SUPREME COURT
What is Supreme Court
Court and Constitution – Article III
- Section 1: Judicial power of US is in one SC, judges both of supreme and interior courts shall hold their offices
during good behaviour and shall receive a compensation
- Section 2: Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under constitution, SC shall have
original jurisdiction
SC and Constitution
- Judges are appointed by the president, must be confirmed by a simple majority vote in senate, once appointed
and confirmed, judges hold office for life
- Members of SC can be removed only through impeachment process, house must impeach a justice by a simple
majority and senate must then try that justice
- No SC justice has ever been fully impeached
Below the SC are 13 courts of appeals (circuit courts) below those are 94 trail courts known as district courts, vast majority
of federal cases begin in district courts
- Once the case has been decided there, may be appealed to one of circuit courts from here to the US SC
- Cases may also arrive at the US SC from the state SC, if questions involving state laws or governments are raised
- No automatic right to have one’s case heard before the US SC -> only those cases that it decides are of major
constitutional significance
Marbury v Madison 1803
- Marbury was the last of Adams’ judicial appointments and he did not receive official confirmation of his post
before Jefferson assumed office
- SC found in favour of Marbury, but in doing so discovered that the Judiciary Act prevented the court from having
jurisdiction to force Madison to honour the appointment
- Judicial review is not mentioned in constitution and SC effectively found the power for itself in this landmark case
- Effectively granted the SC judicial review over all federal issues
Fletcher v Peck 1810
- First time SC ruled against a state law, extending he power of judicial review to state law as well as federal law
- Rejected Fletcher’s argument that ‘sovereign power’ lay with Georgia to repeal the law, ruling the repeal of 1795
grant by Georgia state legislature was unconstitutional
Key Power -> Judicial Review
- Power of the SCOTUS to rule on whether a federal or a state law or the actions of any branch of the government
are unconstitutional
- Effectively makes the law ‘null and void’, so is struck down/no longer enforceable
Court independence
- Protected salary
- Approval
, - Separation
- Experts
- Appointments
- Vacancies
COURT INDEPENDENT NOT INDEPENDENT
Court remained with 9 members since 1989, consistent Congress retains power to alter composition of SC, undermines
structure has prevented other government branches from independence of SC by increasing number of judges allied to gov,
attempting to pack court with allies Roosevelt, trying to overcome New deal legislation opposition
SC justice is guaranteed the role for life (once granted position), Members of court, only be removed via impeachment, simple
can’t be dismissed if president disagrees with decisions, salary majority impeach, removed with 2/3 majority
protected, allows justice’s autonomy and independence - Could be used as a political weapon
- No fear of reprisal from executive or legislature
Separation of powers, gives SC constitutional independence SC lacks enforcement powers, 1957, governor used local militia
while judicial review allows court to check power of president to forcibly prevent black children from entering high school
and congress - Only on instruction of Eisenhower that federal troops
allowed black children into school
American Bar Association (ABA), interest group made up of ABA independence and neutrality has come into question, 2015
professional lawyers, ABA rates suitability of justice nominations research suggested that female and BMA nominees are more
and their understanding likely to receive lower ratings
- Non-political quality control mechanism on nominations - Black American justice Clarence Thomas only deemed
‘qualified’
Justices have gone on to disappoint their political patrons who All SC justices are nominated by president, then confirmed by
originally proposed and voted them into the post simple majority in senate
- Elected politicians at heart of choosing composition of
court
SC Justice’s Decisions
SC ‘eras’ are usually named after who is the chief justice, since 2005, known as the ‘Roberts’ court and seen as more
conservative than previous courts (trump appointments)
- Warren court: 1953-69, more ‘liberal’ opinions to protect peoples’ rights, for some causing a ‘constitutional
revolution, landmark cases Brown v Board of education
- Rehnquist Court; 1986-2005, more restrained, heard less cases than previous courts and often seen as defending
states’ rights from expansion of federal law, landmark cases Texas v Johnson, Bush v Gore
Between 2000 and 2018, unanimous decision was more likely than any other result, averaging 36% of all decisions
- Even when court did not reach a unanimous judgement, justices often secured overwhelming majorities
- 5-4 decisions occurred in only 19% of the cases
Evaluating the swing justice
- Kennedy’s role as the swing justice in Roberts Court underestimates the role of the other swing justice in court
- Before 2012 election, Roberts who sided with 4 liberal justices to uphold the key provision of affordable care act
- Roberts argued, constitutionally acceptable as the federal requirement to purchase healthcare on penalty of a
fine was deemed to be equivalent to a form of tax
- 2020, 3 crucial cases, saw Roberts side with the 4 liberal justices, cases involved:
Job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers
Programme protecting young undocumented immigrants known as dreamers
Abortion, where court struck down a very restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, would leave state with just
one abortion clinic
Criticisms of Roberts
What is Supreme Court
Court and Constitution – Article III
- Section 1: Judicial power of US is in one SC, judges both of supreme and interior courts shall hold their offices
during good behaviour and shall receive a compensation
- Section 2: Judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under constitution, SC shall have
original jurisdiction
SC and Constitution
- Judges are appointed by the president, must be confirmed by a simple majority vote in senate, once appointed
and confirmed, judges hold office for life
- Members of SC can be removed only through impeachment process, house must impeach a justice by a simple
majority and senate must then try that justice
- No SC justice has ever been fully impeached
Below the SC are 13 courts of appeals (circuit courts) below those are 94 trail courts known as district courts, vast majority
of federal cases begin in district courts
- Once the case has been decided there, may be appealed to one of circuit courts from here to the US SC
- Cases may also arrive at the US SC from the state SC, if questions involving state laws or governments are raised
- No automatic right to have one’s case heard before the US SC -> only those cases that it decides are of major
constitutional significance
Marbury v Madison 1803
- Marbury was the last of Adams’ judicial appointments and he did not receive official confirmation of his post
before Jefferson assumed office
- SC found in favour of Marbury, but in doing so discovered that the Judiciary Act prevented the court from having
jurisdiction to force Madison to honour the appointment
- Judicial review is not mentioned in constitution and SC effectively found the power for itself in this landmark case
- Effectively granted the SC judicial review over all federal issues
Fletcher v Peck 1810
- First time SC ruled against a state law, extending he power of judicial review to state law as well as federal law
- Rejected Fletcher’s argument that ‘sovereign power’ lay with Georgia to repeal the law, ruling the repeal of 1795
grant by Georgia state legislature was unconstitutional
Key Power -> Judicial Review
- Power of the SCOTUS to rule on whether a federal or a state law or the actions of any branch of the government
are unconstitutional
- Effectively makes the law ‘null and void’, so is struck down/no longer enforceable
Court independence
- Protected salary
- Approval
, - Separation
- Experts
- Appointments
- Vacancies
COURT INDEPENDENT NOT INDEPENDENT
Court remained with 9 members since 1989, consistent Congress retains power to alter composition of SC, undermines
structure has prevented other government branches from independence of SC by increasing number of judges allied to gov,
attempting to pack court with allies Roosevelt, trying to overcome New deal legislation opposition
SC justice is guaranteed the role for life (once granted position), Members of court, only be removed via impeachment, simple
can’t be dismissed if president disagrees with decisions, salary majority impeach, removed with 2/3 majority
protected, allows justice’s autonomy and independence - Could be used as a political weapon
- No fear of reprisal from executive or legislature
Separation of powers, gives SC constitutional independence SC lacks enforcement powers, 1957, governor used local militia
while judicial review allows court to check power of president to forcibly prevent black children from entering high school
and congress - Only on instruction of Eisenhower that federal troops
allowed black children into school
American Bar Association (ABA), interest group made up of ABA independence and neutrality has come into question, 2015
professional lawyers, ABA rates suitability of justice nominations research suggested that female and BMA nominees are more
and their understanding likely to receive lower ratings
- Non-political quality control mechanism on nominations - Black American justice Clarence Thomas only deemed
‘qualified’
Justices have gone on to disappoint their political patrons who All SC justices are nominated by president, then confirmed by
originally proposed and voted them into the post simple majority in senate
- Elected politicians at heart of choosing composition of
court
SC Justice’s Decisions
SC ‘eras’ are usually named after who is the chief justice, since 2005, known as the ‘Roberts’ court and seen as more
conservative than previous courts (trump appointments)
- Warren court: 1953-69, more ‘liberal’ opinions to protect peoples’ rights, for some causing a ‘constitutional
revolution, landmark cases Brown v Board of education
- Rehnquist Court; 1986-2005, more restrained, heard less cases than previous courts and often seen as defending
states’ rights from expansion of federal law, landmark cases Texas v Johnson, Bush v Gore
Between 2000 and 2018, unanimous decision was more likely than any other result, averaging 36% of all decisions
- Even when court did not reach a unanimous judgement, justices often secured overwhelming majorities
- 5-4 decisions occurred in only 19% of the cases
Evaluating the swing justice
- Kennedy’s role as the swing justice in Roberts Court underestimates the role of the other swing justice in court
- Before 2012 election, Roberts who sided with 4 liberal justices to uphold the key provision of affordable care act
- Roberts argued, constitutionally acceptable as the federal requirement to purchase healthcare on penalty of a
fine was deemed to be equivalent to a form of tax
- 2020, 3 crucial cases, saw Roberts side with the 4 liberal justices, cases involved:
Job discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers
Programme protecting young undocumented immigrants known as dreamers
Abortion, where court struck down a very restrictive abortion law in Louisiana, would leave state with just
one abortion clinic
Criticisms of Roberts
