting rights)
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, same-sex marriage)
References[edit]
^ Lawson, Gary; Seidman, Guy (2001). "When Did the Constitution Become
Law?". Notre Dame Law Review. 77: 1–37.
^ Safire, William, "On language: POTUS and FLOTUS," New York Times,
October 12, 1997. Retrieved August 27, 2013.
^ "The Court as an Institution – Supreme Court of the United
States". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
^ Johnson, Barnabas. Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, p. 25 (Aspen
Law & Business, 1988).
^ "A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court" (PDF).
United States
United States Supreme
Court. Retrieved December 31, 2009.
^ Bordewich, Fergus (2016). The First Congress: How James Madison,
George Washington, and a Group of Extraordinary Men Invented the
Government. Simon & Schuster. p. 195.
ISBN 1451691939.
^ Shugerman, Jed. "A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus and Deference
on the Supreme Court", Georgia Law Review, Vol. 37, p. 893
(2002–03).
^ Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court, p. 101
(Penguin 2006).
^ Ashmore, Anne (August 2006). "Dates of Supreme Court decisions and
arguments,
United States
United States Reports volumes 2–107 (1791–82)" (PDF).
Library, Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved April 26,
2009.
^ Scott Douglas Gerber (editor) (1998). "Seriatim: The Supreme Court
Before John Marshall". New York University Press.
ISBN 0-8147-3114-7. Retrieved October 31, 2009. (page 3) Finally
many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as
evidence that the early Court lacked prestige. CS1 maint: Extra
text: authors list (link)
^ Manning, John F. (2004). "The Eleventh Amendment and the Reading of
Precise Constitutional Texts". Yale Law Journal. 113 (8): 1663–1750.
doi:10.2307/4135780.
^ Epps, Garrett (October 24, 2004). "Don't Do It, Justices". The
Washington Post. Retrieved October 31, 2009. The court's prestige has
been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice
John Marshall
John Marshall made
the court respected
^ The Supreme Court had first used the power of judicial review in the
case Ware v. Hylton, (1796), wherein it overturned a state law that
conflicted with a treaty between the
United States
United States and Great Britain.
^ Rosen, Jeffrey (July 5, 2009). "Black Robe Politics" (book review of
Packing the Court by James MacGregor Burns). The Washington Post.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. From the beginning, Burns continues, the
Court has established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress
because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup" in
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down
unconstitutional laws.
^ "The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America – Marbury v.
Madison (1803)". U.S. News & World Report. 2003. Archived from the
original on September 20, 2003. Retrieved October 31, 2009. With his
decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall
established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to
the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch
of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant
to the Constitution is void.
^ Sloan, Cliff; McKean, David (February 21, 2009). "Why Marbury V.
Madison Still Matters". Newsweek. Retrieved October 31, 2009. More
than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that
landmark case continues to resonate.
^ "The Constitution In Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal
Supreme Court" (PDF). The New York Times. February 27, 1893. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. The decision … in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is
the authority on which lawyers and Judges have rested the doctrine
that where there is in question, in the highest court of a State, and
decided adversely to the validity of a State statute... such claim is
reviewable by the Supreme Court ...
^ Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer (December 13, 2000).
"Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore". USA Today. Retrieved October
31, 2009. Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of
state law by a state high court … The Virginia court refused to obey
this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the
British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the
Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat.
304 (1816). CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ a b "Decisions of the Supreme Court – Historic Decrees Issued in
One Hundred an Eleven Years" (PDF). The New York Times. February 3,
1901. Retrieved October 31, 2009. Very important also was the decision
in Martin vs. Hunter's lessee, in which the court asserted its
authority to overrule, within certain limits, the decisions of the
highest State courts.
^ a b "The Supreme Quiz". The Washington Post. October 2, 2000.
Archived from the original on May 30, 2012. Retrieved October 31,
2009. According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the
United States, Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade
the other justices to stop seriatim opinions – each issuing one –
so that the court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s,
however, there's been a significant increase in individual
"concurring" and "dissenting" opinions.
^ Slater, Dan (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty:
A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled". The
Wall Street
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. The first Chief Justice,
John Marshall
John Marshall set out to do
away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in
England
England in
which each appellate judge writes an opinion in ruling on a single
case. (You may have read old tort cases in law school with such
opinions). Marshall sought to do away with this practice to help build
the Court into a coequal branch.
^ Suddath, Claire (December 19, 2008). "A Brief History Of
Impeachment". Time. Retrieved October 31, 2009. Congress tried the
process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice
Samuel Chase
Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase was
overzealous and notoriously unfair … But Chase never committed a
crime — he was just incredibly bad at his job. The Senate
acquitted him on every count.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (April 10, 1996). "Rehnquist Joins Fray on
Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence". The New York Times.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel
Chase, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives … This
decision by the Senate was enormously important in securing the kind
of judicial independence contemplated by Article III" of the
Constitution, Chief Justice Rehnquist said
^ Edward Keynes; with Randall K. Miller (1989). "The Court vs.
Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion". Duke University Press.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. (page 115)... Grier maintained that
Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts'
jurisdiction.
^ Ifill, Sherrilyn A. (May 27, 2009). "Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind
Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense". U.S. News & World
Report. Retrieved October 31, 2009. But his decision in Dred Scott v.
Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless
existence within the
United States
United States until the passage of the 14th
Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-fulfilling statement in Dred
Scott, that blacks had "no rights which the white man [was] bound to
respect", has ensured his place in history—not as a brilliant
jurist, but as among the most insensitive
^ Irons, Peter (2006). A People's History of the Supreme Court: The
Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution.
United States: Penguin Books. pp. 176–177.
ISBN 0-14-303738-2. The rhetorical battle that followed the Dred
Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the gunfire and
bloodshed of the Civil War (p.176)... his opinion (Taney's) touched
off an explosive reaction on both sides of the slavery issue...
(p.177)
^ "Liberty of Contract?". Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. October
31, 2009. Archived from the original on November 22, 2009. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. The term "substantive due process" is often used to
describe the approach first used in Lochner—the finding of liberties
not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be
impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of
cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting
personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain
intimate family relationships.
^ "Adair v.
United States
United States 208 U.S. 161". Cornell University Law
School. 1908. Retrieved October 31, 2009. No. 293 Argued: October 29,
30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908
^ Bodenhamer, David J.; James W. Ely (1993). The Bill of Rights in
modern America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press.
p. 245. ISBN 978-0-253-35159-3. … of what eventually
became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill of
Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment
due process or equal protection.
^ White, Edward Douglass. "Opinion for the Court, Arver v. U.S. 245
U.S. 366". Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the
exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his
supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights
and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great
representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of
involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the
Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the
contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
^ Siegan, Bernard H. (1987). The Supreme Court's Constitution.
Transaction Publishers. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-88738-671-8.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's
Hospital, the court invalidated a classification based on gender as
inconsistent with the substantive due process requirements of the
fifth amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for
the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District of
Columbia. (p.146)
^ Biskupic, Joan (March 29, 2005). "Supreme Court gets makeover". USA
Today. Retrieved October 31, 2009. The building is getting its first
renovation since its completion in 1935.
^ Justice Roberts (September 21, 2005). "Responses of Judge John G.
Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden". The
Washington Post. Retrieved October 31, 2009. I agree that West Coast
Hotel Co. v. Parrish correctly overruled Adkins. Lochner era
cases – Adkins in particular – evince an expansive view
of the judicial role inconsistent with what I believe to be the
appropriately more limited vision of the Framers. [dead link]
^ Lipsky, Seth (October 22, 2009). "All the News That's Fit to
Subsidize".
Wall Street
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 31, 2009. He was a
farmer in Ohio … during the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in
for farmers. With subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one
could grow—even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case,
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm.
^ Cohen, Adam (December 14, 2004). "What's New in the Legal World? A
Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. Some prominent states' rights conservatives were
asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling
that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in
the public interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed
Wickard … for paving the way for strong federal action...
^ United Press International (September 25, 1971). "Justice Black Dies
at 85; Served on Court 34 Years". The New York Times. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. Justice Black developed his controversial theory,
first stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due
process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of
Rights to the states.
^ "100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education
(1954)". U.S. News & World Report. May 17, 1954. Archived from the
original on November 6, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. On May 17,
1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Earl Warren
Earl Warren delivered the unanimous
ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was
a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.
This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" …
and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights
movement...
^ "Essay: In defense of privacy". Time. July 15, 1966. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. The biggest legal milestone in this field was last
year's Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which
overthrew the state's law against the use of contraceptives as an
invasion of marital privacy, and for the first time declared the
"right of privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself.
^ Gibbs, Nancy (December 9, 1991). "America's Holy War". Time.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale,
the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by
state officials that was recommended for use in New York State
schools. "It is no part of the business of government", ruled the
court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American
people to recite."
^ Mattox, William R., Jr; Trinko, Katrina (August 17, 2009). "Teach
the Bible? Of course". USA Today. Archived from the original on August
20, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. Public schools need not
proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students
about the Good
Book
Book … In Abington School District v. Schempp,
decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the
Bible
Bible or
of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program
of education", was permissible under the First Amendment.
^ "The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle". Time Magazine. June 18, 1965.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. Last week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court
refused for the first time to give retroactive effect to a great Bill
of Rights decision—
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
^ "The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment". Time. April 16,
1965. Retrieved October 31, 2009. Sixth Amendment's right to counsel
(
Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963). … the court said flatly in 1904:
'The Sixth Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal
courts." But in the light of Gideon … ruled Black, statements
'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to states
can no longer be regarded as law.'
^ "Guilt and Mr. Meese". The New York Times. January 31, 1987.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. 1966
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's
the famous decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence
unless an accused person has been warned by police of the right to
silence and to a lawyer, and waived it.
^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 21,
2017. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
^ Earl M. Maltz, The Coming of the Nixon Court: The 1972 Term and the
Transformation of Constitutional Law (University Press of Kansas;
2016)
^ O'Connor, Karen (January 22, 2009). "Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary,
Abortion
.svg/440px-Vacuum-aspiration_(single).svg.png)
Abortion Is out of the Spotlight". U.S. News & World Report.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. The shocker, however, came in 1973, when
the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic
underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most
situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states.
Relying on a woman's right to privacy...
^ "Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose". Time. July 10, 1978. Retrieved October
31, 2009. Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last
week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based
solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might
legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to
universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative
action'…
^ "Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo". The New York Times. November 12,
1998. Retrieved October 31, 2009. ...Buckley v. Valeo. The nation's
political system has suffered ever since from that decision, which
held that mandatory limits on campaign spending unconstitutionally
limit free speech. The decision did much to promote the explosive
growth of campaign contributions from special interests and to enhance
the advantage incumbents enjoy over underfunded challengers.
^ a b Staff writer (June 29, 1972). "Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's
Key Decisions". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 31, 2009.
Furman v. Georgia
Furman v. Georgia … Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court
conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious
and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
^ History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (eds)
The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford
University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
^ "A Supreme Revelation". The
Wall Street
Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2008.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul
Stevens sided with the majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the
Supreme Court. Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v.
Georgia, which had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only
four years earlier.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (January 8, 2009). "The Chief Justice on the
Spot". The New York Times. Retrieved October 31, 2009. The federalism
issue at the core of the new case grows out of a series of cases from
1997 to 2003 in which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of
scrutiny to Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the
Reconstruction amendments.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (September 4, 2005). "William H. Rehnquist, Chief
Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80". The New York Times.
Retrieved October 31, 2009.
United States
United States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the
stakes in the debate over federal authority even higher. The decision
declared unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act
of 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet
of a school.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (June 12, 2005). "The
Rehnquist Court
Rehnquist Court and Its
Imperiled States' Rights Legacy". The New York Times. Retrieved
October 31, 2009. Intrastate activity that was not essentially
economic was beyond Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief
Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in
United States
United States v.
Morrison.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (March 22, 2005). "Inmates Who Follow Satanism and
Wicca Find Unlikely Ally". The New York Times. Retrieved October 31,
2009. His (Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision,
City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the
predecessor to the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,
exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as applied to
the states.
^ Amar, Vikram David (July 27, 2005). "Casing John Roberts". The New
York Times. Retrieved October 31, 2009. SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA
(1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about
whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined
four others to override Congress's will and protect state
prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts
this result.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (April 1, 1999). "Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More
Toward States in Federalism". The New York Times. Retrieved October
31, 2009. The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436,
proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface … On a
deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Court's struggle
over an even more basic issue: the Government's substantive authority
over the states.
^ Lindenberger, Michael A. "The Court's Gay Rights Legacy". Time.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. The decision in the
Lawrence v. Texas
Lawrence v. Texas case
overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had
arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in
sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and
women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to
be gay without being criminals.
^ Justice Sotomayor (July 16, 2009). "Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' –
The 'Roe' recital". USA Today. Archived from the original on August
22, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. The court's decision in Planned
Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the
precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the
court.
^ Kamiya, Gary (July 4, 2001). "Against the Law". Salon. Retrieved
November 21, 2012. ...the remedy was far more harmful than the
problem. By stopping the recount, the high court clearly denied many
thousands of voters who cast legal votes, as defined by established
Florida law, their constitutional right to have their votes counted.
… It cannot be a legitimate use of law to disenfranchise legal
voters when recourse is available. …
^ Krauthammer, Charles (December 18, 2000). "The Winner in Bush v.
Gore?". Time. Retrieved October 31, 2009. Re-enter the Rehnquist
court. Amid the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. … the Supreme
Court eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida
Supreme Court in its tracks—and stayed its willfulness. By, mind
you, …
^ Babington, Charles; Baker, Peter (September 30, 2005). "Roberts
Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice". The Washington Post. Retrieved
November 1, 2009. John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as
the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush
to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he
prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (July 1, 2007). "In Steps Big and Small, Supreme
Court Moved Right". The New York Times. Retrieved November 1, 2009. It
was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that
liberals feared … This was a more conservative court, sometimes
muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes
differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and
small.
^ Savage, Charlie (July 14, 2009). "Respecting Precedent, or Settled
Law, Unless It's Not Settled". The New York Times. Retrieved November
1, 2009. Gonzales v. Carhart — in which the Supreme Court
narrowly upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure
opponents call "partial birth abortion" — to be settled
law.
^ "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved
January 22, 2010.
^ Barnes, Robert (October 1, 2009). "Justices to Decide if State Gun
Laws Violate Rights". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 1, 2009.
The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's
ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the
amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense.
But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller...
^ Greenhouse, Linda (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens Renounces
Capital Punishment". The New York Times. Retrieved November 1, 2009.
His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case,
Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic.
^ Greenhouse, Linda (June 26, 2008). "Supreme Court Rejects Death
Penalty for Child Rape". The New York Times. Retrieved November 1,
2009. The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the
rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday …
The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and
five other states.
^ Federal Judiciary Act (1789), National Archives and Records
Administration, retrieved 2017-09-12
^ 16 Stat. 44
^ Mintz, S. (2007). "The
New Deal
New Deal in Decline". Digital History.
University of Houston. Archived from the original on May 5, 2008.
Retrieved October 27, 2009.
^ Hodak, George (2007). "February 5, 1937: FDR Unveils Court Packing
Plan". ABAjournal.com. American Bar Association. Retrieved January 29,
2009.
^ "Justices, Number of", in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek
(editors), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United
States.
Oxford University Press
Oxford University Press 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
^ See Article Two of the
United States
United States Constitution.
^ "
United States
United States Senate. "Nominations"".
^ Jim Brunner (March 24, 2017). "Sen. Patty Murray will oppose Neil
Gorsuch for Supreme Court". The Seattle Times. Retrieved April 9,
2017. In a statement Friday morning, Murray cited Republicans' refusal
to confirm or even seriously consider President Obama's nomination of
Judge Merrick Garland, a similarly well-qualified jurist — and went
on to lambaste President Trump's conduct in his first few months in
office. [...] And Murray added she's "deeply troubled" by Gorsuch's
"extreme conservative perspective on women's health," citing his
"inability" to state a clear position on Roe v. Wade, the landmark
abortion-legalization decision, and his comments about the "Hobby
Lobby" decision allowing employers to refuse to provide birth-control
coverage.
^ McCaskill, Claire (March 31, 2017). "Gorsuch: Good for corporations,
bad for working people". Medium. Retrieved April 9, 2017. I cannot
support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid
ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of
corporations. He is evasive, but his body of work isn't. Whether it is
a freezing truck driver or an autistic child, he has shown a stunning
lack of humanity. And he has been an activist – for example, writing
a dissent on a case that had been settled, in what appears to be an
attempt to audition for his current nomination.
^ Matt Flegenheimer (April 6, 2017). "Senate Republicans Deploy
'Nuclear Option' to Clear Path for Gorsuch". The New York Times. After
Democrats held together Thursday morning and filibustered President
Trump's nominee, Republicans voted to lower the threshold for
advancing Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to a simple
majority.
^ "U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations, Present-1789". United
States Senate. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
^ See 5 U.S.C. § 2902.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 4. If two justices are commissioned on the
same date, then the oldest one has precedence.
^ Balkin, Jack M. "The passionate intensity of the confirmation
process". Jurist. Archived from the original on December 18, 2007.
Retrieved February 13, 2008.
^ "The Stakes Of The 2016 Election Just Got Much, Much Higher". The
Huffington Post. Retrieved February 14, 2016.
^ McMillion, Barry J. (October 19, 2015). "Supreme Court Appointment
Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote" (PDF). Congressional
Research Service. Retrieved February 14, 2016.
^ Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). "Appendix Two". Oxford Companion to the
Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press.
pp. 965–971. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
^ See, e.g., Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), which
concerned the recess appointment of William Pryor. Concurring in
denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens observed that the case involved
"the first such appointment of an Article III judge in nearly a half
century" 544 U.S. 942 (2005) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of
cert) (internal quotation marks deleted).
^ a b Fisher, Louis (September 5, 2001). "Recess Appointments of
Federal Judges" (PDF). CRSN Report for Congress. Congressional
Research Service. The Library of Congress. RL31112: 16. Retrieved
August 6, 2010. Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the
making of recess appointments to the Supreme Court of the United
States may not be wholly consistent with the best interests of the
Supreme Court, the nominee who may be involved, the litigants before
the Court, nor indeed the people of the United States, and that such
appointments, therefore, should not be made except under unusual
circumstances and for the purpose of preventing or ending a
demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court's
business.
^ The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party
lines; Democrats supported the resolution 48–4, and Republicans
opposed it 33–0.
^ "National Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al" (PDF). pp. 34,
35. The Court continued, "In our view, however, the pro forma
sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. We hold that,
for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in
session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it
retains the capacity to transact Senate business. The Senate met that
standard here." Later, the opinion states: "For these reasons, we
conclude that we must give great weight to the Senate's own
determination of when it is and when it is not in session. But our
deference to the Senate cannot be absolute. When the Senate is without
the capacity to act, under its own rules, it is not in session even if
it so declares."
^ "Obama Won't Appoint Scalia Replacement While Senate Is Out This
Week". NPR. Retrieved January 25, 2017.
^ "How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be
fired?". Federal Judicial Center. fjc.gov. Archived from the original
on September 15, 2012. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
^ "History of the Federal Judiciary: Impeachments of Federal Judges".
Federal Judicial Center
Federal Judicial Center fjc.gov. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
^ Appel, Jacob M. (August 22, 2009). "Anticipating the Incapacitated
Justice". The Huffington Post. Retrieved August 23, 2009.
^ Ali, Ambreen (June 16, 2010). "How Presidents Influence the Court".
Congress.org. Archived from the original on June 18, 2010. Retrieved
June 16, 2010.
^ Walthr, Matthew (April 21, 2014). "Sam Alito: A Civil Man". The
American Spectator. Retrieved June 15, 2017 – via The ANNOTICO
Reports.
^ DeMarco, Megan (February 14, 2008). "Growing up Italian in Jersey:
Alito reflects on ethnic heritage". The Times. Trenton, New Jersey.
Archived from the original on July 30, 2017. Retrieved June 15,
2017.
^ Halberstam, Malvina (March 1, 2009). "Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Jewish
Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. Jewish Women's
Archive. Retrieved June 15, 2017.
^ a b
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but attends an Episcopalian
church. It is unclear if he considers himself a Catholic or a
Protestant. Burke, Daniel (March 22, 2017). "What is Neil Gorsuch's
religion? It's complicated". CNN. Springer said she doesn't know
whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian. "I
have no evidence that Judge Gorsuch considers himself an Episcopalian,
and likewise no evidence that he does not." Gorsuch's younger brother,
J.J., said he too has "no idea how he would fill out a form. He was
raised in the Catholic Church and confirmed in the Catholic Church as
an adolescent, but he has been attending Episcopal services for the
past 15 or so years."
^ Baker, Peter (August 7, 2010). "Kagan Is Sworn in as the Fourth
Woman, and 112th Justice, on the Supreme Court". The New York Times.
Retrieved August 8, 2010.
^ Mark Sherman, Is Supreme Court in need of regional diversity? (May
1, 2010).
^ O'Brien, David M. (2003). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in
American Politics (6th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 46.
ISBN 0-393-93218-4.
^ "Religion of the Supreme Court". adherents.com. January 31, 2006.
Retrieved July 9, 2010.
^ Segal, Jeffrey A.; Spaeth, Harold J. (2002). The Supreme Court and
the Attitudinal Model Revisited. Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 183.
ISBN 0-521-78971-0.
^ Schumacher, Alvin. "Roger B. Taney". Encyclopædia Britannica.
Retrieved May 3, 2017. He was the first
Roman Catholic
Roman Catholic to serve on the
Supreme Court.
^ a b c d e "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)". Supreme Court of the
United States. Archived from the original on March 20, 2017. Retrieved
May 3, 2017.
^ de Vogue, Ariane (October 22, 2016). "Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court
legacy". CNN. Retrieved May 3, 2017.
^ a b "The Four Justices". Smithsonian Institution. Archived from the
original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved May 3, 2017.
^ David N. Atkinson, Leaving the Bench (University Press of Kansas
1999) ISBN 0-7006-0946-6
^ Greenhouse, Linda (September 9, 2010). "An Invisible Chief Justice".
The New York Times. Retrieved September 9, 2010. Had [O'Connor]
anticipated that the chief justice would not serve out the next
Supreme Court term, she told me after his death, she would have
delayed her own retirement for a year rather than burden the court
with two simultaneous vacancies. […] Her reason for leaving was that
her husband, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, needed her care at
home.
^ Ward, Artemus (2003). Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement
from the
United States
United States Supreme Court. SUNY Press. p. 358.
ISBN 978-0-7914-5651-4. One byproduct of the increased
[retirement benefit] provisions [in 1954], however has been a dramatic
rise in the number of justices engaging in succession politics by
trying to time their departures to coincide with a compatible
president. The most recent departures have been partisan, some more
blatantly than others, and have bolstered arguments to reform the
process. A second byproduct has been an increase in justices staying
on the Court past their ability to adequately contribute.[1] p.
9
^ Stolzenberg, Ross M.; Lindgren, James (May 2010). "
Retirement
Retirement and
Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices". Demography. 47 (2):
269–298. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0100. PMC 3000028 .
PMID 20608097. If the incumbent president is of the same party as
the president who nominated the justice to the Court, and if the
incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year
presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation that are
about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions are not
met.
^ See for example Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on the
Supreme Court became its most influential justice, by Joan Biskupic,
Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also Rookie on the Bench: The Role of
the Junior Justice by Clare Cushman, Journal of Supreme Court History
32 no. 3 (2008), pp. 282–296.
^ "Breyer Just Missed Record as Junior Justice". Retrieved January 11,
2008.
^ "Judicial Compensation".
United States
United States Courts. Retrieved May 15,
2017.
^ Lane, Charles (January 31, 2006). "Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice
In Court's Middle". The Washington Post. If, as many expect, Alito
forms a four-vote conservative bloc with Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr. and Justices
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that would leave
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy – a conservative who has
occasionally voted with liberals on gay rights, the death penalty and
abortion – as the court's least predictable member.
^ Toobin, Jeffrey (2007). The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the
Supreme Court. Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
^ "End-of-Term Statistical Analysis – October Term 2011" (PDF).
Supreme Court of the
United States
United States Blog (SCOTUSblog). June 30, 2012.
Justice Kennedy is, for the fourth consecutive Term, the Justice most
likely to appear in the majority.
^ See also SCOTUSblog's Stat Pack: Bhatia, Kedar (June 30, 2012).
"Final October Term 2011 Stat Pack and Summary Memo".
^ Mears, Bill (March 20, 2017). "Take a look through Neil Gorsuch's
judicial record". Fox News. A
Fox News
Fox News analysis of that record –
including some 3,000 rulings he has been involved with – reveals a
solid, predictable conservative philosophy, something President Trump
surely was attuned to when he nominated him to fill the open ninth
seat. The record in many ways mirrors the late Justice Antonin
Scalia's approach to constitutional and statutory
interpretation.
^ Goldstein, Tom (June 30, 2010). "Everything you read about the
Supreme Court is wrong (except here, maybe)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved
July 7, 2010.
^ Among the examples mentioned by Goldstein for the 2009 term were:
Dolan v. United States, which interpreted judges' prerogatives
broadly, typically a "conservative" result. The majority consisted of
the five junior Justices: Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and
Sotomayor.
Magwood v. Patterson, which expanded habeas corpus petitions, a
"liberal" result, in an opinion by Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia,
Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v.
Allstate
Allstate Insurance Co., which
yielded a pro-plaintiff result in an opinion by Scalia joined by
Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
Goldstein notes that in the 2009 term, the justice most consistently
pro-government was Alito, and not the commonly perceived
"arch-conservatives" Scalia and Thomas.
^ a b "October 2011 Term, Five to Four Decisions" (PDF). SCOTUSblog.
June 30, 2012. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
^ a b "Final October 2010 Stat Pack available". SCOTUSblog. June 27,
2011. Retrieved June 28, 2011.
^ "End of Term statistical analysis – October 2010" (PDF).
SCOTUSblog. July 1, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2011.
^ "Cases by Vote Split" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved
June 28, 2011.
^ "Justice agreement – Highs and Lows" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June
27, 2011. Retrieved June 28, 2011.
^ "Justice agreement" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved June
28, 2011.
^ "Frequency in the majority" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011.
Retrieved June 28, 2011.
^ "Five-to-Four cases" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Retrieved
June 28, 2011.
^ "October 2011 term, Cases by votes split" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June
30, 2012. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
^ "October 22011 term, Strength of the Majority" (PDF). SCOTUSblog.
June 30, 2012. Retrieved July 2, 2012.
^ Bhatia, Kedar (June 29, 2013). "October Term 2012 summary memo".
SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
^ "Final October Term 2012 Stat Pack" (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27,
2013. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
^ a b c d "Plan Your Trip (quote:) "In mid-May, after the oral
argument portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench
Mondays at 10AM for the release of orders and opinions."". US Senator
John McCain. October 24, 2009. Retrieved October 24, 2009.
^ a b c "Visiting the Court". Supreme Court of the United States.
March 18, 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2010.
^ "Visiting-Capitol-Hill". docstoc. October 24, 2009. Archived from
the original on August 21, 2016. Retrieved October 24, 2009.
^ "How The Court Works". The Supreme Court Historical Society. October
24, 2009. Retrieved January 31, 2014.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)
^ Liptak, Adam (March 21, 2016). "Supreme Court Declines to Hear
Challenge to Colorado's Marijuana Laws". The New York Times. Retrieved
April 27, 2017.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b)
^
United States
United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (Supreme Court of the United
States 1906).
^ a b c Curriden, Mark (June 2, 2009). "A Supreme Case of Contempt".
ABA Journal. American Bar Association. Retrieved April 27, 2017. On
May 28, [U.S. Attorney General William] Moody did something
unprecedented, then and now. He filed a petition charging Sheriff
Shipp, six deputies and 19 leaders of the lynch mob with contempt of
the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously approved the petition and
agreed to retain original jurisdiction in the matter. ... May 24,
1909, stands out in the annals of the U.S. Supreme Court. On that day,
the court announced a verdict after holding the first and only
criminal trial in its history.
^ a b Hindley, Meredith (November 2014). "
Chattanooga
Chattanooga versus the
Supreme Court: The Strange Case of Ed Johnson". Humanities. National
Endowment for the Humanities. 35 (6). Retrieved April 27, 2017. United
States v. Shipp stands out in the history of the Supreme Court as an
anomaly. It remains the only time the Court has conducted a criminal
trial.
^ Linder, Douglas. "
United States
United States v. Shipp (U.S. Supreme Court,
1909)". Famous Trials. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1254
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1259
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1258
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1260
^ a b 28 U.S.C. § 1257
^ Brannock, Steven; Weinzierl, Sarah (2003). "Confronting a PCA:
Finding a Path Around a Brick Wall" (PDF). Stetson Law Review. XXXII:
368–369, 387–390. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
^ Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 306 (1989)
^ Gutman, Jeffrey. "Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys:
3.3 Mootness". Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys.
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. Retrieved April 27,
2017.
^ Allotment Order dated June 27, 2017.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1254
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1257; see also Adequate and independent state
grounds
^ James, Robert A. (1998). "Instructions in Supreme Court
Jury
Jury Trials"
(PDF). The Green Bag. 2d. 1 (4): 378. Retrieved February 5,
2013.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1872 See Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1
(1794), in which the Court conducted a jury trial.
^ Mauro, Tony (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool".
Legal Times. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
^ Mauro, Tony (July 4, 2006). "Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party".
Legal Times. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
^ Liptak, Adam (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out of a
Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'". The New York Times. Retrieved
October 17, 2008.
^ Liptak, Adam (May 1, 2017). "Gorsuch, in sign of independence, is
out of Supreme Court's clerical pool". The New York Times. Retrieved
May 2, 2017.
^ For example, the arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act took place over three days and
lasted over six hours, covering several issues; the arguments for Bush
v. Gore were 90 minutes long; oral arguments in
United States
United States v. Nixon
lasted three hours; and the Pentagon papers case was given a two-hour
argument. Christy, Andrew (November 15, 2011). "'Obamacare' will rank
among the longest Supreme Court arguments ever". NPR. Retrieved March
31, 2011. The longest modern-day oral arguments were in the case
of California v. Arizona, in which oral arguments lasted over sixteen
hours over four days in 1962.Bobic, Igor (March 26, 2012). "Oral
arguments on health reform longest in 45 years". Talking Points Memo.
Retrieved January 31, 2014.
^ Glazer, Eric M.; Zachary, Michael (February 1997). "Joining the Bar
of the U.S. Supreme Court". Volume LXXI, No. 2. Florida Bar Journal.
p. 63. Retrieved February 3, 2014.
^ Gresko, Jessica (March 24, 2013). "For lawyers, the Supreme Court
bar is vanity trip". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. pp. 2A.
Archived from the original on March 23, 2013.
^ "How The Court Works; Library Support". The Supreme Court Historical
Society. Retrieved February 3, 2014.
^ See generally, Tushnet, Mark, ed. (2008) I Dissent: Great Opposing
Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp.
256, ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6
^ Kessler, Robert. "Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court
Again?". The Atlantic. Retrieved March 24, 2017.
^ Johnson, Benny. "The 2016 Running of the Interns". Independent
Journal Review. Retrieved March 24, 2017.
^ 28 U.S.C. § 1
^ 28 U.S.C. § 2109
^ Pepall, Lynne; Richards, Daniel L.; Norman, George (1999).
Industrial Organization: Contemporary Theory and Practice. Cincinnati:
South-Western College Publishing. pp. 11–12.
^ "Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term, 2010" (PDF).
United States
United States Reports. Washington D.C.: Reporter of Decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States. 564. October 2016. Retrieved May
15, 2017.
^ "Sliplists". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved May 15,
2017.
^ "Supreme Court Research Guide". law.georgetown.edu. Georgetown Law
Library. Retrieved August 22, 2012.
^ "How to Cite Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions".
lib.guides.umd.edu.
University of Maryland
University of Maryland University Libraries.
Retrieved August 22, 2012.
^ a b c Hall, Kermit L.; McGuire, Kevin T., eds. (2005). Institutions
of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch. New York City: Oxford
University Press. pp. 117–118.
ISBN 978-0-19-530917-1.
^ Mendelson, Wallace (1992). "Separation of Powers". In Hall, Kermit
L. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Oxford University Press. p. 775. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
^ The American Conflict by Horace Greeley (1873), p. 106; also in The
Life of
Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson (2001) by Robert Vincent Remini
^ Vile, John R. (1992). "Court curbing". In Hall, Kermit L. The Oxford
Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University
Press. p. 202. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
^ a b c d e Peppers, Todd C. (2006). Courtiers of the Marble Palace:
The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk. Stanford
University Press. pp. 195, 1, 20, 22, and 22–24 respectively.
ISBN 978-0-8047-5382-1.
^ Weiden, David; Ward, Artemus (2006). Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100
Years of Law Clerks at the
United States
United States Supreme Court. NYU Press.
ISBN 978-0-8147-9404-3.
^ Chace, James (2007). Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created the
American World. New York City: Simon & Schuster (published 1998).
p. 44. ISBN 978-0-684-80843-7.
^ List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
^ a b c d Liptak, Adam (September 7, 2010). "Polarization of Supreme
Court Is Reflected in Justices' Clerks". The New York Times. Retrieved
September 7, 2010.
^ William E. Nelson; Harvey Rishikof; I. Scott Messinger; Michael Jo
(November 2009). "The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court
Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation?" (PDF). Vanderbilt Law
Review. p. 1749. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 27,
2010. Retrieved September 7, 2010.
^ Liptak and Kopicki, The New York Times, June 7, 2012 Approval Rating
for Justices Hits Just 44% in New Poll
^ a b c See for example "Judicial activism" in The Oxford Companion to
the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by Kermit Hall; article
written by Gary McDowell
^ Root, Damon W. (September 21, 2009). "Lochner and Liberty". The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
^ Bernstein, David. Only One Place of Redress: African Americans,
Labor Regulations, and the Courts from Reconstruction to the New Deal,
p. 100 (Duke University Press, 2001): "The Court also directly
overturned Lochner by adding that it is no 'longer open to question
that it is within the legislative power to fix maximum hours.'"
^ Dorf, Michael and Morrison, Trevor. Constitutional Law, p. 18
(Oxford University Press, 2010).
^ Patrick, John. The Supreme Court of the United States: A Student
Companion, p. 362 (Oxford University Press, 2006).
^ Steinfels, Peter (May 22, 2005). "'A Church That Can and Cannot
Change': Dogma". The New York Times: Books. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
^ Savage, David G. (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore?
What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times.
Archived from the original on October 23, 2008. Retrieved October 23,
2009. a lack of judicial authority to enter an inherently political
question that had previously been left to the states
^ Lewis, Neil A. (September 19, 2002). "Judicial Nominee Says His
Views Will Not Sway Him on the Bench". The New York Times. Retrieved
October 22, 2009. he has written scathingly of Roe v. Wade
^ "Election Guide 2008: The Issues: Abortion". The New York Times.
2008. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
^ Buchanan, Pat (July 6, 2005). "The judges war: an issue of power".
Townhall.com. Retrieved October 23, 2009. The Brown decision of 1954,
desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia,
awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power.
^ Clymer, Adam (May 29, 1998). "Barry Goldwater, Conservative and
Individualist, Dies at 89". The New York Times. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
^ Stone, Geoffrey R. (March 26, 2012). "Citizens United and
conservative judicial activism" (PDF). University of
Illinois
Illinois Law
Review. University of Illinois. 2012 (2): 485–500.
^ Lincoln, Abraham (March 4, 1861). "First Inaugural Address".
National Center. Archived from the original on October 9, 2009.
Retrieved October 23, 2009. At the same time, the candid citizen must
confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions
affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of
the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation
between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be
their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their
Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
^ Will, George F. (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's
Conventional Choice". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
Thurgood Marshall
Thurgood Marshall quote taken from the Stanford Law Review, summer
1992
^ Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court. London:
Penguin, 1999. ISBN 0-670-87006-4
^ Liptak, Adam (January 31, 2009). "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the
Supreme Court Left". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
Every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell...in
1971...has been more conservative than his or her predecessor
^ Babington, Charles (April 5, 2005). "Senator Links Violence to
'Political' Decisions". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
^ Liptak, Adam (February 2, 2006). "A Court Remade in the Reagan Era's
Image". The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
^ Savage, David G. (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history is a
matter of opinions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
^ Andrew P. Napolitano (February 17, 2005). "No Defense". The New York
Times. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
^ Edsall, Thomas B.; Fletcher, Michael A. (September 5, 2005). "Again,
Right Voices Concern About Gonzales". The Washington Post. Retrieved
October 23, 2009.
^ Lane, Charles (March 20, 2005). "Conservative's
Book
Book on Supreme
Court Is a Bestseller". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23,
2009.
^ Mark I. Sutherland; Dave Meyer; William J. Federer; Alan Keyes; Ed
Meese; Phyllis Schlafly; Howard Phillips; Alan E. Sears; Ben DuPre;
Rev. Rick Scarborough; David C. Gibbs III; Mathew D. Staver; Don
Feder; Herbert W. Titus (2005). Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of
America. St. Louis, Missouri: Amerisearch Inc. p. 242.
ISBN 0-9753455-6-7.
^ a b Kakutani, Michiko (July 6, 2009). "Appointees Who Really Govern
America". The New York Times. Retrieved October 27, 2009.
^ Emily Bazelon (July 6, 2009). "The Supreme Court on Trial: James
MacGregor Burns takes aim at the bench". Slate. Retrieved October 27,
2009.
^
Special
Special keynote address by President Ronald Reagan, November 1988,
at the second annual lawyers convention of the Federalist Society,
Washington, D.C.
^
Stuart Taylor Jr. (October 15, 1987). "Reagan Points to a Critic,
Who Points Out It Isn't So". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23,
2009.
^ Kelley Beaucar Vlahos (September 11, 2003). "Judge Bork: Judicial
Activism Is Going Global". Fox News. Retrieved October 23, 2009. What
judges have wrought is a coup d'état – slow moving and
genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless.
^ a b c Naftali Bendavid (July 13, 2009). "Franken: 'An Incredible
Honor to Be Here'". The
Wall Street
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
^ Hazard, Geoffrey C. Jr. (1978–79). "Supreme Court as a
Legislature". 64. Cornell L. Rev.: 1. Archived from the original on
April 29, 2011.
^
William Safire
William Safire (April 24, 2005). "Dog Whistle". New York Times
Magazine. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore?
What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times.
Archived from the original on October 23, 2008. Retrieved October 23,
2009.
^ Laura Mansnerus (October 16, 2005). "Diminished Eminence In a
Changed Domain". The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
^ Ronald Smothers (October 16, 2005). "In Long Branch, No Olive
Branches". The New York Times. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
^ Adam Cohen (January 15, 2008). "Editorial Observer – A Supreme
Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters". New York Times.
Retrieved October 23, 2009.
^ David G. Savage (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history is a
matter of opinions". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved October 30, 2009.
This suggests that the right of habeas corpus was not limited to
English subjects … protects people who are captured … at
Guantanamo … Wrong, Justice
Antonin Scalia
Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent. He said
English history showed that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to
sovereign English territory
^ George F. Will (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's
Conventional Choice". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
^ a b James Taranto (June 9, 2009). "Speaking Ruth to Power". The Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
^ Woodward, Bob; Scott Armstrong (1979). The Brethren: Inside the
Supreme Court.
United States
United States of America: Simon & Schuster.
p. 541. ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9. A court which is final and
unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other
^ a b c d
Larry Sabato
Larry Sabato (September 26, 2007). "It's Time to Reshape the
Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country". The Huffington Post.
Retrieved October 23, 2009.
^ Christopher Moore (November 1, 2008). "Our Canadian Republic – Do
we display too much deference to authority … or not enough?".
Literary Review of Canada. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
^ Tomkins, Adam (2002). "In Defence of the Political Constitution".
United Kingdom: 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 157. Bush v.
Gore
^ Madison, James (1789). "The Federalist Papers/No. 45 The Alleged
Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments
Considered". Wikisource. Retrieved October 24, 2009. the States will
retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of
active sovereignty
^
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius) (1789). "Federalist No. 28".
Independent Journal. Retrieved October 24, 2009. Power being almost
always the rival of power; the General Government will at all times
stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government; and
these will have the same disposition toward the General
Government.
^ Madison, James (January 25, 1788). "The Federalist". Independent
Journal (44 (quote: 8th para)). Retrieved October 27, 2009. seems well
calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in
providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the
United States
United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this
discretion.
^ Madison, James (February 16, 1788). "The Federalist No. 56 (quote:
6th para)". Independent Journal. Retrieved October 27, 2009. In every
State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulations
on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be
done by the federal legislature, than to review the different laws,
and reduce them in one general act.
^
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton (December 14, 1787). "The Federalist No. 22
(quote: 4th para)". New York Packet. Retrieved October 27, 2009. The
interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to
the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just
cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that
examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control,
would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious
sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the
intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy.
^ Madison, James (January 22, 1788). "The Federalist Papers". New York
Packet. Retrieved October 27, 2009. The regulation of commerce with
the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in
the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and
contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members
of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the
legislative right of any State within its own limits.
^
Akhil Reed Amar
Akhil Reed Amar (1998). "The Bill of Rights – Creation and
Reconstruction". The New York Times: Books. Retrieved October 24,
2009. many lawyers embrace a tradition that views state governments as
the quintessential threat to individual and minority rights, and
federal officials—especially federal courts—as the special
guardians of those rights.
^ Scott Gold (June 14, 2005). "Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort to
Weaken Species Protection Law". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 24,
2012. Purcell filed a $60-million lawsuit against the U.S. government
in 1999, arguing that cave bugs could not be regulated through the
commerce clause because they had no commercial value and did not cross
state lines. 'I'm disappointed,' Purcell said.
^ a b
Robert B. Reich
Robert B. Reich (September 13, 1987). "The Commerce Clause; The
Expanding Economic Vista". New York Times Magazine. Retrieved October
27, 2009.
^ FDCH e-Media (January 10, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court". The
Washington Post. Retrieved October 30, 2009. I don't think there's any
question at this point in our history that Congress' power under the
commerce clause is quite broad, and I think that reflects a number of
things, including the way in which our economy and our society has
developed and all of the foreign and interstate activity that takes
place – Samuel Alito
^ Cohen, Adam (December 7, 2003). "Editorial Observer; Brandeis's
Views on States' Rights, and Ice-Making, Have New Relevance". The New
York Times. Retrieved October 30, 2009. But Brandeis's dissent
contains one of the most famous formulations in American law: that the
states should be free to serve as laboratories of democracy
^ Graglia, Lino (July 19, 2005). "Altering 14th Amendment would curb
court's activist tendencies". University of Texas School of Law.
Archived from the original on December 4, 2010. Retrieved October 23,
2009.
^ Hornberger, Jacob C. (October 30, 2009). "Freedom and the Fourteenth
Amendment". The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved October 30,
2009. Fourteenth Amendment. Some argue that it is detrimental to the
cause of freedom because it expands the power of the federal
government. Others contend that the amendment expands the ambit of
individual liberty. I fall among those who believe that the Fourteenth
Amendment has been a positive force for freedom.
^ James Vicini (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore
ruling". Reuters. Retrieved October 23, 2009. The nine-member Supreme
Court conducts its deliberations in secret and the justices
traditionally won't discuss pending cases in public
^ a b c Margolick, David (September 23, 2007). "Meet the Supremes".
The New York Times. Retrieved October 23, 2009. Beat reporters and
academics initially denounced the court's involvement in that case,
its hastiness to enter the political thicket and the half-baked and
strained decision that resulted.
^ "Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy".
PublicMind.fdu.edu. March 9, 2010. Retrieved December 14, 2010.
^ Mauro, Tony (March 9, 2010). "Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras
at the High Court". The National Law Journal. Retrieved December 18,
2010.
^ a b c "C-SPAN Supreme Court Week". CSPAN. October 4, 2009. Retrieved
October 25, 2009.
^ James Vicini (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore
ruling". Reuters. Retrieved October 23, 2009. Scalia was interviewed
for the CBS News show "60 Minutes
^ David G. Savage (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore?
What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?". Los Angeles Times.
Archived from the original on October 23, 2008. Retrieved October 23,
2009. UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as
'utterly lacking in any legal principle" and added that the court was
"remarkably unashamed to say so explicitly.'
^ McConnell, Michael W. (June 1, 2001). "Two-and-a-Half Cheers for
Bush v Gore". University of
Chicago
Chicago Law Review. Retrieved February 16,
2016.
^ CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl) (July 14, 2009). "Key Excerpt:
Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 23,
2009. Many critics saw the
Bush v. Gore
Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the
judiciary improperly injecting itself into a political dispute"
^ Adam Cohen (Opinion section) (March 21, 2004). "Justice Rehnquist
Writes on Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore". The New
York Times. Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved
October 23, 2009. The
Bush v. Gore
Bush v. Gore majority, made up of Mr. Rehnquist
and his fellow conservatives, interpreted the equal protection clause
in a sweeping way they had not before, and have not since. And they
stated that the interpretation was 'limited to the present
circumstances,' words that suggest a raw exercise of power, not legal
analysis.
^ Kevin McNamara (letter to the editor) (June 3, 2009). "Letters –
Supreme Court Activism?". The New York Times. Retrieved October 23,
2009.
^ CQ Transcriptions (January 13, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme
Court". The Washington Post. Retrieved October 28, 2009. ...Baker v.
Carr, the reapportionment case. We heard Justice Frankfurter who
delivered a scathing dissent in that...
^
Linda Greenhouse
Linda Greenhouse (September 10, 2007). "New Focus on the Effects of
Life Tenure". The New York Times. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
^ Levinson, Sanford (February 9, 2009). "
Supreme court
Supreme court prognosis –
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US
supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms". The Guardian.
Manchester. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
^ See also Arthur D. Hellman, "Reining in the Supreme Court: Are Term
Limits the Answer?", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds.,
Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina
Academic Press, 2006), p. 291.
^ Richard Epstein, "Mandatory
Retirement
Retirement for Supreme Court Justices",
in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court:
Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press,
2006), p. 415.
^ Brian Opeskin, Models of Judicial Tenure: Reconsidering Life Limits,
Age Limits and Term Limits for Judges, Oxford J Legal Studies 2015 35:
627–663.
^
Alexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton (June 14, 1788). "The Federalist No. 78".
Independent Journal. Retrieved October 28, 2009. and that as nothing
can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency
in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an
indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure,
as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
^ O'Brien, Reity (June 20, 2014). "Justice Obscured: Supreme court
justices earn quarter-million in cash on the side". Center for Public
Integrity.
^ a b Lipton, Eric (February 26, 2016). "Scalia Took Dozens of Trips
Funded by Private Sponsors". The New York Times.
^ Berman, Mark; Markon, Jerry (February 17, 2016). "Why Justice Scalia
was staying for free at a Texas resort". The Washington Post.
Bibliography[edit]
Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 vols.,
Detroit [etc.] : Macmillan Reference USA, 2008
The Rules of the Supreme Court of the
United States
United States (2013 ed.) (PDF).
Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly's Guide
to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly.
ISBN 1-56802-130-5
Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court
of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
Hall, Kermit L.; McGuire, Kevin T., eds. (2005). Institutions of
American Democracy: The Judicial Branch. New York, New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530917-1.
Harvard Law Review
Harvard Law Review Assn., (2000). The Bluebook: A Uniform System of
Citation, 17th ed. [18th ed., 2005. ISBN 978-600-01-4329-9]
Irons, Peter. (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New
York: Viking Press. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
Rehnquist, William. (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf. ISBN 0-375-40943-2.
Skifos, Catherine Hetos. (1976)."The Supreme Court Gets a Home",
Supreme Court Historical Society 1976 Yearbook. [in 1990, renamed The
Journal of Supreme Court History (ISSN 1059-4329)]
Warren, Charles. (1924). The Supreme Court in
United States
United States History.
(3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Woodward, Bob and Armstrong, Scott. The Brethren: Inside the Supreme
Court (1979). ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9.
Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (PDF).
Retrieved February 13, 2008.
Further reading[edit]
Abraham, Henry J. (1992). Justices and Presidents: A Political History
of Appointments to the Supreme Court (1st ed.). New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19-506557-3.
Beard, Charles A. (1912). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New
York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted Dover Publications, 2006.
ISBN 0-486-44779-0.
Corley, Pamela C.; Steigerwalt, Amy; Ward, Artemus. (2013). The Puzzle
of Unanimity: Consensus on the
United States
United States Supreme Court. Stanford
University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8472-6.
Cushman, Barry. (1998). Rethinking the
New Deal
New Deal Court. Oxford
University Press.
Cushman, Clare (2001). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated
Biographies, 1789–1995 (2nd ed.). (Supreme Court Historical Society,
Congressional Quarterly
Congressional Quarterly Books). ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Frank, John P. (1995). Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L., eds. The
Justices of the
United States
United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major
Opinions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Garner, Bryan A. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed.
Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
Greenburg, Jan Crawford, Jan. (2007). Supreme Conflict: The Inside
Story of the Struggle for Control for the
United States
United States Supreme Court.
New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-101-1.
Martin, Fenton S.; Goehlert, Robert U. (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court:
A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly
Congressional Quarterly Books.
ISBN 0-87187-554-3.
McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). The American Supreme Court. 4th ed.
Chicago: University of
Chicago
Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55682-4.
O'Brien, David M. (2008). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American
Politics (8th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN 0-393-93218-4.
Spaeth, Harold J. (1979). Supreme Court Policy Making: Explanation and
Prediction (3rd ed.). New York: W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd.
ISBN 978-0-7167-1012-7.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme
Court. Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
Urofsky, Melvin and Finkelman, Paul. (2001). A March of Liberty: A
Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19-512637-8 &
ISBN 0-19-512635-1.
Urofsky, Melvin I. (1994). The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical
Dictionary. New York: Garland Publishing. p. 590.
ISBN 0-8153-1176-1.
Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (PDF).
Retrieved February 13, 2008.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Supreme Court of the United
States.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Supreme Court of the United
States
Wikisource
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Supreme Court of the United States
Listen to this article (info/dl)
This audio file was created from a revision of the article "Supreme
Court of the United States" dated 2006-08-05, and does not reflect
subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles
Official website
Supreme Court decisions from World Legal Information Institution
(contains no advertisements)
Supreme Court Collection from the Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court Opinions from FindLaw
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (v. 1+) from Justia, Oyez and U.S. Court
Forms
Supreme Court Records and Briefs from Cornell Law Library
Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History from InfoPlease
Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789
Scales of Justice: The History of Supreme Court Nominations –
Radio program explores history of appointments and confirmations
Supreme Court Historical Society
Complete/Searchable 1991–2004 Opinions and Orders
The Supreme Court Database A research database with information about
cases from 1946 to 2011
The Oyez Project – audio recordings of oral arguments
"U.S. Supreme Court collected news and commentary". The New York
Times.
U.S. Supreme Court collected news and commentary at The Washington
Post
C-SPAN's The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court
Supreme Court Briefs Hosted by the American Bar Association
Works by Supreme Court of the
United States
United States at Project Gutenberg
Works by or about Supreme Court of the
United States
United States at Internet
Archive
Works by Supreme Court of the
United States
United States at
LibriVox
LibriVox (public domain
audiobooks)
v
t
e
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court
Lists of cases
Procedures
Supreme Court Building
Court demographics
Ideological leanings
Appointment and confirmation
Current members
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Retired Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter
Current nominations
No vacancies
History
Jay Court
.jpg/340px-John_Jay_(Gilbert_Stuart_portrait).jpg)
Jay Court (1789–1795)
Rutledge Court
Rutledge Court (1795)
Ellsworth Court
Ellsworth Court (1796–1800)
Marshall Court
Marshall Court (1801–1835)
Taney Court
Taney Court (1836–1864)
Chase Court
.jpg/340px-Mathew_Brady,_Portrait_of_Secretary_of_the_Treasury_Salmon_P._Chase,_officer_of_the_United_States_government_(1860–1865).jpg)
Chase Court (1864–1873)
Waite Court
Waite Court (1874–1888]
Fuller Court
Fuller Court (1888–1910)
White Court (1910–1921)
Taft Court
Taft Court (1921–1930)
Hughes Court
Hughes Court (1930–1941)
Stone Court (1941–1946)
Vinson Court
Vinson Court (1946–1953)
Warren Court
Warren Court (1953–1969)
Burger Court
Burger Court (1969–1986)
Rehnquist Court
Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
Roberts Court
Roberts Court (2005–present)
Lists of justices
and nominees
Chief justices
Associate justices
All justices
court
seat
education
time in office
timelines
Justices who served in Congress
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations near end of presidency
Statutes affecting
Court size
Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1801
Judiciary Act of 1802
Seventh Circuit Act of 1807
Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837
Tenth Circuit Act of 1863
Judicial Circuits Act
Judicial Circuits Act of 1866
Judiciary Act of 1869
Court functionaries
Clerk
Marshal
Supreme Court Police
Reporter of Decisions
Lists of law clerks
Chief Justice
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 3
Seat 4
Seat 6
Seat 8
Seat 9
Seat 10
All
Former locations
Old City Hall, Philadelphia
Old Supreme Court Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Old Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Related
United States
United States Solicitor General
United States
United States Reports
Lawyers' Edition
Amicus curiae
Article III, U.S. Constitution
Original jurisdiction
Burial places of justices
The Court in fiction
Other countries
Law Portal
Links to related articles
v
t
e
Supreme Courts of North America
Sovereign states
Antigua and Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
Belize
Canada
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Grenada
Guatemala
Haiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico
Nicaragua
Panama
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad and Tobago
United States
v
t
e
Chief Justices of the United States
John Jay
.jpg/440px-John_Jay_(Gilbert_Stuart_portrait).jpg)
John Jay (1789–1795; cases)
John Rutledge
John Rutledge (1795; cases)
Oliver Ellsworth
Oliver Ellsworth (1796–1800; cases)
John Marshall
John Marshall (1801–1835; cases)
Roger B. Taney
Roger B. Taney (1836–1864; cases)
Salmon P. Chase
.jpg/440px-Mathew_Brady,_Portrait_of_Secretary_of_the_Treasury_Salmon_P._Chase,_officer_of_the_United_States_government_(1860–1865).jpg)
Salmon P. Chase (1864–1873; cases)
Morrison Waite
Morrison Waite (1874–1888; cases)
Melville Fuller
Melville Fuller (1888–1910; cases)
Edward Douglass White
Edward Douglass White (1910–1921; cases)
William Howard Taft
William Howard Taft (1921–1930; cases)
Charles Evans Hughes
Charles Evans Hughes (1930–1941; cases)
Harlan F. Stone
Harlan F. Stone (1941–1946; cases)
Fred M. Vinson
Fred M. Vinson (1946–1953; cases)
Earl Warren
Earl Warren (1953–1969; cases)
Warren E. Burger
Warren E. Burger (1969–1986; cases)
William Rehnquist
William Rehnquist (1986–2005; cases)
John Roberts
John Roberts (2005–present; cases)
v
t
e
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
Chief Justice
Jay
J. Rutledge
Ellsworth
J. Marshall
Taney
S. P. Chase
Waite
Fuller
E. White
Taft
Hughes
Stone
Vinson
Warren
Burger
Rehnquist
J. Roberts
Seat 1
J. Rutledge
T. Johnson
Paterson
Livingston
Thompson
Nelson
Hunt
Blatchford
E. White
Van Devanter
Black
Powell
Kennedy
Seat 2
Cushing
Story
Woodbury
Curtis
Clifford
Gray
Holmes
Cardozo
Frankfurter
Goldberg
Fortas
Blackmun
Breyer
Seat 3
Wilson
Washington
Baldwin
Grier
Strong
Woods
L. Lamar
H. Jackson
Peckham
Lurton
McReynolds
Byrnes
W. Rutledge
Minton
Brennan
Souter
Sotomayor
Seat 4
Blair
S. Chase
Duvall
Barbour
Daniel
Miller
Brown
Moody
J. Lamar
Brandeis
Douglas
Stevens
Kagan
Seat 5
Iredell
Moore
W. Johnson
Wayne
Seat 6
Todd
Trimble
McLean
Swayne
Matthews
Brewer
Hughes
Clarke
Sutherland
Reed
Whittaker
White
Ginsburg
Seat 7
Catron
Seat 8
McKinley
Campbell
Davis
Harlan
Pitney
Sanford
O. Roberts
Burton
Stewart
O'Connor
Alito
Seat 9
Field
McKenna
Stone
R. Jackson
Harlan II
Rehnquist
Scalia
Gorsuch
Seat 10
Bradley
Shiras
Day
Butler
Murphy
Clark
T. Marshall
Thomas
Note: Seats 5 and 7 are defunct
v
t
e
Highest judicial bodies in the United States
Federal court
Supreme Court of the United States
1st Cir.
2nd Cir.
3rd Cir.
4th Cir.
5th Cir.
6th Cir.
7th Cir.
8th Cir.
9th Cir.
10th Cir.
11th Cir.
DC Cir.
Fed. Cir.
Armed Forces
State supreme courts
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma: (Civil) (Criminal)
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas: (Civil) (Criminal)
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Territorial supreme courts
American Samoa
District of Columbia
Guam
Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
United States
United States Virgin Islands
Obsolete
Panama Canal Zone
Philippine Islands
Complete list
Courts of the
United States
United States (Federal and state, all levels)
v
t
e
United States
United States Military Judicial Authority
Military justice
Law of the United States
Authority
United States
United States Constitution, Article I
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
Standards
Manual for Courts-Martial
Convening authority (court-martial)
Judge Advocate General's Corps (JAG)
Army
Judge Advocate General's Corps, Army (Army JAG)
Marine Corps
Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division
Navy
Judge Advocate General's Corps, Navy (Navy JAG)
Air Force
Judge Advocate General's Corps, Air Force
Coast Guard
Coast Guard Legal Division
Non-judicial punishment
UCMJ Article 15
Military tribunals in the United States
Court systems
Trial
Courts-martial
Guantanamo military commissions
Appeal
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Court of Military Commission Review
Discretionary
review
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Supreme Court
v
t
e
Law of the United States
Constitutional law
Federalism
Separation of powers
Civil rights
Courts of the
United States
Federal courts
Supreme (SCOTUS)
Appeals
District (list)
Bankruptcy
Claims
International Trade
Tax
State courts
State supreme
Education
Law school
Law School Admission Test
Admission to the bar
v
t
e
United States articles
History
By event
Timeline of U.S. history
Pre-Columbian era
Colonial era
Thirteen Colonies
military history
Continental Congress
American Revolution
War
American frontier
Confederation Period
Drafting and ratification of Constitution
Federalist Era
War of 1812
Territorial acquisitions
Territorial evolution
Mexican–American War
Civil War
Reconstruction Era
Indian Wars
Gilded Age
Progressive Era
African-American civil rights movement 1865–1896 /
1896–1954 / 1954–1968
Spanish–American War
Imperialism
World War I
Roaring Twenties
Great Depression
World War II
home front
Nazism in the United States
American Century
Cold War
Korean War
Space Race
Feminist Movement
Vietnam War
Post-
Cold War
Cold War (1991–2008)
War on Terror
War in Afghanistan
Iraq War
Recent events (2008–present)
By topic
Outline of U.S. history
Demographic
Discoveries
Economic
debt ceiling
Inventions
before 1890
1890–1945
1946–91
after 1991
Military
Postal
Technological and industrial
Geography
Territory
counties
federal district
federal enclaves
Indian reservations
insular zones
minor outlying islands
populated places
states
Earthquakes
Extreme points
Islands
Mountains
peaks
ranges
Appalachian
Rocky
National Park Service
National Parks
Regions
East Coast
West Coast
Great Plains
Gulf
Mid-Atlantic
Midwestern
New England
Pacific
Central
Eastern
Northern
Northeastern
Northwestern
Southern
Southeastern
Southwestern
Western
Rivers
Colorado
Columbia
Mississippi
Missouri
Ohio
Rio Grande
Yukon
Time
Water supply and sanitation
Politics
Federal
Executive
Cabinet
Civil service
Executive departments
Executive Office
Independent agencies
Law enforcement
President of the United States
Public policy
Legislative
House of Representatives
current members
Speaker
Senate
current members
President pro tempore
Vice President
Judicial
Courts of appeals
District courts
Supreme Court
Law
Bill of Rights
civil liberties
Code of Federal Regulations
Constitution
federalism
preemption
separation of powers
Federal Reporter
United States
United States Code
United States
United States Reports
Intelligence
Central Intelligence Agency
Defense Intelligence Agency
Federal Bureau of Investigation
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
National Reconnaissance Office
National Security Agency
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Uniformed
Armed Forces
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Air Force
Coast Guard
National Guard
NOAA Corps
Public Health Service Corps
51st state
political status of Puerto Rico
District of Columbia statehood movement
Elections
Electoral College
Foreign relations
Foreign policy
Hawaiian sovereignty movement
Ideologies
anti-Americanism
exceptionalism
nationalism
Local government
Parties
Democratic
Republican
Third parties
Red states and blue states
Purple America
Scandals
State government
governor
state legislature
state court
Uncle Sam
Economy
By sector
Agriculture
Banking
Communications
Energy
Insurance
Manufacturing
Mining
Tourism
Trade
Transportation
Companies
by state
Currency
Exports
Federal budget
Federal Reserve System
Financial position
Labor unions
Public debt
Social welfare programs
Taxation
Unemployment
Wall Street
Society
Culture
Americana
Architecture
Cinema
Cuisine
Dance
Demography
Education
Family structure
Fashion
Flag
Folklore
Languages
American English
Indigenous languages
ASL
Black American Sign Language
HSL
Plains Sign Talk
Arabic
Chinese
French
German
Italian
Russian
Spanish
Literature
Media
Journalism
Internet
Newspapers
Radio
Television
Music
Names
People
Philosophy
Public holidays
Religion
Sexuality
Sports
Theater
Visual art
Social class
Affluence
American Dream
Educational attainment
Homelessness
Home-ownership
Household income
Income inequality
Middle class
Personal income
Poverty
Professional and working class conflict
Standard of living
Wealth
Issues
Ages of consent
Capital punishment
Crime
incarceration
Criticism of government
Discrimination
affirmative action
antisemitism
intersex rights
islamophobia
LGBT rights
racism
same-sex marriage
Drug policy
Energy policy
Environmental movement
Gun politics
Health care
abortion
health insurance
hunger
obesity
smoking
Human rights
Immigration
illegal
International rankings
National security
Mass surveillance
Terrorism
Separation of church and state
Outline
Index
Bo