View source for Supreme Court of the United States

{{Short description|Highest court of jurisdiction in the US}}
{{Use American English|date=September 2020}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=March 2024}}
{{Infobox high court
| court_name = Supreme Court of the United States
| image = Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
| imagesize = 150px
| established = {{Start date and age|1789|3|4}}<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Lawson|first1=Gary|author-link1=Gary S. Lawson|last2=Seidman|first2=Guy|title=When Did the Constitution Become Law?|journal=Notre Dame Law Review|volume=77|pages=1–37|year=2001|url=http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol77/iss1/1/|access-date=October 23, 2017 |archive-date=October 26, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201026010025/https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol77/iss1/1/|url-status=live}}</ref>
| location = 1 First Street, [[Northeast (Washington, D.C.)|NE]], [[Washington, D.C.]], U.S.
| coordinates = {{Coord|38|53|26|N|77|00|16|W|display=inline,title}}
| type = [[President of the United States|Presidential]] nomination with [[United States Senate|Senate]] [[advice and consent|confirmation]]
| authority = [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]
| terms = [[#Tenure|Life tenure]]
| positions = 9, [[Judiciary Act of 1869 |by statute]]
| website = {{URL|https://supremecourt.gov}}
| motto = 
| chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
| chiefjudgename = [[John Roberts]]
| termstart = [[John Roberts Supreme Court nominations|September 29, 2005]]
}}

The '''Supreme Court of the United States''' ('''SCOTUS''') is the [[highest court]] in the [[federal judiciary of the United States]]. It has ultimate [[appellate jurisdiction]] over all [[Federal tribunals in the United States|U.S. federal court]] cases, and over [[State court (United States)|state court]] cases that turn on questions of [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. constitutional]] or [[Law of the United States|federal law]]. It also has [[Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States|original jurisdiction]] over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party."<ref>U.S. Constitution, [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Original and appellate jurisdiction|Article III, Section 2]]. This was narrowed by the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eleventh Amendment]] to exclude suits against states that are brought by persons who are not citizens of that state.</ref> In 1803, the Court asserted itself the power of [[Judicial review in the United States|judicial review]], the ability to invalidate a [[statute]] for violating a provision of the Constitution via the landmark case [[Marbury v Madison|''Marbury v Madison'']]. It is also able to strike down [[presidential directive]]s for violating either the Constitution or [[statutory law]].<ref name=":0" />

Under [[Article Three of the United States Constitution]], the composition and procedures of the Supreme Court were originally established by the [[1st United States Congress|1st Congress]] through the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]]. As it has since 1869, the court consists of nine justices{{Snd}} the [[chief justice of the United States]] and eight [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|associate justices]]{{Snd}} who meet at the [[United States Supreme Court Building|Supreme Court Building]] in [[Washington, D.C.]] Justices have [[lifetime tenure]], meaning they remain on the court until they die, retire, resign, or are [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeached]] and removed from office.<ref name=":0">{{cite web |last=Turley |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Turley |title=Essays on Article III: Good Behavior Clause |url=https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause |work=Heritage Guide to the Constitution |publisher=[[The Heritage Foundation]] |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-date=August 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200822232208/https://www.heritage.org/constitution/%23!/amendments/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishment#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause |url-status=live}}</ref> When a vacancy occurs, the [[President of the United States|president]], with the [[Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States|advice and consent]] of the [[United States Senate|Senate]], appoints a new justice. Each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases argued before the court. When in the majority, the chief justice decides who writes the [[opinion of the court]]; otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the task of writing the opinion.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Procedures {{!}} United States Courts |url=https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1 |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=www.uscourts.gov |language=en}}</ref>

On average, the Supreme Court receives about 7,000 petitions for [[writs of certiorari]] each year, but only grants about 80.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Supreme Court Procedure |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/supreme-court-procedure/ |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=SCOTUSblog |language=en-US}}</ref>

==History==
{{main|History of the Supreme Court of the United States}}

[[File:The-Old-Royal-Exchange-building.jpg|thumb|left|upright=.85|200px|The Royal Exchange, New York City, the first meeting place of the Supreme Court]]
[[File:Old City Hall-Supreme Court Front.jpg|thumb|left|200px|alt=Image of two-story brick building.|The court lacked its own building until 1935. From 1791 to 1801, it met in Philadelphia's [[Old City Hall (Philadelphia)|City Hall]], before moving to the [[United States Capitol|Capitol Building]] in Washington, D.C.]]
It was while debating the [[separation of powers]] between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|1787 Constitutional Convention]] established the parameters for the [[judicial branch|national judiciary]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Constitutional Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Talking Points {{!}} Federal Judicial Center |url=https://www.fjc.gov/history/talking/teaching-and-civic-outreach-resources-constitutional-origins-federal-judiciary-3 |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=www.fjc.gov}}</ref> Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}; in the English tradition, judicial matters had been treated as an aspect of [[Executive (government)|royal (executive) authority.]] Early on, the delegates who were opposed to having a [[Federal government|strong central government]] argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including [[James Madison]], advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of tribunals chosen by the national legislature. It was proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive's power to [[veto]] or revise laws.{{Citation needed|date=February 2024}}

Eventually, the [[Framers of the Constitution|framers]] compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary in [[Article Three of the United States Constitution]], vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Historical Background on Establishment of Article III Courts |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/historical-background-on-establishment-of-article-iii-courts |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en}}</ref> They delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the judicial branch as a whole.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Avalon Project : Federalist No 47 |url=https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed47.asp |access-date=2024-10-20 |website=avalon.law.yale.edu}}</ref>

The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal [[judiciary]] through the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]]. The Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the [[Capital city|nation's capital]] and would initially be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices. The act also divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold [[circuit court]] twice a year in their assigned judicial district.<ref name=SCinstitution>{{cite web |title=The Court as an Institution |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-date=December 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207145700/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx |url-status=live}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

Immediately after signing the act into law, President [[George Washington]] nominated the following people to serve on the court: [[John Jay]] for chief justice and [[John Rutledge]], [[William Cushing]], [[Robert H. Harrison]], [[James Wilson (Founding Father)|James Wilson]], and [[John Blair Jr.]] as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789; however, Harrison declined to serve, and Washington later nominated [[James Iredell]] in his place.<ref name=SCnoms>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Nominations: present–1789 |url=https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm |publisher=Office of the Secretary, United States Senate |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-date=December 9, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209085119/https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm |url-status=live}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}

The Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the [[Royal Exchange (New York City)|Royal Exchange]] in New York City, then the U.S. capital.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hodak |first=George |title=February 2, 1790: Supreme Court Holds Inaugural Session |url=http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/february_2_1790_supreme_court_holds_inaugural_session/ |website=abajournal.com |publisher=[[American Bar Association]] |location=Chicago, Illinois |date=February 1, 2011 |access-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-date=December 3, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201203002353/https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/february_2_1790_supreme_court_holds_inaugural_session |url-status=live}}</ref> A second session was held there in August 1790.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pigott |first=Robert |title=New York's Legal Landmarks: A Guide to Legal Edifices, Institutions, Lore, History, and Curiosities on the City's Streets |year=2014 |publisher=Attorney Street Editions |location=New York |page=7 |isbn=978-0-61599-283-9}}</ref> The earliest sessions of the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791.<ref name=SCinstitution/> When the nation's capital was moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well. After initially meeting at [[Independence Hall]], the court established its [[barrister's chambers|chambers]] at City Hall.<ref name=SCbuilding>{{cite web |title=Building History |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildinghistory.aspx |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-date=December 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201205095102/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildinghistory.aspx |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Early beginnings===
{{main|Jay Court|Rutledge Court|Ellsworth Court|Marshall Court}}
[[File:Chief Justice John Marshall.jpeg|thumb|left|[[John Marshall]], chief justice from 1801 to 1835]]
Under chief justices Jay, Rutledge, and [[Oliver Ellsworth|Ellsworth]] (1789–1801), the court heard few cases; its first decision was ''[[West v. Barnes]]'' (1791), a case involving procedure.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf |title=Dates of Supreme Court decisions and arguments, United States Reports volumes 2–107 (1791–82) |last=Ashmore |first=Anne |date=August 2006 |publisher=Library, Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=April 26, 2009 |archive-date=July 23, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110723204125/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> As the court initially had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to two).<ref>{{cite journal |last=Shugerman |first=Jed |title=A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus and Deference on the Supreme Court |journal=[[Georgia Law Review]] |volume=37 |page=893}}</ref> However, Congress has always allowed less than the court's full membership to make decisions, starting with a [[quorum]] of four justices in 1789.<ref>Irons, Peter. ''A People's History of the Supreme Court'', p. 101 (Penguin 2006).</ref> The court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,<ref name="tws31oct01">{{cite news |year=1998 |editor=Gerber |editor-first=Scott Douglas |title=Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0tEkU5LiYsQC&pg=PA1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511112038/http://books.google.com/books?id=0tEkU5LiYsQC&pg=PA1 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |publisher=New York University Press |page=3 |isbn=0-8147-3114-7 |quote=Finally many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked prestige.}}</ref> a situation not helped by the era's highest-profile case, ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'' (1793), which was reversed within two years by the adoption of the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eleventh Amendment]].<ref>{{cite journal |last=Manning |first=John F. |year=2004 |title=The Eleventh Amendment and the Reading of Precise Constitutional Texts |journal=Yale Law Journal |volume=113 |issue=8 |pages=1663–1750 |doi=10.2307/4135780 |author-link=John F. Manning |jstor=4135780 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol113/iss8/1 |access-date=July 16, 2019 |archive-date=July 16, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190716011024/https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol113/iss8/1/ |url-status=live |issn = 0044-0094}}</ref>

The court's power and prestige grew substantially during the [[John Marshall|Marshall]] Court (1801–1835).<ref name=tws31oct02>{{cite news |first=Garrett |last=Epps |author-link=Garrett Epps |title=Don't Do It, Justices |quote=The court's prestige has been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=October 24, 2004 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56446-2004Oct23.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=November 26, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126212512/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56446-2004Oct23.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Under Marshall, the court established the power of [[Judicial review in the United States|judicial review]] over acts of Congress,<ref>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 and Great Britain.</ref> including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the [[Constitution of the United States|Constitution]] (''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'')<ref name=tws31oct05>{{cite news |first=Jeffrey |last=Rosen |author-link=Jeffrey Rosen (legal academic) |format=book review of ''Packing the Court'' by James MacGregor Burns |title=Black Robe Politics |quote=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 (1803): asserting a power to strike down unconstitutional laws. |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=July 5, 2009 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202033.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=August 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200814121507/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202033.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct09">{{cite news |url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page19.htm |title=The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America – Marbury v. Madison (1803) |work=[[U.S. News & World Report]] |year=2003 |quote=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. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20030920031130/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page19.htm |archive-date=September 20, 2003 |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the [[Balance of power (federalism)|balance of power]] between the federal government and states, notably ''[[Martin v. Hunter's Lessee]]'', ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'', and ''[[Gibbons v. Ogden]]''.<ref name=tws31oct03>{{cite news |first1=Cliff |last1=Sloan |author-link1=Cliff Sloan |first2=David |last2=McKean |title=Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters |quote=More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate. |work=Newsweek |date=February 21, 2009 |url=http://www.newsweek.com/id/185803 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=August 2, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090802063642/http://www.newsweek.com/id/185803 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct08">{{cite news |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1893/02/27/106861891.pdf |title=The Constitution in Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Supreme Court |date=February 27, 1893 |quote=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 ... |work=The New York Times |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=December 17, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201217003220/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1893/02/27/106861891.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct04">{{cite news |date=December 13, 2000 |title=Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore |url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm |quote=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). |author1-last=Ginsburg |author1-first=Ruth Bader |author1-link=Ruth Bader Ginsburg |author2-last=Stevens |author2-first=John P. |author2-link=John Paul Stevens |author3-last=Souter |author3-first=David |author3-link=David Souter |author4-last=Breyer |author4-first=Stephen |author4-link=Stephen Breyer |newspaper=[[USA Today]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100525001613/https://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm |archive-date=May 25, 2010 |access-date=December 8, 2019}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct06">{{cite news |url=https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/02/03/105757962.pdf |title=Decisions of the Supreme Court – Historic Decrees Issued in One Hundred and Eleven Years |date=February 3, 1901 |work=The New York Times |quote=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. |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=December 5, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201205132522/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1901/02/03/105757962.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion ''[[seriatim]]'',<ref name="tws31oct11">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A58066-2000Oct2&notFound=true |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110429054303/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A58066-2000Oct2&notFound=true |archive-date=April 29, 2011 |title=The Supreme Quiz |date=October 2, 2000 |quote=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. |newspaper=The Washington Post |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> a remnant of British tradition,<ref name="tws31oct10">{{cite news |url=https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/18/justice-stevens-on-the-death-penalty-a-promise-of-fairness-unfulfilled/ |title=Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled |last=Slater |first=Dan |date=April 18, 2008 |quote=The first Chief Justice, John Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in 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. |work=The Wall Street Journal |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=August 14, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200814121458/https://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/18/justice-stevens-on-the-death-penalty-a-promise-of-fairness-unfulfilled/ |url-status=live}}</ref> and instead issuing a single majority opinion.<ref name=tws31oct11/> Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the court's control, the impeachment and [[acquittal]] of Justice [[Samuel Chase]] from 1804 to 1805 helped cement the principle of [[judicial independence]].<ref name="tws31oct12">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867783,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219174136/http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867783,00.html |archive-date=December 19, 2008 |title=A Brief History of Impeachment |last=Suddath |first=Claire |date=December 19, 2008 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |quote=Congress tried the process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice 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. |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct13">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/us/rehnquist-joins-fray-on-rulings-defending-judicial-independence.html |title=Rehnquist Joins Fray on Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=April 10, 1996 |work=The New York Times |quote=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 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111352/http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/us/rehnquist-joins-fray-on-rulings-defending-judicial-independence.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

===From Taney to Taft===
{{main|Taney Court|Chase Court|Waite Court|Fuller Court|White Court (judges)|l5=White Court|Taft Court}}
The [[Roger B. Taney|Taney]] Court (1836–1864) 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.<ref name="tws31oct16">{{cite news |author1=Keynes |first=Edward |author-link1=Edward Keynes |author2=Miller |first2=Randall K. |year=1989 |title=The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_Ebb2wsxkF4C&pg=PA115 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511112043/http://books.google.com/books?id=_Ebb2wsxkF4C&pg=PA115 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |publisher=Duke University Press |isbn=0-8223-0968-8 |quote=(page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction.}}</ref> Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'',<ref name="tws31oct21">{{cite news |url=https://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/05/27/sotomayors-great-legal-mind-long-ago-defeated-race-gender-nonsense.html |title=Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense |last=Ifill |first=Sherrilyn A. |date=May 27, 2009 |work=U.S. News & World Report |quote=But his decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless existence within the 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 |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> which helped precipitate the American Civil War.<ref name=tws4494>{{cite book |last1=Irons |first1=Peter |title=A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution |publisher=Penguin Books |year=2006 |location=United States |pages=[https://archive.org/details/peopleshistoryof00iron_0/page/176 176–177] |quote=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) |isbn=978-0-14-303738-5 |url=https://archive.org/details/peopleshistoryof00iron_0/page/176}}</ref> In the [[Reconstruction era]], the [[Salmon P. Chase|Chase]], [[Morrison Waite|Waite]], and [[Melville Fuller|Fuller]] Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution<ref name=tws31oct06/> and developed the doctrine of [[substantive due process]] (''[[Lochner v. New York]]'';<ref name="tws31oct24">{{cite news |url=http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/libertyofk.htm |title=Liberty of Contract? |date=October 31, 2009 |publisher=Exploring Constitutional Conflicts |quote=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. |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091122031228/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/libertyofk.htm |archive-date=November 22, 2009}}</ref> ''[[Adair v. United States]]'').<ref name=tws31oct100>{{cite news |title=Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161 |quote=No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 – Decided: January 27, 1908 |publisher=Cornell University Law School |year=1908 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/208/161 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=April 24, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120424064132/http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/208/161 |url-status=live}}</ref> The size of the court was last changed in 1869, when it was set at nine.

Under the [[Edward Douglass White|White]] and [[William Howard Taft|Taft]] Courts (1910–1930), the court held that the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] had [[Incorporation (Bill of Rights)|incorporated]] some guarantees of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] against the states (''[[Gitlow v. New York]]''),<ref name="twsff4frj">{{cite book |last=Bodenhamer |first=David J. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=L-_9mFCeBSIC&pg=PA245 |title=The Bill of Rights in modern America |author2=Ely |first2=James W. |publisher=Indiana University Press |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-253-35159-3 |location=Bloomington, Indiana |page=245 |quote=… 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. |access-date=October 29, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201118001054/https://books.google.com/books?id=L-_9mFCeBSIC&pg=PA245 |archive-date=November 18, 2020 |url-status=live}}</ref> grappled with the new [[antitrust]] statutes (''[[Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States]]''), upheld the constitutionality of [[Conscription in the United States|military conscription]] (''[[Selective Draft Law Cases]]''),<ref>{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=366 |title=Opinion for the Court, Arver v. U.S. 245 U.S. 366 |first=Edward Douglass |last=White |author-link=Edward Douglass White |quote=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. |access-date=March 30, 2011 |archive-date=May 1, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501075034/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=366 |url-status=live}}</ref> and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]'').<ref name=tws31oct101>{{cite book |first=Bernard H. |last=Siegan |author-link=Bernard Siegan |title=The Supreme Court's Constitution |quote=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) |publisher=Transaction Publishers |year=1987 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XABdIe1foccC&pg=PA146 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |isbn=978-0-88738-671-8 |page=146 |archive-date=February 20, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210220161141/https://books.google.com/books?id=XABdIe1foccC&pg=PA146 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===New Deal era===
{{main|Hughes Court|Stone Court (judges)|l2=Stone Court|Vinson Court|Warren Court}}
[[File:Panorama of United States Supreme Court Building at Dusk.jpg|thumb|right|The [[United States Supreme Court Building|U.S. Supreme Court Building]], current home of the Supreme Court, which opened in 1935]]
[[File:Erich Salomon - The Supreme Court, 1937.jpg|thumb|alt=The Court seated|The [[Hughes Court]] in 1937, photographed by [[Erich Salomon]]. Members include Chief Justice [[Charles Evans Hughes]] (center), [[Louis Brandeis]], [[Benjamin N. Cardozo]], [[Harlan Stone]], [[Owen Roberts]], and the "[[Four Horsemen (Supreme Court)|Four Horsemen]]" [[Pierce Butler (justice)|Pierce Butler]], [[James Clark McReynolds]], [[George Sutherland]], and [[Willis Van Devanter]], who opposed New Deal policies.]]
During the [[Charles Evans Hughes|Hughes]], [[Harlan Fiske Stone|Stone]], and [[Fred M. Vinson|Vinson]] courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935<ref name=tws31oct>{{cite news |first=Joan |last=Biskupic |author-link=Joan Biskupic |title=Supreme Court gets makeover |quote=The building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 1935. |work=[[USA Today]] |url=https://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2005-03-28-high-court-makeover_x.htm |access-date=October 31, 2009 |date=March 29, 2005 |archive-date=June 5, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090605082031/http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2005-03-28-high-court-makeover_x.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[The switch in time that saved nine|changed its interpretation of the Constitution]], giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s [[New Deal]] (most prominently ''[[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish]], [[Wickard v. Filburn]]'', ''[[United States v. Darby]]'', and ''[[United States v. Butler]]'').<ref name="tws31oct103">{{cite news |author=Justice Roberts |first=John |date=September 21, 2005 |title=Responses of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/roberts/biden_responses.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150930002412/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/roberts/biden_responses.pdf |archive-date=September 30, 2015 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |newspaper=The Washington Post |quote=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.}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct107">{{cite news |url=https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052748704597704574486242417039358 |title=All the News That's Fit to Subsidize |last=Lipsky |first=Seth |date=October 22, 2009 |work=The Wall Street Journal |quote=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 (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm. |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=December 19, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131219035657/http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052748704597704574486242417039358 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct109">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html |title=What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal |last=Cohen |first=Adam |date=December 14, 2004 |work=The New York Times |quote=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... |access-date=October 31, 2009 |author-link=Adam Cohen (journalist) |archive-date=March 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307222715/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html |url-status=live}}</ref> During [[World War II]], the court continued to favor government power, upholding the [[internment of Japanese Americans]] (''[[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 ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|Steel Seizure Case]]'' restricted the pro-government trend.

The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional [[civil liberties]].<ref name=tws31oct110>{{cite news |agency=[[United Press International]] (UPI) |title=Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years |quote=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. |work=The New York Times |date=September 25, 1971 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0227.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=October 15, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091015050655/http://nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0227.html |url-status=live}}</ref> It held that [[Racial segregation in the United States|segregation in public schools]] violates the [[Equal Protection Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] (''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', ''[[Bolling v. Sharpe]]'', and ''[[Green v. County School Board of New Kent County|Green v. County School Bd.]]'')<ref name="tws31oct113">{{cite news |url=https://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page87.htm |title=100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education (1954) |date=May 17, 1954 |work=U.S. News & World Report |quote=On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 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... |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091106035101/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page87.htm |archive-date=November 6, 2009}}</ref> and that [[legislative district]]s must be roughly equal in population (''[[Reynolds v. Sims]]''). It recognized a general [[right to privacy]] (''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]''),<ref name="tws31oct114">{{cite magazine |title=Essay: In defense of privacy |quote=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. |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=July 15, 1966 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836012-3,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091013120125/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836012-3,00.html |archive-date=October 13, 2009 |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> limited the role of religion in public school, most prominently ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' and ''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]'',<ref name="tws31oct120">{{cite magazine |first=Nancy |last=Gibbs |title=America's Holy War |quote=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.' |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |date=December 9, 1991 |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974430,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071102070141/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974430,00.html |archive-date=November 2, 2007 |access-date=October 31, 2009 |author-link=Nancy Gibbs}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct121">{{cite news |url=http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-teach-the-bible-of-course-.html |title=Teach the Bible? Of course. |date=August 17, 2009 |work=USA Today |last2=Trinko |first2=Katrina |quote=Public schools need not proselytize—indeed, must not—in teaching students about the Good Book … In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education," was permissible under the First Amendment. |first1=William R. Jr |last1=Mattox |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090820030545/http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-teach-the-bible-of-course-.html |archive-date=August 20, 2009}}</ref> [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporated]] most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states, prominently ''[[Mapp v. Ohio]]'' (the [[exclusionary rule]]) and ''[[Gideon v. Wainwright]]'' ([[Public defender|right to appointed counsel]]),<ref name="tws31oct131">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898882,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080423044435/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898882,00.html |archive-date=April 23, 2008 |title=The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle |date=June 18, 1965 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |quote=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 (1961). |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct203">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841844,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100528172220/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841844,00.html |archive-date=May 28, 2010 |title=The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment |date=April 16, 1965 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |quote=Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (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.' |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by [[police]] (''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'').<ref name=tws31oct132>{{cite news |title=Guilt and Mr. Meese |quote=1966 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. |work=The New York Times |date=January 31, 1987 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/opinion/guilt-and-mr-meese.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111536/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/opinion/guilt-and-mr-meese.html |url-status=live}}</ref> At the same time, the court limited [[defamation]] suits by public figures (''[[New York Times Co. v. Sullivan]]'') and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.<ref>{{cite journal |journal=Engage |volume=9 |issue=3 |url=http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090107_GragliaEngage93.pdf |title=The Antitrust Revolution |last=Graglia |first=Lino A. |author-link=Lino Graglia |date=October 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170621023852/http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/20090107_GragliaEngage93.pdf |archive-date=June 21, 2017 |access-date=February 6, 2016}}</ref>

===Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts===
{{main|Burger Court|Rehnquist Court|Roberts Court}}
[[File:Supreme Court October 2005.jpg|thumb|Justices of the Supreme Court with President [[George W. Bush]] (center-right) in October 2005. The justices (left to right) are: [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], [[David Souter]], [[Antonin Scalia]], [[John Paul Stevens]], [[John Roberts]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor]], [[Anthony Kennedy]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and [[Stephen Breyer]].]]

The Burger Court (1969–1986) saw a conservative shift.<ref>Earl M. Maltz, ''The Coming of the Nixon Court: The 1972 Term and the Transformation of Constitutional Law'' (University Press of Kansas; 2016).</ref> It also expanded ''Griswold''{{'}}s right to privacy to strike down [[Abortion in the United States|abortion laws]] (''[[Roe v. Wade]]'')<ref name=tws31oct204>{{cite news |first=Karen |last=O'Connor |title=Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight |quote=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... |work=U.S. News & World Report |date=January 22, 2009 |url=https://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/22/roe-v-wade-on-anniversary-abortion-is-out-of-the-spotlight.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=March 26, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326104927/http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/22/roe-v-wade-on-anniversary-abortion-is-out-of-the-spotlight.html |url-status=live}}</ref> but divided deeply on [[Affirmative action in the United States|affirmative action]] (''[[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]]'')<ref name="tws31oct205">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946798,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101014122411/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946798,00.html |archive-date=October 14, 2010 |title=Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose |date=July 10, 1978 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |quote=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'… |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> and campaign finance regulation (''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'').<ref name=tws31oct207>{{cite news |title=Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo |quote=...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. |work=The New York Times |date=November 12, 1998 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/opinion/time-to-rethink-buckley-v-valeo.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111407/http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/opinion/time-to-rethink-buckley-v-valeo.html |url-status=live}}</ref> It also wavered on the [[Death penalty in the United States|death penalty]], ruling first that most applications were defective (''[[Furman v. Georgia]]''),<ref name="tws31oct208">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/rehnquist/rehnquist_key_decisions.html |title=Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's Key Decisions |date=June 29, 1972 |newspaper=The Washington Post |quote=Furman v. Georgia … Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional. |author=<!--Not stated--> |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 25, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100525065231/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/rehnquist/rehnquist_key_decisions.html |url-status=live}}</ref> but later that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (''[[Gregg v. Georgia]]'').<ref name=tws31oct208/><ref name="history1">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}}</ref><ref name=tws31oct2122>{{cite news |title=A Supreme Revelation |quote=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. |work=The Wall Street Journal |date=April 19, 2008 |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120856145124627875?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=August 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824133310/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120856145124627875?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks |url-status=live}}</ref>

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was known for its revival of judicial enforcement of [[federalism]],<ref name=tws31oct2brn2b>{{cite news |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |title=The Chief Justice on the Spot |quote=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. |work=The New York Times |date=January 8, 2009 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09greenhouse.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 12, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173851/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09greenhouse.html |url-status=live}}</ref> emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (''[[United States v. Lopez]]'') and the force of its restrictions on those powers (''[[Seminole Tribe v. Florida]]'', ''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]'').<ref name=tws31octrtr45>{{cite news |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |title=William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80 |quote=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. |work=The New York Times |date=September 4, 2005 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/politics/william-h-rehnquist-chief-justice-of-supreme-court-is-dead-at-80.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=April 2, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402053850/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/politics/04rehnquist.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=tws31oct309>{{cite news |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |title=The Rehnquist Court and Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy |quote=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 v. Morrison. |work=The New York Times |date=June 12, 2005 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12green.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 5, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110505214022/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12green.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=tws31oct310>{{cite news |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |title=Inmates Who Follow Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally |quote=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. |work=The New York Times |date=March 22, 2005 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/politics/inmates-who-follow-satanism-and-wicca-find-unlikely-ally.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=March 26, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140326222133/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/politics/22religion.html?pagewanted=print&position= |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=tws31oct4004>{{cite news |first=Vikram David |last=Amar |title=Casing John Roberts |quote=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. |work=The New York Times |date=July 27, 2005 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html |access-date=October 31, 2009 |author-link=Vikram David Amar |archive-date=October 14, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081014000329/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct555">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/01/us/justices-seem-ready-to-tilt-more-toward-states-in-federalism.html |title=Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More Toward States in Federalism |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=April 1, 1999 |work=The New York Times |quote=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. |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111138/http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/01/us/justices-seem-ready-to-tilt-more-toward-states-in-federalism.html |url-status=live}}</ref> 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]]'')<ref name=tws31oct34654>{{cite magazine |first=Michael A. |last=Lindenberger |title=The Court's Gay Rights Legacy |quote=The decision in the 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. |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |url=http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818504,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080629115005/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818504,00.html |archive-date=June 29, 2008 |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref> and the [[line-item veto]] (''[[Clinton v. New York]]'') but upheld [[school vouchers]] (''[[Zelman v. Simmons-Harris]]'') and [[wikt:reaffirm#English|reaffirmed]] ''Roe''{{'}}s restrictions on abortion laws (''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'').<ref name="tws31octffsfs">{{cite news |url=http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/retire-the-ginsburg-rule-.html |title=Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' – The 'Roe' recital |date=July 16, 2009 |work=USA Today |quote=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. |author=Justice Sotomayor |access-date=October 31, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090822073852/http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/retire-the-ginsburg-rule-.html |archive-date=August 22, 2009}}</ref> The court's decision in ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', which ended the electoral recount during the [[2000 United States presidential election]], remains especially controversial with debate ongoing over the rightful winner and whether or not the ruling should set a precedent.<ref name="rds21nov12">{{cite news |last=Kamiya |first=Gary |date=July 5, 2001 |title=Against the Law |url=http://www.salon.com/2001/07/05/dershowitz_2/ |access-date=November 21, 2012 |work=[[Salon (website)|Salon]] |quote=...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. …}}</ref><ref name="tws31oct44454">{{cite magazine |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998788,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122083955/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998788,00.html |archive-date=November 22, 2010 |title=The Winner in Bush v. Gore? |last=Krauthammer |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Krauthammer |date=December 18, 2000 |magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] |quote=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, … |access-date=October 31, 2009}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=MacDougall |first=Ian |date=November 1, 2020 |title=Why Bush v. Gore Still Matters in 2020 |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/why-bush-v-gore-still-matters |access-date=March 18, 2024 |website=ProPublica |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Payson-Denney |first=Wade |date=October 31, 2015 |title=So, who really won? What the Bush v. Gore studies showed {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html |access-date=March 18, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref>

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded as more conservative and [[#Criticism and controversies|controversial]] than the Rehnquist Court.<ref name=tws1nov01>{{cite news |first1=Charles |last1=Babington |first2=Peter |last2=Baker |title=Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice |quote=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. |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=September 30, 2005 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html |access-date=November 1, 2009 |archive-date=January 16, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100116015122/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws1nov02">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/washington/01scotus.html |title=In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=July 1, 2007 |work=The New York Times |quote=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. |access-date=November 1, 2009 |archive-date=April 17, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090417081610/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/washington/01scotus.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="nyt-liptak01">{{cite news |first=Adam |last=Liptak |author-link=Adam Liptak |title=Court Under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html |work=The New York Times |date=July 24, 2010 |quote=When Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his colleagues on the Supreme Court left for their summer break at the end of June, they marked a milestone: the Roberts court had just completed its fifth term. In those five years, the court not only moved to the right but also became the most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of four sets of political science data. |access-date=February 1, 2019 |archive-date=August 24, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210824164125/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/us/25roberts.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="caplan-amerpros">{{cite news |first=Lincoln |last=Caplan |author-link=Lincoln Caplan |date=October 10, 2016 |title=A new era for the Supreme Court: the transformative potential of a shift in even one seat |url=https://prospect.org/article/new-era-supreme-court |work=[[The American Prospect]] |quote=The Court has gotten increasingly more conservative with each of the Republican-appointed chief justices—Warren E. Burger (1969–1986), William H. Rehnquist (1986–2005), and John G. Roberts Jr. (2005–present). All told, Republican presidents have appointed 12 of the 16 most recent justices, including the chiefs. During Roberts's first decade as chief, the Court was the most conservative in more than a half-century and likely the most conservative since the 1930s. |access-date=February 1, 2019 |archive-date=February 2, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190202212119/https://prospect.org/article/new-era-supreme-court |url-status=live}}</ref> Some of its major rulings have concerned [[federal preemption]] (''[[Wyeth v. Levine]]''), [[Civil procedure in the United States|civil procedure]] (''[[Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly|Twombly]]–[[Ashcroft v. Iqbal|Iqbal]]''), voting rights and federal preclearance (''[[Shelby County v. Holder|Shelby County]]''), abortion (''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'' and ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]''),<ref name="tws1nov04">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/politics/15abortion.html |title=Respecting Precedent, or Settled Law, Unless It's Not Settled |last=Savage |first=Charlie |date=July 14, 2009 |work=The New York Times |quote=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. |access-date=November 1, 2009 |author-link=Charlie Savage (author) |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111502/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/politics/15abortion.html |url-status=live}}</ref> [[climate change]] (''[[Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency|Massachusetts v. EPA]]''), [[Same-sex marriage in the United States|same-sex marriage]] (''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' and ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]''), and the Bill of Rights, such as in ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'' ([[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]]),<ref>{{cite journal |title=A Bad Day for Democracy |journal=[[The Christian Science Monitor]] |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-day-for-democracy |date=January 22, 2010 |access-date=January 22, 2010 |archive-date=January 25, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100125052239/http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-day-for-democracy |url-status=live}}</ref> ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller|Heller]]–[[McDonald v. Chicago|McDonald]]–[[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen|Bruen]]'' ([[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]]),<ref name=tws1nov13>{{cite news |first=Robert |last=Barnes |title=Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights |quote=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... |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=October 1, 2009 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html |access-date=November 1, 2009 |archive-date=April 23, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180423220110/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html |url-status=live}}</ref> and ''[[Baze v. Rees]]'' ([[Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eighth Amendment]]).<ref name=tws1nov21>{{cite news |first=Linda |last=Greenhouse |title=Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment |quote=His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic. |work=The New York Times |date=April 18, 2008 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18memo.html |access-date=November 1, 2009 |archive-date=December 11, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211222154/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18memo.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="tws1nov22">{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html |title=Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=June 26, 2008 |work=The New York Times |quote=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. |access-date=November 1, 2009 |archive-date=September 13, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190913065721/https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

==Composition==
===Nomination, confirmation, and appointment===
{{main|Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States}}

[[File:John Roberts Confirmation Hearings.jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|[[John Roberts]] giving testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the [[John Roberts Supreme Court nomination#Confirmation hearings|2005 hearings on his nomination]] to be chief justice]]
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the [[United States Constitution]], known as the [[Appointments Clause]], empowers the [[President of the United States|president]] to nominate and, with the confirmation ([[advice and consent]]) of the United States Senate, to appoint public [[official]]s, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the [[plenary power]] to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, such as age, citizenship, residence or prior judicial experience, thus a president may nominate anyone to serve, and the Senate may not set any qualifications or otherwise limit who the president can choose.<ref name=JOM222HGC>{{cite web |last=McGinnis |first=John O. |author-link=John McGinnis |title=Essays on Article II: Appointments Clause |url=https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/91/appointments-clause |work=The Heritage Guide To The Constitution |publisher=Heritage Foundation |access-date=June 19, 2019 |archive-date=August 22, 2020 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20200822232208/https://www.heritage.org/constitution/%23!/amendments/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishment#!/articles/2/essays/91/appointments-clause |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Qualifications To Become A Supreme Court Justice |url=https://thelawdictionary.org/article/qualifications-to-become-a-supreme-court-justice/ |access-date=July 8, 2023 |website=The Law Dictionary |language=en-US |archive-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230708002502/https://thelawdictionary.org/article/qualifications-to-become-a-supreme-court-justice/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Frequently Asked Questions: General Information – Supreme Court of the United States |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx |access-date=July 8, 2023 |website=www.supremecourt.gov |archive-date=July 8, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230708002502/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref>

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which [[lobbying|lobby]] senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|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]] in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to [[Wall Street]], and the modern practice of questioning began with [[John Marshall Harlan II]] in 1955.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm |title=United States Senate. "Nominations" |access-date=February 16, 2018 |archive-date=April 7, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190407112442/https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm |url-status=live}}</ref> Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected [[List of failed nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States|twelve]] Supreme Court nominees, most recently [[Robert Bork]], nominated by President [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1987.

Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative or tied 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 B. Johnson's nomination of sitting associate justice [[Abe Fortas]] to succeed [[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]] to the seat left vacant by [[Antonin Scalia]]'s death was the second. Unlike the Fortas filibuster, only Democratic senators voted against [[Cloture#United States|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 [[Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination|nomination of Merrick Garland]] to fill the vacancy.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/sen-patty-murray-will-oppose-neil-gorsuch-for-supreme-court/ |title=Sen. Patty Murray will oppose Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court |work=[[The Seattle Times]] |first=Jim |last=Brunner |date=March 24, 2017 |access-date=April 9, 2017 |quote=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. |archive-date=April 10, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170410133132/http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/sen-patty-murray-will-oppose-neil-gorsuch-for-supreme-court/ |url-status=live}}</ref> This led the Republican majority to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html |work=The New York Times |date=April 6, 2017 |first=Matt |last=Flegenheimer |title=Senate Republicans Deploy 'Nuclear Option' to Clear Path for Gorsuch |quote=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. |access-date=April 7, 2017 |archive-date=October 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181002075315/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

[[File:Ruth Bader Ginsburg at her confirmation hearing (a).jpg|upright=1.05|left|thumb|[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]] giving testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 1993 hearings on her nomination to be an associate justice]]
Not every Supreme Court [[Nominee#Noun|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 with President George W. Bush's nomination of [[Harriet Miers]] in 2005. The Senate may also fail to act on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. President [[Dwight Eisenhower]]'s first nomination of [[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, the Senate failed to act on the March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, as the nomination expired in January 2017, and the vacancy was filled by Neil Gorsuch, an [[wikt:appointee|appointee]] of President Trump.<ref name=SCnoms/>

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] must be affixed, before the appointee can take office.<ref>See {{usc|5|2902}}.</ref> The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.<ref>{{usc|28|4}}. If two justices are commissioned on the same date, then the oldest one has precedence.</ref> After receiving their commission, the appointee must then take the two prescribed oaths before assuming their official duties.<ref>{{cite news |last=Mears |first=Bill |title=Facts about Supreme Court oath ceremonies |url=https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/06/kagan.oath.faq/index.html |date=August 6, 2010 |work=CNN |access-date=May 17, 2022 |archive-date=May 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220517151935/https://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/06/kagan.oath.faq/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref> The importance of the oath taking is underscored by the case of [[Edwin M. Stanton]]. Although confirmed by the Senate on December 20, 1869, and duly commissioned as an associate justice by President [[Ulysses S. Grant]], Stanton died on December 24, prior to taking the prescribed oaths. He is not, therefore, considered to have been a member of the court.<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Mr. Justice Stanton |first=James W. |last=Satola |date=December 2017 |url=https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/At-Sidebar-pdf-1.pdf |magazine=The Federal Lawyer |pages=5–9, 76–77 |publisher=Federal Bar Association |location=Arlington, Virginia |access-date=May 17, 2022 |issn=1080-675X |archive-date=June 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220622110704/https://www.fedbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/At-Sidebar-pdf-1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Justices 1789 to Present |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx |work=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=May 17, 2022 |archive-date=April 15, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415034624/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/members_text.aspx |url-status=live }}</ref>

Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the [[Harry Truman|Truman]] through [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, the process has taken much longer and some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.<ref>{{cite web |last=Balkin |first=Jack M. |author-link=Jack Balkin |url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/balkin.php |title=The passionate intensity of the confirmation process |access-date=February 13, 2008 |publisher=Jurist |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071218235804/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/balkin.php |archive-date=December 18, 2007}}</ref> 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 (2.3 months).<ref>{{cite news |title=The Stakes of the 2016 Election Just Got Much, Much Higher |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-supreme-court_us_56bfaee3e4b0c3c55051ad0c |work=[[The Huffington Post]] |access-date=February 14, 2016 |archive-date=February 14, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160214021343/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-supreme-court_us_56bfaee3e4b0c3c55051ad0c |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf |title=Supreme Court Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote |date=October 19, 2015 |access-date=February 14, 2016 |website=Congressional Research Service |last=McMillion |first=Barry J. |archive-date=December 28, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151228195628/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

====Recess appointments====
When the Senate is in [[Recess (motion)|recess]], a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. [[Recess appointment|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]] was not subsequently confirmed.<ref>{{cite book |title=Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1992 |isbn=978-0-19-505835-2 |editor-last=Hall |editor-first=Kermit L. |pages=[https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/965 965–971] |chapter=Appendix Two |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/965}}</ref>

No U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts.<ref>See ''Evans v. Stephens'', 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), which concerned the recess appointment of [[William H. Pryor Jr.]] 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 ''certiorari''.</ref> 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";<ref name="recessapp">{{cite journal |last=Fisher |first=Louis |date=September 5, 2001 |title=Recess Appointments of Federal Judges |url=https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31112.pdf |journal=CRS Report for Congress |series=Congressional Research Service |issue=RL31112 |page=CRS-18 |quote=''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. |access-date=August 6, 2010 |archive-date=April 17, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200417150206/https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31112.pdf |url-status=dead}}</ref> such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.<ref name="recessapp"/><ref>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.</ref>

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); the court ruled 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."<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf |title=National Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al |pages=34, 35 |access-date=June 27, 2017 |archive-date=December 12, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201212030517/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf |url-status=live}} 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."</ref> This ruling allows the Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of [[Pro forma#United States|pro-forma sessions]].<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/15/466849025/white-house-seems-to-rule-out-recess-appointment-to-replace-scalia |title=Obama Won't Appoint Scalia Replacement While Senate Is Out This Week |agency=[[NPR]] |access-date=January 25, 2017 |archive-date=December 3, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201203102745/https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/15/466849025/white-house-seems-to-rule-out-recess-appointment-to-replace-scalia |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Tenure===
Lifetime tenure of justices can only be found for US federal judges and the State of Rhode Island's Supreme Court justices, with all other democratic nations and all other US states having set term limits or mandatory retirement ages.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Ziblatt |first1=Daniel |author-link1=Daniel Ziblatt |last2=Levitsky |first2=Steven |author-link2=Steven Levitsky |date=September 5, 2023 |title=How American Democracy Fell So Far Behind |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230920224356/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/09/american-constitution-norway/675199/ |archive-date=September 20, 2023 |access-date=September 20, 2023 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref> [[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."<ref name="tws23oct16" /> [[Sanford Levinson]] has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.<ref name="tws10oct12">{{cite news |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=September 10, 2007 |title=New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100726224409/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html |archive-date=July 26, 2010 |access-date=October 10, 2009 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> [[James MacGregor Burns]] stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."<ref name="tws27oct304">{{cite news |last=Kakutani |first=Michiko |author-link=Michiko Kakutani |date=July 6, 2009 |title=Appointees Who Really Govern America |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512175527/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html |archive-date=May 12, 2011 |access-date=October 27, 2009 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> Proposals to solve these problems include [[term limit]]s for justices, as proposed by Levinson<ref name="tws10octxx">{{cite news |last=Levinson |first=Sanford |author-link=Sanford Levinson |date=February 9, 2009 |title=Supreme court prognosis – Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906035306/http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg |archive-date=September 6, 2013 |access-date=October 10, 2009 |work=[[The Guardian]] |location=Manchester}}</ref> and Sabato<ref name="tws23oct16" /><ref>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.</ref> and a mandatory retirement age proposed by [[Richard Allen Epstein|Richard Epstein]],<ref>[[Richard Epstein]], "Mandatory 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.</ref> among others.<ref>Brian Opeskin, "Models of Judicial Tenure: Reconsidering Life Limits, Age Limits and Term Limits for Judges", ''Oxford Journal of Legal Studies'' 2015 35: 627–663.</ref> [[Alexander Hamilton]] in ''[[Federalist 78]]'' argued that one benefit of lifetime tenure was that, "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."<ref name="tws28oct707">{{cite news |last=Hamilton |first=Alexander |author-link=Alexander Hamilton |date=June 14, 1788 |title=The Federalist No. 78 |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100111055502/http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm |archive-date=January 11, 2010 |access-date=October 28, 2009 |publisher=Independent Journal |quote=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.}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=February 2024}}[[File:Inside the United States Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|upright=1.05|alt=The interior of the United States Supreme Court|The interior of the United States Supreme Court]]
[[Good Behavior Clause|Article Three, Section 1]] of the Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior", which is understood to mean that they may serve for the remainder of their lives, until death; furthermore, the phrase is generally interpreted to mean that the only way justices can be removed from office is by [[United States Congress|Congress]] via the [[Federal impeachment in the United States|impeachment process]]. The Framers of the Constitution chose good behavior tenure to limit the power to remove justices and to ensure [[judicial independence]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prakash |first1=Saikrishna |author-link1=Saikrishna Prakash |first2=Steven D. |last2=Smith |title=(Mis)Understanding Good-Behavior Tenure |journal=The Yale Law Journal |volume=116 |issue=1 |date=2006 |pages=159–169 |doi=10.2307/20455716 |jstor=20455716 |s2cid=52212217}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Article III, Section One |first1=Richard W. |last1=Garnett |first2=David A. |last2=Strauss |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 |location=Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |publisher=National Constitution Center |access-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220429081830/https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-iii/clauses/45 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be fired? |url=http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/A783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214?opendocument |publisher=[[Federal Judicial Center]]. fjc.gov |access-date=March 18, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915143136/http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=%2Ffederal%2Fcourts.nsf%2Fpage%2FA783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214%3Fopendocument |archive-date=September 15, 2012}}</ref> No constitutional mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.<ref name="hufpost">{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html |title=Anticipating the Incapacitated Justice |last=Appel |first=Jacob M. |date=August 22, 2009 |work=The Huffington Post |access-date=August 23, 2009 |archive-date=August 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090827005222/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html |url-status=live}}</ref> The only justice ever to be impeached was [[Samuel Chase]], in 1804. The [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] adopted eight articles of impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate, and remained in office until his death in 1811.<ref name=SCchase>{{cite web |title=Impeachment Trial of Justice Samuel Chase, 1804–05 |url=https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm |publisher=Senate Historical Office |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=April 29, 2022 |archive-date=May 3, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220503234655/https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-chase.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Two justices, [[William O. Douglas]] and [[Abe Fortas]] were subjected to hearings from the Judiciary Committee, with Douglas being the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970 and Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969. On July 10, 2024, Representative [[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez|Alexandria Ocasia-Cortez]] filed Articles of Impeachment against justices [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito]], citing their "widely documented financial and personal entanglements."<ref name=Impeach>{{Cite web |date=Jul 10, 2024 |title=Ocasio-Cortez Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against Justice Thomas and Justice Alito |url=https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240710224618/https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and |archive-date=Jul 10, 2024 |access-date=Jul 10, 2024}}</ref>

Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes they arise in quick succession, as in September 1971, when [[Hugo Black]] and [[John Marshall Harlan II]] left within days of each other, the shortest period of time between vacancies in the court's history.<ref>{{cite book |title=John Marshall Harlan: Great Dissenter of the Warren Court |first=Tinsley E. |last=Yarbrough |date=1992 |publisher=Oxford University Press |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kaQv0z7HnacC&pg=PA334 |page=334 |isbn=0-19-506090-3 |access-date=April 12, 2022 |archive-date=November 16, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116063336/https://books.google.com/books?id=kaQv0z7HnacC&pg=PA334#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref> Sometimes a great length of time passes between vacancies, such as the 11-year span, from 1994 to 2005, from the retirement of [[Harry Blackmun]] to the death of [[William Rehnquist]], which was the second longest timespan between vacancies in the court's history.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Comiskey |first=Michael |title=The Supreme Court Appointment Process: Lessons from Filling the Rehnquist and O'Connor Vacancies |journal=PS: Political Science and Politics |volume=41 |issue=2 |date=2008 |pages=355–358 |doi=10.1017/S1049096508080542 |jstor=20452185 |s2cid=154590128}}</ref> On average a new justice joins the court about every two years.<ref name=SCinstitution/>

Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. [[William Henry Harrison]] died a month after taking office, although 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|size of the court]]. [[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. 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.

=== Size of the court ===
One of the smallest supreme courts in the world, the U.S. Supreme Court consists of nine members: one chief justice and eight associate justices. The U.S. Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, nor does it specify any specific positions for the court's members. The Constitution assumes the existence of the office of the chief justice, because it mentions in [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 6: Trial of Impeachment|Article I, Section 3, Clause 6]] that "the Chief Justice" must preside over impeachment trials of the [[President of the United States]]. The power to define the Supreme Court's size and membership has been assumed to belong to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]].

The size of the court was first altered by the [[Midnight Judges Act]] of 1801 which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy (as federal judges have [[life tenure]]), but the [[Judiciary Act of 1802]] promptly negated the 1801 act, restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew across the continent and as Supreme Court justices in those days had to [[Circuit riding|ride the circuit]], an arduous process requiring long travel on horseback or carriage over harsh terrain that resulted in months-long extended stays away from home, Congress added justices to correspond with the growth such that the number of seats for associate justices plus the chief justice became [[Seventh Circuit Act of 1807|seven in 1807]], [[Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837|nine in 1837]], and [[Tenth Circuit Act of 1863|ten in 1863]].<ref>[http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=12 ''Federal Judiciary Act (1789)''] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201105232024/https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=12 |date=November 5, 2020 }}, [[National Archives and Records Administration]], retrieved September 12, 2017</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Judges on Horseback |url=https://www.lb8.uscourts.gov:444/pubsandservices/histsociety/empire-panel2-judges-on-horseback.pdf |access-date=April 4, 2021 |publisher=U.S. Courts Library – 8th Circuit |archive-date=November 3, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201103041606/https://www.lb8.uscourts.gov:444/pubsandservices/histsociety/empire-panel2-judges-on-horseback.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>

At the behest of Chief Justice [[Salmon P. Chase|Chase]], and in an attempt by the Republican Congress to limit the power of Democrat [[Andrew Johnson]], Congress passed the [[Judicial Circuits Act]] of 1866, 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. Soon after Johnson left office, the new president [[Ulysses S. Grant]],<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices |title=Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? &#124; Constitution Center |access-date=December 14, 2021 |archive-date=December 14, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211214205657/https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices |url-status=live }}</ref> a Republican, signed into law the [[Judiciary Act of 1869]]. This returned the number of justices to nine<ref>{{usstat|16|44}}</ref> (where it has since remained), and allowed Grant to immediately appoint two more judges.

President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] attempted to expand the court in 1937. His proposal envisioned the appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70{{nbsp}}years 6{{nbsp}}months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the [[Docket (court)|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.<ref>{{cite web |last=Mintz |first=S. |year=2007 |title=The New Deal in Decline |url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=479 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080505032845/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=479 |archive-date=May 5, 2008 |access-date=October 27, 2009 |work=Digital History |publisher=University of Houston}}</ref> The plan, usually called the "[[Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937|court-packing plan]]", failed in Congress after members of Roosevelt's own [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] believed it to be unconstitutional. It was defeated 70–20 in the Senate, and the [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] reported that it was "essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy" that the proposal "be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America."<ref>{{cite web |last=Hodak |first=George |year=2007 |title=February 5, 1937: FDR Unveils Court Packing Plan |url=http://abajournal.com/magazine/article/february_5_1937/ |access-date=January 29, 2009 |work=ABAjournal.com |publisher=American Bar Association |archive-date=August 15, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110815154911/http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/february_5_1937/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/court-packing-plan-of-1937 |title=TSHA &#124; Court-Packing Plan of 1937 |access-date=April 4, 2021 |archive-date=May 6, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506124559/https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/court-packing-plan-of-1937 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://time.com/5702280/court-packing-history/ |title=Some Democrats Want to Make the Supreme Court Bigger. Here's the History of Court Packing |date=October 17, 2019 |access-date=April 4, 2021 |archive-date=February 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210201160941/https://time.com/5702280/court-packing-history/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2 |title=How FDR lost his brief war on the Supreme Court – National Constitution Center |access-date=April 4, 2021 |archive-date=March 29, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210329041250/https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2 |url-status=live}}</ref>

The expansion of a 5–4 conservative majority to a 6–3 supermajority during the [[first presidency of Donald Trump]] led to analysts calling the court the most conservative since the 1930s as well as calls for an expansion in the court's size to fix what some saw as an imbalance, with [[Republican Party (US)|Republicans]] having appointed 14 of the 18 justices immediately preceding [[Amy Coney Barrett]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Biskupic |first=Joan |author-link=Joan Biskupic |date=September 26, 2020 |title=Analysis: The Supreme Court hasn't been this conservative since the 1930s {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/26/politics/supreme-court-conservative/index.html |access-date=March 20, 2024 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |author-link=Nina Totenberg |date=July 5, 2022 |title=The Supreme Court is the most conservative in 90 years |url=https://www.npr.org/2022/07/05/1109444617/the-supreme-court-conservative |access-date=March 19, 2024 |work=PBS}}</ref> In April 2021, during the [[117th United States Congress|117th Congress]], some Democrats in the [[United States House of Representatives|House of Representatives]] introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021, a bill to expand the Supreme Court from nine to 13 seats. It met divided views within the party, and Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]] did not bring it to the floor for a vote.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-packing-bill-pelosi-house-floor/ |title=Pelosi has "no plans" to bring bill expanding Supreme Court to House floor |website=[[CBS News]] |date=April 15, 2021 |access-date=June 25, 2022 |archive-date=June 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220625182141/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-packing-bill-pelosi-house-floor/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-confirmation-process-irreparably-broken-senators-say-yes-rcna22608 |title=Is the Supreme Court confirmation process irreparably broken? Some senators say yes |website=[[NBC News]] |date=April 2, 2022 |access-date=June 25, 2022 |archive-date=June 25, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220625182141/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-confirmation-process-irreparably-broken-senators-say-yes-rcna22608 |url-status=live }}</ref> Shortly after taking office in January 2021, President [[Joe Biden]] established a [[Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States|presidential commission]] to study possible reforms to the Supreme Court. The commission's December 2021 final report discussed but took no position on expanding the size of the court.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/584791-biden-supreme-court-study-panel-unanimously-approves-final-report/ |work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]] |title=Biden Supreme Court study panel unanimously approves final report |first=John |last=Kruzel |date=December 7, 2021 |access-date=October 8, 2022 |archive-date=October 8, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221008222225/https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/584791-biden-supreme-court-study-panel-unanimously-approves-final-report/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

At nine members, the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the smallest supreme courts in the world. David Litt argues the court is too small to represent the perspectives of a country the United States' size.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Litt |first=David |title=Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesn't, and Why Fixing It Is Easier Than You Think |publisher=Ecco |year=2020 |isbn=978-0-06-287936-3 |page=352}}</ref> Lawyer and legal scholar [[Jonathan Turley]] has advocated for 19 justices, but with the court being gradually expanded by no more than two new members per subsequent president, bringing the U.S. Supreme Court to a similar size as its counterparts in other developed countries. He says that a bigger court would reduce the power of the [[Swing vote|swing justice]], ensure the court has "a greater diversity of views", and make confirmation of new justices less politically contentious.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Turley |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Turley |date=February 1, 2017 |title=Op-Ed: Battling over Neil Gorsuch is beside the point: The Supreme Court needs an institutional overhaul |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-turley-supreme-court-reform-20170201-story.html |access-date=February 22, 2023 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Turley |first=Jonathan |author-link=Jonathan Turley |date=April 4, 2019 |title=Op-Ed: Make the Supreme Court bigger, but not the Democrats' way |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-turley-supreme-court-packing-democrats-20190404-story.html |access-date=February 22, 2023 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref>

==Membership==
{{see also|List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States}}

===Current justices===
There are currently nine justices on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and eight associate justices. Among the current members of the court, Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving justice, with a tenure of {{age in days nts|1991|10|23}} days ({{ayd|1991|10|23}}) as of {{FULLDATE}}; the most recent justice to join the court is Ketanji Brown Jackson, whose tenure began on June 30, 2022, after being confirmed by the Senate on April 7.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Cathey |first1=Libby |title=Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Supreme Court in historic vote |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-confirms-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court/story?id=83920099 |website=ABC News |access-date=April 7, 2022 |archive-date=May 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220515042349/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-confirms-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court/story?id=83920099 |url-status=live }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"
|+ Current justices of the Supreme Court<ref name="SCOTUScurrent">{{cite web |title=Current Members |website=www.supremecourt.gov |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx#BKavanaugh |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=October 21, 2018 |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721063602/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx#BKavanaugh |url-status=live}}</ref>
|-
! rowspan=2 colspan=2 style="min-width: 150px | Justice /<br />birthdate and place
! rowspan=2 | Appointed by (party)
! rowspan=2 | <abbr title="U.S. Senate confirmation vote">[[Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States#Confirmation|SCV]]</abbr>
! colspan=2 | Age at
! rowspan=2 | Start date /<br />length of service
! rowspan="2" | Ideology<ref>
*{{Cite news |last=González |first=Oriana |last2=Alberti |first2=Danielle  |title=The political leanings of the Supreme Court justices |url=https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology |work=[[Axios (website)|Axios]]}}
*{{Cite news |last=Martin |first=Sabine |title=What to know about the backgrounds of all 9 U.S. Supreme Court justices |url=https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/nation/2024/07/07/us-supreme-court-justices-names-backgrounds-leanings/74304147007/ |access-date=2024-10-29 |language=en-US}}
*{{Cite news |last=Jennifer |date=2023-10-31 |title=6 to 3: The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Conservative Super-Majority |url=https://nysba.org/6-to-3-the-impact-of-the-supreme-courts-conservative-super-majority/ |access-date=2024-10-29 |language=en-US}}</ref>
! rowspan="2" | Succeeded
|-
! Start !! Present
|-
| {{sort|07|[[File:File-Official roberts CJ cropped.jpg|100px]]}}
| (Chief Justice)<br />'''{{Sortname|John|Roberts}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1955|1|27}}<br />[[Buffalo, New York]]
| {{sortname|G. W.|Bush|George W. Bush|Bush, GW}}<br />(R)
| [[John Roberts Supreme Court nominations|78–22]]
| 50
| {{age nts|1955|1|27}}
| style="white-space:nowrap"|{{dts|2005|9|29}}<br />{{ayd|2005|9|29}}
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]]
| [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]]
|-
| {{sort|09|[[File:Clarence Thomas official SCOTUS portrait (cropped).jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Clarence|Thomas}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1948|6|23}}<br />[[Pin Point, Georgia]]
| {{sortname|G. H. W.|Bush|George H. W. Bush|Bush, GHW}}<br />(R)
| [[Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination|52–48]]
| 43
| {{age nts|1948|6|23}}
| {{dts|1991|10|23}}<br />{{ayd|1991|10|23}}
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]]
| [[Thurgood Marshall|Marshall]]
|-
| {{sort|01|[[File:Samuel Alito official photo (cropped).jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Samuel|Alito}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1950|4|1}}<br />[[Trenton, New Jersey]]
| {{sortname|G. W.|Bush|George W. Bush|Bush, GW}}<br />(R)
| [[Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination|58–42]]
| 55
| {{age nts|1950|4|1}}
| {{dts|2006|1|31}}<br />{{ayd|2006|1|31}}
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]]
| [[Sandra Day O'Connor|O'Connor]]
|-
| {{sort|08|[[File:Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe crop.jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Sonia|Sotomayor}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1954|6|25}}<br />[[New York City|New York City, New York]]
| {{sortname||Obama|Barack Obama|Obama, Barack}}<br />([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]])
| [[Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination|68–31]]
| 55
| {{age nts|1954|6|25}}
| {{dts|2009|8|8}}<br />{{ayd|2009|8|8}}
| [[Liberalism|Liberal]]
| [[David Souter|Souter]]
|-
| {{sort|05|[[File:Elena Kagan-1-1.jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Elena|Kagan}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1960|4|28}}<br />[[New York City|New York City, New York]]
|  {{sortname||Obama|Barack Obama|Obama, Barack}}<br />([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]])
| [[Elena Kagan Supreme Court nomination|63–37]]
| 50
| {{age nts|1960|4|28}}
| {{dts|2010|8|7}}<br />{{ayd|2010|8|7}}
| [[Liberalism|Liberal]]
| [[John Paul Stevens|Stevens]]
|-
| {{sort|04|[[File:Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch Official Portrait (cropped 2).jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Neil|Gorsuch}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1967|8|29}}<br />[[Denver|Denver, Colorado]]
| {{sortname||Trump|Donald Trump|Trump, Donald}}<br />(R)
| [[Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination|54–45]]
| 49
| {{age nts|1967|8|29}}
| {{dts|2017|4|10}}<br />{{ayd|2017|4|10}}
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]]
| [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]]
|-
| {{sort|06|[[File:Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh Official Portrait.jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Brett|Kavanaugh}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1965|2|12}}<br />[[Washington, D.C.]]
| {{sortname||Trump|Donald Trump|Trump, Donald}}<br />(R)
| [[Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination|50–48]]
| 53
| {{age nts|1965|2|12}}
| {{dts|2018|10|6}}<br />{{ayd|2018|10|6}}
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]]
| [[Anthony Kennedy|Kennedy]]
|-
| {{sort|02|[[File:Amy Coney Barrett official portrait.jpg|100px]]}}
| '''{{Sortname|Amy Coney|Barrett}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1972|1|28}}<br />[[New Orleans]], [[Louisiana]]
| {{sortname||Trump|Donald Trump|Trump, Donald}}<br />(R)
| [[Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination|52–48]]
| 48
| {{age nts|1972|1|28}}
| {{dts|2020|10|27}}<br />{{ayd|2020|10|27}}
| [[Conservatism|Conservative]]
| [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]]
|-
|[[File:KBJackson.jpg|frameless|125x125px]]
|'''{{Sortname|Ketanji Brown|Jackson}}'''<br />{{birth date and age|1970|9|14}}<br />[[Washington, D.C.]]
|[[Joe Biden|Biden]]<br />([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]])
|[[Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination|53–47]]
| 51
|{{age nts|1970|09|14}}
|{{dts|2022|06|30}}<br />{{ayd|2022|06|30}}
| [[Liberalism|Liberal]]
|[[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]]
|}

This graphical timeline depicts the length of each current Supreme Court justice's tenure (not seniority, as the chief justice has seniority over all associate justices regardless of tenure) on the court:

{{#tag:timeline
|ImageSize = width:900 height:auto barincrement:20
PlotArea  = top:10 bottom:50 right:160 left:14
AlignBars = late
DateFormat = x.y
Period     = from:1991.00 till:{{#expr:{{#time:Y}}+{{#time:m}}/12}}
TimeAxis   = orientation:horizontal
ScaleMajor  = unit:year increment:2 start:1991
ScaleMinor  = unit:year increment:1 start:1991
Define $now = {{#expr:{{#time:Y}}+{{#time:m}}/12}}

Colors =
  id:bg        value:white
  id:grayline  value:rgb(0.894,0.882,0.871)
  id:ChiefJ    value:rgb(0.8,0.8,0.8)  legend: Chief_Justice
  id:AssocJ    value:rgb(0.5,0.5,0.5)  legend: Assoc._Justice

Legend = columns:2 left:150 top:25 columnwidth:100

BarData =
  barset:Justices

PlotData=
 width:5 align:left fontsize:S shift:(5,-4) anchor:till fontsize:10
 barset:Justices
 from:1991.81 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Clarence Thomas]]
 from:2005.74 till:$now color:ChiefJ text:[[John Roberts]]
 from:2006.08 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Samuel Alito]]
 from:2009.60 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Sonia Sotomayor]]
 from:2010.60 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Elena Kagan]]
 from:2017.27 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Neil Gorsuch]]
 from:2018.76 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Brett Kavanaugh]]
 from:2020.81 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Amy Coney Barrett]]
 from:2022.49 till:$now color:AssocJ text:[[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]

LineData=

 layer:back

 at:1991.81 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2005.74 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2006.08 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2009.60 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2010.60 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2017.27 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2018.76 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2020.81 width:0.1 color:grayline
 at:2022.49 width:0.1 color:grayline
}}

===Court demographics===
{{Main|Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States}}
The court currently has five male and four female justices. Among the nine justices, there are two [[African Americans|African American]] justices (Justices [[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]] and [[Ketanji Brown Jackson|Jackson]]) and one [[Hispanic]] justice (Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor|Sotomayor]]). One of the justices was born to at least one [[Immigration|immigrant]] parent: [[Samuel Alito|Justice Alito]]'s father was born in Italy.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Walthr |first1=Matthew |title=Sam Alito: A Civil Man |url=https://spectator.org/58731_sam-alito-civil-man/ |work=[[The American Spectator]] |access-date=June 15, 2017 |date=April 21, 2014 |via=The ANNOTICO Reports |archive-date=May 22, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170522135245/https://spectator.org/58731_sam-alito-civil-man/}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=DeMarco |first1=Megan |title=Growing up Italian in Jersey: Alito reflects on ethnic heritage |url=http://www.italystl.com/ra/3788.htm |access-date=June 15, 2017 |work=[[The Times (Trenton)|The Times]] |location=Trenton, New Jersey |date=February 14, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730160055/http://www.italystl.com/ra/3788.htm |archive-date=July 30, 2017}}</ref>

At least six justices are [[Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]], one is [[Judaism|Jewish]], and one is [[Protestant]]. It is unclear whether [[Neil Gorsuch]] considers himself a Catholic or an [[Episcopalian]].<ref name=gorsuchreligion>Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but attends an Episcopalian church. It is unclear if he considers himself a Catholic or a Protestant. {{cite news |url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion/ |publisher=CNN |title=What is Neil Gorsuch's religion? It's complicated |first=Daniel |last=Burke |date=March 22, 2017 |quote=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." |access-date=April 7, 2017 |archive-date=June 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170625231112/http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion |url-status=live}}</ref> Historically, most justices have been Protestants, including 36 Episcopalians, 19 [[Presbyterian]]s, 10 [[Unitarianism|Unitarians]], 5 [[Methodist]]s, and 3 [[Baptists]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20010405054827/http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html |url-status=usurped |archive-date=April 5, 2001 |title=Religion of the Supreme Court |publisher=adherents.com |date=January 31, 2006 |access-date=July 9, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first1=Jeffrey A. |last1=Segal |author-link1=Jeffrey A. Segal |first2=Harold J. |last2=Spaeth |title=The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited |url=https://archive.org/details/supremecourtatti00sega |url-access=limited |publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press. |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-521-78971-4 |page=[https://archive.org/details/supremecourtatti00sega/page/n105 183]}}</ref> The first Catholic justice was [[Roger B. Taney|Roger Taney]] in 1836,<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last1=Schumacher |first1=Alvin |title=Roger B. Taney |url=https://www.britannica.com/biography/Roger-B-Taney |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopædia Britannica]] |access-date=May 3, 2017 |quote=He was the first Roman Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court. |archive-date=August 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170824103041/https://www.britannica.com/biography/Roger-B-Taney |url-status=live}}</ref> and 1916 saw the appointment of the first Jewish justice, [[Louis Brandeis]].<ref name="SCOTUS FAQ"/> In recent years the historical situation has reversed, as most recent justices have been either Catholic or Jewish.

Three justices are from the state of New York, two are from Washington, D.C., and one each is from New Jersey, Georgia, Colorado, and Louisiana.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Biden's court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson has navigated a path few Black women have |language=en-US |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-dc-circuit/2021/04/29/c0bd2f0c-a761-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html |access-date=July 8, 2022 |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=April 30, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430174107/https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/ketanji-brown-jackson-biden-dc-circuit/2021/04/29/c0bd2f0c-a761-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>Mark Sherman, [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36890869 Is Supreme Court in need of regional diversity?]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200814112320/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36890869|date=August 14, 2020}} (May 1, 2010).</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Shane |first1=Scott |last2=Eder |first2=Steve |last3=Ruiz |first3=Rebecca R. |last4=Liptak |first4=Adam |author-link4=Adam Liptak |last5=Savage |first5=Charlie |last6=Protess |first6=Ben |title=Influential Judge, Loyal Friend, Conservative Warrior – and D.C. Insider |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/politics/judge-brett-kavanaugh.html |work=The New York Times |date=July 15, 2018 |page=A1 |access-date=July 16, 2018 |archive-date=July 16, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180716115030/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/politics/judge-brett-kavanaugh.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Eight of the current justices received their [[Juris Doctor]] from an [[Ivy League]] [[Law school in the United States|law school]]: Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, [[Elena Kagan]] and [[John Roberts]] from [[Harvard Law School|Harvard]]; plus Samuel Alito, [[Brett Kavanaugh]], Sonia Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas from [[Yale Law School|Yale]]. Only [[Amy Coney Barrett]] did not; she received her Juris Doctor at [[Notre Dame Law School|Notre Dame]].

Previous positions or offices, judicial or federal government, prior to joining the court (by order of seniority following the Chief Justice) include:

{| class="wikitable"
! Justice
! Position or office
|-
| [[John Roberts]]
| Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] (2003–2005)
|-
| [[Clarence Thomas]]
| Chair of the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] (1982–1990)<br />Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] (1990–1991)
|-
| [[Samuel Alito]]
| [[United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey]] (1987–1990)<br />Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]] (1990–2006)
|-
| [[Sonia Sotomayor]]
| Judge of the [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York]] (1992–1998)<br />Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] (1998–2009)
|-
| [[Elena Kagan]]
| [[Solicitor General of the United States]] (2009–2010)
|-
| [[Neil Gorsuch]]
| Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit]] (2006–2017)
|-
| [[Brett Kavanaugh]]
| Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] (2006–2018)
|-
| [[Amy Coney Barrett]]
| Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit]] (2017–2020)
|-
| [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]]
|Vice Chair of the [[United States Sentencing Commission]] (2010–2014)<br />Judge of the [[United States District Court for the District of Columbia]] (2013–2021)<br />Judge of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]] (2021–2022)
|}

[[File:O'Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.jpg|thumb|The first four female justices: O'Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan]]
For much of the court's history, every justice was a man of [[Northwestern Europe]]an descent, and almost always [[Protestant]]. Diversity concerns focused on geography, to represent all [[Regionalism (politics)|regions]] of the country, rather than religious, ethnic, or gender diversity.<ref name=obrien46>{{cite book |last=O'Brien |first=David M. |title=Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics |edition=6th |year=2003 |page=[https://archive.org/details/stormcentersupre0000obri_a4l4/page/46 46] |publisher=W.W. Norton & Company |isbn=978-0-393-93218-8 |url=https://archive.org/details/stormcentersupre0000obri_a4l4/page/46}}</ref> Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the court increased in the late 20th century. [[Thurgood Marshall]] became the first [[African-American]] justice in 1967.<ref name="SCOTUS FAQ"/> [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] became the first female justice in 1981.<ref name="SCOTUS FAQ"/> In 1986, [[Antonin Scalia]] became the first [[Italian-American]] justice. Marshall was succeeded by African-American Clarence Thomas in 1991.<ref>{{cite news |last1=de Vogue |first1=Ariane |title=Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court legacy |url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-25-years/ |access-date=May 3, 2017 |work=CNN |date=October 22, 2016 |archive-date=April 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170402164558/http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-25-years/ |url-status=live}}</ref> O'Connor was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the first Jewish woman on the Court, in 1993.<ref name="Four Justices"/> After O'Connor's retirement [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]] was joined in 2009 by [[Sonia Sotomayor]], the first [[Hispanic]] and [[Latinas|Latina]] justice,<ref name="SCOTUS FAQ"/> and in 2010 by Elena Kagan.<ref name="Four Justices">{{cite web |title=The Four Justices |url=http://npg.si.edu/exhibition/four-justices |website=Smithsonian Institution |date=October 21, 2015 |access-date=May 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160820153726/http://npg.si.edu/exhibition/four-justices |archive-date=August 20, 2016 |url-status=live}}</ref> After Ginsburg's death on September 18, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as the fifth woman in the court's history on October 26, 2020. Ketanji Brown Jackson is the sixth woman and first African-American woman on the court.

There have been six foreign-born justices in the court's history: James Wilson (1789–1798), born in [[Ceres, Fife|Caskardy]], Scotland; [[James Iredell]] (1790–1799), born in [[Lewes]], England; [[William Paterson (judge)|William Paterson]] (1793–1806), born in [[County Antrim]], Ireland; [[David Josiah Brewer|David Brewer]] (1889–1910), born to American missionaries in [[Smyrna]], [[Ottoman Empire]] (now [[İzmir]], Turkey); [[George Sutherland]] (1922–1939), born in [[Buckinghamshire]], England; and [[Felix Frankfurter]] (1939–1962), born in [[Vienna]], [[Austria-Hungary]] (now in Austria).<ref name="SCOTUS FAQ">{{cite web |title=Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.aspx#faqjustice12 |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=May 3, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170320120356/https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.aspx#faqjustice12 |archive-date=March 20, 2017}}</ref>

Since 1789, about one-third of the justices have been [[United States Armed Forces|U.S. military]] veterans. Samuel Alito is the only veteran currently serving on the court.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Preston |first=Matthew |date=April 15, 2022 |title=Ketanji Brown Jackson's Historic Rise Leaves Just One Military Veteran on the Supreme Court |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/04/15/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-veteran/9510328002/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220415131417/https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2022/04/15/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-veteran/9510328002/ |archive-date=April 15, 2022 |access-date=October 12, 2022 |newspaper=USA Today}}</ref> Retired justices Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy also served in the U.S. military.<ref>{{cite web |title=In Celebration of Armed Forces Day |last=Shurtleff |first=Kathy |date=May 12, 2021 |url=https://supremecourthistory.org/scotus-scoops/in-celebration-of-armed-forces-day/ |publisher=Supreme Court Historical Society |location=Washington, D.C. |access-date=October 12, 2022 |archive-date=October 10, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221010022730/https://supremecourthistory.org/scotus-scoops/in-celebration-of-armed-forces-day/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Judicial leanings===
{{Main|Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices}}

Justices are nominated by the president in power, and receive confirmation by the Senate, historically holding many of the views of the nominating president's political party. While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches, organizations such as the Federalist Society do officially filter and endorse judges that have a sufficiently conservative view of the law. Jurists are often informally categorized in the media as being conservatives or liberal. Attempts to quantify the ideologies of jurists include the [[Segal–Cover score]], [[Martin-Quinn score]], and [[Judicial Common Space]] score.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hasen |first=Richard L. |date=May 11, 2019 |title=Polarization and the Judiciary |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |language=en |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=261–276 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051317-125141 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Harris |first1=Allison P. |last2=Sen |first2=Maya |date=May 11, 2019 |title=Bias and Judging |journal=Annual Review of Political Science |language=en |volume=22 |issue=1 |pages=241–259 |doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-051617-090650 |issn=1094-2939 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Devins and Baum argue that before 2010, the Court never had clear ideological blocs that fell perfectly along party lines. In choosing their appointments, Presidents often focused more on friendship and political connections than on ideology. Republican presidents sometimes appointed liberals and Democratic presidents sometimes appointed conservatives. As a result, "... between 1790 and early 2010 there were only two decisions that the ''Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court'' designated as important and that had at least two dissenting votes in which the Justices divided along party lines, about one-half of one percent."<ref name="DevinsBaum">{{cite journal |last1=Devins |first1=Neal |last2=Baum |first2=Lawrence |date=2017 |title=Split definitive: How party polarization turned the Supreme Court into a partisan court |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/691096 |journal=The Supreme Court Review |publisher=University of Chicago Law School |volume=2016 |issue=1 |pages=301–365 |doi=10.1086/691096 |s2cid=142355294 |access-date=November 13, 2022}}</ref>{{rp|316}}<ref name="DevinsBaumBook">{{cite book |last1=Baum |first1=Lawrence |url=https://wwws.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/events/colloquium/public-law/documents/devins_baum_the%20company%20they%20keep.pdf |title=The company they keep: How partisan divisions came to the Supreme Court |last2=Devins |first2=Neal |date=2019 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0190278052}}</ref> Even in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s, Democratic and Republican elites tended to agree on some major issues, especially concerning civil rights and civil liberties—and so did the justices. But since 1991, they argue, ideology has been much more important in choosing justices—all Republican appointees have been committed conservatives and all Democratic appointees have been liberals.<ref name="DevinsBaum" />{{rp|331–344}} As the more moderate Republican justices retired, the court has become more partisan. The Court became more divided sharply along partisan lines with justices appointed by Republican presidents taking increasingly conservative positions and those appointed by Democrats taking moderate liberal positions.<ref name="DevinsBaum" />{{rp|357}}
[[File:U.S. Supreme Court by the Party of the nominating President.png|thumb|Balance of the US Supreme Court since 2020, shaded by party of the nominating president: Blue represents a Democratic president and red a [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] president]]
Following the confirmation of [[Amy Coney Barrett]] in 2020 after the death of [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], the court is composed of six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice [[John Roberts|Roberts]] and associate justices [[Clarence Thomas|Thomas]], [[Samuel Alito|Alito]], [[Neil Gorsuch|Gorsuch]], [[Brett Kavanaugh|Kavanaugh]], and Barrett, appointed by Republican presidents, compose the court's conservative wing, and that Justices [[Sonia Sotomayor|Sotomayor]], [[Elena Kagan|Kagan]], and [[Ketanji Brown Jackson|Jackson]], appointed by Democratic presidents, compose the court's liberal wing.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |author-link=Adam Liptak |date=February 25, 2022 |title=Judge Jackson's Rulings: Detailed, Methodical and Leaning Left |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/us/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-rulings.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230503193032/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/us/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-rulings.html |archive-date=May 3, 2023 |access-date=May 3, 2023 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> 
Prior to Justice Ginsburg's death in 2020, the conservative Chief Justice Roberts was sometimes described as the court's 'median justice' (with four justices more liberal and four more conservative than he is).<ref>{{cite news |last=Betz |first=Bradford |date=March 2, 2019 |title=Chief Justice Roberts' recent votes raise doubts about 'conservative revolution' on Supreme Court |url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/chief-justice-roberts-recent-voting-record-downplays-notion-of-conservative-revolution-in-supreme-court |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201118001952/https://www.foxnews.com/us/chief-justice-roberts-recent-voting-record-downplays-notion-of-conservative-revolution-in-supreme-court |archive-date=November 18, 2020 |access-date=April 20, 2019 |work=[[Fox News]] |quote=Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, told Bloomberg that Roberts' recent voting record may indicate that he is taking his role as the median justice "very seriously" and that the recent period was "perhaps the beginning of his being the swing justice."}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Roeder |first=Oliver |date=October 6, 2018 |title=How Kavanaugh will change the Supreme Court |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-kavanaugh-will-change-the-supreme-court/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201207162032/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-kavanaugh-will-change-the-supreme-court/ |archive-date=December 7, 2020 |access-date=April 20, 2019 |work=[[FiveThirtyEight]] |quote=Based on what we know about measuring the ideology of justices and judges, the Supreme Court will soon take a hard and quick turn to the right. It's a new path that is likely to last for years. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, will almost certainly become the new median justice, defining the court's new ideological center.}}</ref> Darragh Roche argues that Kavanaugh as 2021's median justice exemplifies the rightward shift in the court.<ref name="median">{{cite news |last=Roche |first=Darragh |date=October 5, 2021 |title=Brett Kavanaugh Is Supreme Court's Ideological Median as New Term Begins |url=https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-ideological-median-new-term-conservatives-1635584 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211030175713/https://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-ideological-median-new-term-conservatives-1635584 |archive-date=October 30, 2021 |access-date=October 30, 2021 |work=Newsweek}}</ref>{{Update inline|date=February 2024}}

[[FiveThirtyEight]] found the number of unanimous decisions dropped from the 20-year average of nearly 50% to nearly 30% in 2021 while party-line rulings increased from a 60-year average just above zero to a record high 21%.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Thomson-DeVeaux |first1=Amelia |last2=Bronner |first2=Laura |date=July 5, 2022 |others=Graphics by Elena Mejía |title=Just How Sharp Was The Supreme Court's Rightward Turn This Term? |url=https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-partisan-divide-hasnt-been-this-sharp-in-generations/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230209161703/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-partisan-divide-hasnt-been-this-sharp-in-generations/ |archive-date=February 9, 2023 |access-date=February 8, 2023 |website=FiveThirtyEight |language=en-US}}</ref> That year Ryan Williams pointed to the party-line votes for confirmations of justices as evidence that the court is of partisan importance to the Senate.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Ryan C. |date=September 19, 2021 |title=Opinion |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-justices-say-institution-must-be-nonpartisan-they-make-ncna1279280 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208062151/https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-justices-say-institution-must-be-nonpartisan-they-make-ncna1279280 |archive-date=February 8, 2023 |access-date=February 8, 2023 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref> In 2022, Simon Lazarus of Brookings critiqued the U.S. Supreme Court as an increasingly partisan institution.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lazarus |first=Simon |date=March 23, 2022 |title=How to rein in partisan Supreme Court justices |url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/03/23/how-to-rein-in-partisan-supreme-court-justices/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230208062152/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/03/23/how-to-rein-in-partisan-supreme-court-justices/ |archive-date=February 8, 2023 |access-date=February 8, 2023 |website=Brookings |language=en-US}}</ref> A 2024 AP-NORC poll showed 7 in 10 respondents believed the court decides cases to "fit their own ideologies" as opposed to "acting as an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial."<ref>{{Cite news |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |author-link=Nina Totenberg |date=July 6, 2024 |title=Supreme Court's Roberts turns court to the right as Barrett emerges as a key player |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/07/02/nx-s1-5026959/supreme-court-term |work=NPR |quote=an Associated Press-NORC poll showed that 7 out of 10 Americans think that the justices make their decisions 'to fit their own ideologies,' instead of serving as 'an independent check on other branches of government by being fair and impartial.'}}</ref>

===Retired justices===
There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer. 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 Courts of Appeals]]. Such assignments are formally made by the chief justice, on request of the [[chief judge (United States)|chief judge]] of the lower court and with the consent of the retired justice. In recent years, Justice Souter has frequently sat on the [[First Circuit]], the court of which he was briefly a member before joining the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/22/sandra-day-oconnor-withdraws-from-public-life.html |title=Sandra Day O'Connor, first woman on the Supreme Court, withdraws from public life |date=October 22, 2018 |access-date=June 30, 2022 |publisher=CNBC |quote=For more than a decade after leaving the court in 2006, O'Connor kept up an active schedule: serving as a visiting federal appeals court judge, speaking on issues she cared about and founding her own education organization. But the 88-year-old, for more than two decades often the deciding vote in important cases, is now fully retired. |archive-date=June 30, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630184420/https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/22/sandra-day-oconnor-withdraws-from-public-life.html |url-status=live }}</ref> 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 political factors playing a role.<ref>David N. Atkinson, ''Leaving the Bench'' (University Press of Kansas 1999) {{ISBN|0-7006-0946-6}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/an-invisible-chief-justice/ |title=An Invisible Chief Justice |last=Greenhouse |first=Linda |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |date=September 9, 2010 |work=The New York Times |quote=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. |access-date=September 9, 2010 |archive-date=November 25, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201125193759/https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/an-invisible-chief-justice/ |url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Ward |first=Artemus |title=Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court |publisher=SUNY Press |isbn=978-0-7914-5651-4 |year=2003 |page=9 |url=http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60710.pdf |quote=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. |access-date=January 31, 2013 |archive-date=February 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210217211651/http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60710.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last2=Lindgren |first2=James |date=May 2010 |title=Retirement and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices |journal=[[Demography (journal)|Demography]] |volume=47 |issue=2 |pages=269–298 |doi=10.1353/dem.0.0100 |pmc=3000028 |pmid=20608097 |quote=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. |last1=Stolzenberg |first1=Ross M.}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"
|+ Retired justices of the Supreme Court<ref name="SCOTUScurrent"/>
|-
! rowspan=2 colspan=2 | Justice<br />Birthdate and place
! rowspan=2 | Appointed by
! colspan=2 | Age at
! colspan=3 | Tenure (active service)
|-
! Retirement !! Present !! Start date !! End date !! Length
|-

| {{sort|02|[[File:Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px]]}}
| {{Sortname|Anthony|Kennedy}}<br />{{dts|1936|7|23}}<br />[[Sacramento, California]]
| {{sortname||Reagan|Ronald Reagan|Reagan, Ronald}}<br />(R)
| 82
| {{age nts|1936|7|23}}
| {{dts|1988|2|18}}
| {{dts|2018|7|31}}
| {{ayd|1988|2|18|2018|7|31}}
|-
| {{sort|04|[[File:DavidSouter.jpg|100px]]}}
| [[David Souter]]<br />{{dts|1939|9|17}}<br />[[Melrose, Massachusetts]]
| {{sortname|G. H. W.|Bush|George H. W. Bush|Bush, GHW}}<br />(R)
| 69
| {{age nts|1939|9|17}}
| {{dts|1990|10|9}}
| {{dts|2009|6|29}}
| {{ayd|1990|10|9|2009|6|29}}
|-
| {{sort|01|[[File:Stephen Breyer official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px]]}}
| {{Sortname|Stephen|Breyer}}<br />{{dts|1938|8|15}}<br />[[San Francisco|San Francisco, California]]
| {{sortname||Clinton|Bill Clinton|Clinton, Bill}}<br />([[Democratic Party (United States)|D]])
| 83
| {{age nts|1938|8|15}}
| {{dts|1994|8|3}}
| {{dts|2022|06|30}}
| {{ayd|1994|8|3|2022|06|30}}
|}

===Salary===
{{Further|Federal judge salaries in the United States}}{{See also|Supreme Court of the United States#Ethics}}

As of 2024, associate justices receive a yearly salary of $298,500 and the chief justice is paid $312,200 per year.<ref name="salary">{{cite web |title=Judicial Compensation |url=https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-compensation |access-date=February 25, 2021 |work=United States Courts}}</ref> Once a justice meets [[United States federal judge#Retirement|age and service requirements]], the justice may retire with a pension based on the same formula used for federal employees. As with other federal courts judges, their pension can never be less than their salary at the time of retirement according to the [[Compensation Clause]] of [[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III of the Constitution]].{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}}

===Seniority and seating===
{{more citations needed|section|date=January 2019}}
[[File:Supreme Court of the United States - Roberts Court 2022.jpg|thumb|upright=1.10|The Roberts Court (since June 2022): Front row (left to right): [[Sonia Sotomayor]], [[Clarence Thomas]], Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], [[Samuel Alito]], and [[Elena Kagan]]. Back row (left to right): [[Amy Coney Barrett]], [[Neil Gorsuch]], [[Brett Kavanaugh]], and [[Ketanji Brown Jackson]].]]
For the most part, the day-to-day activities of the justices are governed by rules of protocol based upon the [[seniority]] of justices. The chief justice always ranks first in the [[order of precedence]]—regardless of the length of their service.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-05-14 |title=THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |url=https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020-Order-of-Precedence-FINAL.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201101024812/https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2020-Order-of-Precedence-FINAL.pdf |archive-date=2020-11-01 |access-date=2024-10-21 |website=state.gov}}</ref> The associate justices are then ranked by the length of their service. The chief justice sits in the center on the bench, or at the head of the table during conferences. The other justices are seated in order of seniority. The senior-most associate justice sits immediately to the chief justice's right; the second most senior sits immediately to their left. The seats alternate right to left in order of seniority, with the most junior justice occupying the last seat.<ref>{{Cite web |title=All Together for the Camera: A History of the Supreme Court’s Group Photograph |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/exhibitions/GroupPhotoExhibit/Default.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241001015805/https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/exhibitions/GroupPhotoExhibit/Default.aspx |archive-date=2024-10-01 |access-date=2024-10-21 |website=supremecourt.gov}}</ref> Therefore, since the October 2022 term, the court sits as follows from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the court: Barrett, Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Thomas (most senior associate justice), Roberts (chief justice), Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Likewise, when the members of the court gather for official group photographs, justices are arranged in order of seniority, with the five most senior members seated in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (currently, from left to right, Sotomayor, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kagan), and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Barrett, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Jackson).

In the justices' private conferences, current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority, beginning with the chief justice first and ending with the most junior associate justice. By custom, 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.<ref>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 (2008). ''Journal of Supreme Court History'' '''32''' (3): 282–296.</ref>

==Facilities==
{{main|United States Supreme Court Building}}
[[File:SCOTUS-oldsenate.jpg|thumb|From the 1860s until the 1930s, the court sat in the [[Old Senate Chamber]] of the [[U.S. Capitol]].]]
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 before settling in [[Old City Hall (Philadelphia)|Old City Hall]] from 1791 until 1800. After the government moved to Washington, D.C., the court occupied various spaces in the 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 [[Supreme Court Police]], separate from the [[United States Capitol Police|Capitol Police]].<ref name="tws24oct204">{{cite news |date=October 24, 2009 |title=Plan Your Trip |publisher=US Senator John McCain |url=http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=VisitingWashingtonDC.PlanYourTrip#supremecourt |access-date=October 24, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091030224351/http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=VisitingWashingtonDC.PlanYourTrip#supremecourt |archive-date=October 30, 2009}}<!-- Caution: This source is outdated about decisions being released on Mondays. See [[2022 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States]] or the Court's [https://www.supremecourt.gov web calendar] (only January 23 was a Monday opinions day). --></ref>

Located across First Street from the United States Capitol at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue,<ref name=tws24oct201/><ref name=tws24oct211>{{cite web |title=Visiting-Capitol-Hill |publisher=docstoc |date=October 24, 2009 |url=http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11663498/Visiting-Capitol-Hill |access-date=October 24, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160821011148/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11663498/Visiting-Capitol-Hill |archive-date=August 21, 2016}}</ref> the building is open to the public from 9{{nbsp}}am to 4:30{{nbsp}}pm weekdays but closed on weekends and [[federal holidays in the United States|holidays]].<ref name=tws24oct201>{{cite web |title=Visiting the Court |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |date=March 18, 2010 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visiting.aspx |access-date=March 19, 2010 |archive-date=March 22, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100322195841/http://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visiting.aspx |url-status=live}}</ref> Visitors may not tour the actual courtroom unaccompanied. There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.<ref name=tws24oct204/> When the court is not in session, lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30{{nbsp}}am to 3:30{{nbsp}}pm and reservations are not necessary.<ref name=tws24oct204/> 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.<ref name=tws24oct209>{{cite web |title=How The Court Works |publisher=The [[Supreme Court Historical Society]] |date=October 24, 2009 |url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-the-court-work/visiting-the-court/ |access-date=January 31, 2014 |archive-date=February 3, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203081102/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-the-court-work/visiting-the-court/}}</ref> The number of open seats varies from case to case; for important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. The court releases opinions beginning at 10{{nbsp}}am on scheduled "non-argument days" (also called opinion days)<ref name="cal">{{Cite web |title=Calendar Info/Key |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230624124916/https://www.supremecourt.gov/legendkeyinfo.aspx |archive-date=June 24, 2023 |access-date=July 6, 2023 |website=SupremeCourt.gov}}</ref> These sessions, which typically last 15 to 30-minute, are also open to the public.<ref name=cal/><ref name=tws24oct204/> From mid-May until the end of June, at least one opinion day is scheduled each week.<ref name= tws24oct204/> Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.<ref name=tws24oct201/>

==Jurisdiction==
{{United States constitutional law}}
Congress is authorized by Article III of the federal Constitution to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

===Original jurisdiction===
The Supreme Court has [[Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States|original and exclusive jurisdiction]] over cases between two or more states<ref>{{USCSub|28|1251|a}}</ref> but may decline to hear such cases.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |author-link1=Adam Liptak |title=Supreme Court Declines to Hear Challenge to Colorado's Marijuana Laws |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-colorados-marijuana-laws.html |access-date=April 27, 2017 |work=The New York Times |date=March 21, 2016 |archive-date=May 31, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170531161322/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-challenge-to-colorados-marijuana-laws.html |url-status=live}}</ref> 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 and a State; and all actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens."<ref>{{USCSub|28|1251|b}}</ref>

In 1906, the court asserted its original jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for [[contempt of court]] in ''[[United States v. Shipp]]''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=[[United States v. Shipp]] |vol=203 |reporter=U.S. |opinion=563 |court=Supreme Court of the United States |date=1906 |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/203/563}}</ref> The resulting proceeding remains the only contempt proceeding and only criminal trial in the court's history.<ref name="ABA Journal: US v. Shipp">{{cite web |last1=Curriden |first1=Mark |title=A Supreme Case of Contempt |url=http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_supreme_case_of_contempt |website=ABA Journal |publisher=[[American Bar Association]] |access-date=April 27, 2017 |date=June 2, 2009 |quote=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. |archive-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427193307/http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_supreme_case_of_contempt |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Humanities">{{cite journal |last1=Hindley |first1=Meredith |title=Chattanooga versus the Supreme Court: The Strange Case of Ed Johnson |journal=Humanities |date=November 2014 |volume=35 |issue=6 |url=https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/novemberdecember/feature/chattanooga-versus-the-supreme-court |access-date=April 27, 2017 |quote=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. |archive-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427195125/https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/novemberdecember/feature/chattanooga-versus-the-supreme-court |url-status=live}}</ref> The contempt proceeding arose from the [[Lynching in the United States|lynching]] of [[lynching of Ed Johnson|Ed Johnson]] in Chattanooga, Tennessee the evening after Justice [[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 hanged from a bridge, after which a deputy sheriff pinned a note on Johnson's body reading: "To Justice Harlan. Come get your nigger now."<ref name="ABA Journal: US v. Shipp"/> 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 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.<ref name="ABA Journal: US v. Shipp"/><ref name="Humanities"/><ref>{{cite web |last1=Linder |first1=Douglas |title=United States v. Shipp (U.S. Supreme Court, 1909) |url=http://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1117-shippcase |website=Famous Trials |access-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427202728/http://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1117-shippcase |url-status=live}}</ref>

In all other cases, the court has only appellate jurisdiction, including the ability to issue [[Writ of mandamus|writs of mandamus]] and [[Writ of prohibition|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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McKusick |first1=Vincent L. |author-link1=Vincent L. McKusick |title=Discretionary Gatekeeping: The Supreme Court's Management of Its Original Jurisdiction Docket Since 1961 |journal=Maine Law Review |date=1993 |volume=45 |page=185 |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/maine45&div=15&id=&page= |access-date=February 17, 2022 |archive-date=February 17, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220217020845/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/maine45&div=15&id=&page= |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Appellate jurisdiction===
The court's appellate jurisdiction consists of appeals from [[United States courts of appeals|federal courts of appeal]] (through ''[[Certiorari#United States|certiorari]]'', [[certiorari before judgment]], and [[Certified question#Certification of questions to the United States Supreme Court|certified questions]]),<ref>{{USC|28|1254}}</ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces]] (through certiorari),<ref>{{USC|28|1259}}</ref> the [[Supreme Court of Puerto Rico]] (through ''certiorari''),<ref>{{USC|28|1258}}</ref> the [[Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands]] (through ''certiorari''),<ref>{{USC|28|1260}}</ref> the [[District of Columbia Court of Appeals]] (through ''certiorari''),<ref name="USC|28|1257">{{USC|28|1257}}</ref> and "final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had" (through ''certiorari'').<ref name="USC|28|1257"/> 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]] 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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brannock |first1=Steven |last2=Weinzierl |first2=Sarah |title=Confronting a PCA: Finding a Path Around a Brick Wall |journal=[[Stetson University College of Law|Stetson Law Review]] |date=2003 |volume=XXXII |pages=368–369, 387–390 |url=http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/confronting-a-pca-finding-a-path-around-a-brick-wall.pdf |access-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-date=August 4, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160804085916/http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/confronting-a-pca-finding-a-path-around-a-brick-wall.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref> 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]]'' (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. This "collateral review" often only applies to individuals on death row and not through the regular judicial system.<ref>🖉{{Cite web |url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/case.html |title=Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989) |website=Justia Law |access-date=October 31, 2020 |archive-date=June 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180602012722/https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/case.html |url-status=live}}</ref>

Since Article Three of the 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 opinion]]s, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in ''[[DeFunis v. Odegaard]]'' (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 would address it even though the party before the court would not themselves be made whole by a favorable result. In ''Roe v. Wade'' (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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Gutman |first1=Jeffrey |title=Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys: 3.3 Mootness |url=http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section3 |website=Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys |publisher=Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law |access-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-date=April 27, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427193132/http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter3/section3 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Justices as circuit justices===
The United States is divided into thirteen [[United States court of appeals|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 ended in 1901, when the Circuit Court of Appeals Act was passed, and circuit riding was officially abolished by Congress in 1911.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/assets/schs_publications-circuitriding.pdf |title=On the road: The Supreme Court and the history of circuit riding |last=Glick |first=Joshua |journal=Cardozo Law Review |volume=24 |date=April 2003 |access-date=September 24, 2018 |quote=Gradually, however, circuit riding lost support. The Court's increasing business in the nation's capital following the Civil War made the circuit riding seem anachronistic and impractical and a slow shift away from the practice began. The Judiciary Act of 1869 established a separate circuit court judiciary. The justices retained nominal circuit riding duties until 1891 when the Circuit Court of Appeals Act was passed. With the Judicial Code of 1911, Congress officially ended the practice. The struggle between the legislative and judicial branches over circuit riding was finally concluded. |archive-date=September 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180925025629/http://supremecourthistory.org/assets/schs_publications-circuitriding.pdf}}</ref>

The circuit justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, by law and the rules of the court, may be addressed by a single justice. 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]]. Congress has specifically authorized one justice to issue a [[stay of execution|stay]] pending [[certiorari]] in {{USCSub|28|2101|f}}{{External links inline|date=March 2024}}. Each justice also decides routine procedural requests, such as for extensions of time.

Before 1990, the rules of the Supreme Court also stated that "a writ of injunction may be granted by any Justice in a case where it might be granted by the Court."<ref>Supreme Court Rule 44 (1980 revised) (titled "Stays"), published at 445 U.S. 985, [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435028062743&view=page&seq=940 1038] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511113513/https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=osu.32435028062743&view=page&seq=940 |date=May 11, 2023 }}. Also available at the Supreme Court's website at [https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/rules/rules_1980r.pdf Historical Rules of the Supreme Court, 1980 revised] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510230529/https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/rules/rules_1980r.pdf |date=May 10, 2023 }}.</ref> However, this part of the rule (and all other specific mention of injunctions) was removed in the Supreme Court's rules revision of December 1989.<ref>Supreme Court Rule 23 (1989) (titled "Stays"; moved from Rule 44), published at 493 U.S. 1097, [https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077149535&view=page&seq=1081&size=125 1125] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230511052131/https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015077149535&view=page&seq=1081&size=125 |date=May 11, 2023 }}. Also available at the Supreme Court's website at [https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/rules/rules_1989.pdf Historical Rules of the Supreme Court, 1989] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230510230532/https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/rules/rules_1989.pdf |date=May 10, 2023 }}. And "Injunction, writ of" was removed from the index. Compare 445 U.S. 1064 with 493 U.S. 1172.</ref><ref name="Gonen">Daniel Gonen, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1282265 "Judging in Chambers: The Powers of a Single Justice of the Supreme Court"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231116063506/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1282265|date=November 16, 2023}}, 76 U. Cinn. L. Rev. 1159, 1168–1170 (2008).</ref> Nevertheless, requests for injunctions under the [[All Writs Act]] are sometimes directed to the circuit justice. In the past,{{when|date=September 2018}} circuit justices also sometimes granted motions for [[bail]] in criminal cases, writs of ''[[habeas corpus]]'', and applications for [[writ of error|writs of error]] granting permission to appeal.<ref name=Gonen/>

A circuit justice may sit as a judge on the [[United States Court of Appeals|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.<ref>{{USCSub|28|45|b}} ("The circuit justice, however, shall have precedence over all the circuit judges and shall preside at any session which he attends.").</ref> 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 September 28, 2022, the allotment of the justices among the circuits is as follows:<ref>{{cite web |title=Miscellaneous Order (09/28/2022) |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092822zr_1b72.pdf |website=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=September 28, 2022 |archive-date=September 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220928185520/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092822zr_1b72.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Circuit !! Justice
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|District of Columbia Circuit]] || [[John Roberts|Chief Justice Roberts]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit]] || [[Ketanji Brown Jackson|Justice Jackson]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]] || [[Sonia Sotomayor|Justice Sotomayor]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] || [[Samuel Alito|Justice Alito]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]] || [[John Roberts|Chief Justice Roberts]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] || [[Samuel Alito|Justice Alito]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]] || [[Brett Kavanaugh|Justice Kavanaugh]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]] || [[Amy Coney Barrett|Justice Barrett]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|Eighth Circuit]] || [[Brett Kavanaugh|Justice Kavanaugh]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] || [[Elena Kagan|Justice Kagan]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit]] || [[Neil Gorsuch|Justice Gorsuch]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]] || [[Clarence Thomas|Justice Thomas]]
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Federal Circuit]] || [[John Roberts|Chief Justice Roberts]]
|}
{{notelist}}
Five of the current justices are assigned to circuits on which they previously sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Sotomayor (Second Circuit), Justice Alito (Third Circuit), Justice Barrett (Seventh Circuit), and Justice Gorsuch (Tenth Circuit).

==Process==
{{main|Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States}}

===Case selection===
Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs of ''[[certiorari]]'', commonly referred to as ''cert'', upon which the court grants a writ of certiorari. The court may review via this process any civil or criminal case in the federal courts of appeals.<ref name="usc|28|1254">{{usc|28|1254}}</ref> It may also review by certiorari a final judgment of the highest court of a state if the judgment involves a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.<ref>{{usc|28|1257}}; see also [[Adequate and independent state grounds]]</ref> A case may alternatively come before the court as a direct appeal from a three-judge federal district court.<ref>{{usc|28|1253}}</ref> The party that petitions the court for review is the ''[[petitioner]]'' and the non-mover is the ''respondent''.

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''.

The court also hears questions submitted to it by appeals courts themselves via a process known as certification.<ref name="usc|28|1254" />

The Supreme Court relies on the record assembled by lower courts for [[Question of law|the facts of a case]] and deals solely with [[Question of law|the question of how the law applies to the facts presented]]. There are however [[Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States|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 and a state. In such instances, a case is filed with the Supreme Court directly. Examples of such cases include ''United States v. Texas'', a case to determine whether a parcel of land belonged to the 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 (1794)|Georgia v. Brailsford]]'',<ref>{{cite journal |last=James |first=Robert A. |title=Instructions in Supreme Court Jury Trials |journal=[[The Green Bag (1997)|The Green Bag]] |year=1998 |volume=1 |series=2d |issue=4 |url=http://www.greenbag.org/v1n4/v1n4_articles_james.pdf |access-date=February 5, 2013 |page=378 |archive-date=August 18, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130818030849/http://www.greenbag.org/v1n4/v1n4_articles_james.pdf |url-status=live |issn=1095-5216}}</ref> parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction may request that a [[jury]] determine issues of fact.<ref>{{usc|28|1872}} ''See'' ''[[Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)|Georgia v. Brailsford]]'', {{ussc|3|1|1794}}, in which the Court conducted a jury trial.</ref> ''Georgia v. Brailsford'' remains the only case in which the court has [[Judicial panel|empaneled]] a jury, in this case a [[special jury]].<ref name="yalejournal">{{Cite journal |last=Shelfer |first=Lochlan F. |date=October 2013 |title=Special Juries in the Supreme Court |url=https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/special-juries-in-the-supreme-court |url-status=live |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |volume=123 |issue=1 |pages=208–252 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170630133808/https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/special-juries-in-the-supreme-court |archive-date=June 30, 2017 |access-date=October 2, 2018 |issn=0044-0094}}</ref> Two other original jurisdiction cases involve colonial era borders and rights under navigable waters in ''[[New Jersey v. Delaware]]'', and water rights between [[Riparian water rights#General Principle|riparian]] states upstream of navigable waters in ''[[Kansas v. Colorado]]''.

A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called 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 between circuit courts 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 case's final ruling. 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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129799113829 |title=Roberts Dips Toe into Cert Pool |first=Tony |last=Mauro |work=[[ALM (company)|Legal Times]] |date=October 21, 2005 |access-date=October 31, 2007 |archive-date=June 2, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090602213822/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129799113829 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144330162287 |title=Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party |first=Tony |last=Mauro |work=Legal Times |date=July 4, 2006 |access-date=October 31, 2007 |archive-date=September 30, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210355/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144330162287 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html |title=A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool' |first=Adam |last=Liptak |author-link=Adam Liptak |work=The New York Times |date=September 25, 2008 |access-date=October 17, 2008 |archive-date=December 11, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211090108/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html |url-status=live |url-access=limited}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-labor-pool-clerks.html |title=Gorsuch, in Sign of Independence, Is Out of Supreme Court's Clerical Pool |first=Adam |last=Liptak |author-link=Adam Liptak |work=The New York Times |date=May 1, 2017 |access-date=May 2, 2017 |archive-date=May 2, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170502063829/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-labor-pool-clerks.html |url-status=live |url-access=limited}}</ref>

=== Written evidence ===
The Court also relies on and cites [[amicus briefs]], [[law review]] articles, and other written works for their decisions. While law review article use has increased slightly with one article cited per decision on average,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Petherbridge |first1=Lee |last2=Schwartz |first2=David L. |date=2012 |title=An empirical Assessment of the Supreme Court's use of legal scholarship |url=http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84861745651&partnerID=8YFLogxK |journal=[[Northwestern University Law Review]] |volume=106 |issue=3 |pages=995–1032 |issn=0029-3571}}</ref> the use of amicus briefs has increased significantly.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |last=Larsen |first=Allison Orr |date=July 26, 2022 |title=Opinion: The Supreme Court Decisions on Guns and Abortion Relied Heavily on History. But Whose History? |url=https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/07/26/scotus-history-is-from-motivated-advocacy-groups-00047249 |work=Politico Magazine}}</ref> The use of amicus briefs has received criticism, including the ability of authors to discuss topics outside their expertise (unlike in lower courts),<ref name=":4" /> with documented examples of falsehoods in written opinions, often supplied to the justices by amicus briefs from groups advocating a particular outcome.<ref name=":5" /> The lack of funding transparency and the lack of a requirement to submit them earlier in the process also make it more difficult to [[Fact-checking|fact-check]] and understand the credibility of amicus briefs.<ref name=":4" />

===Oral argument===
[[File:Waxman during Hyatt III sketch.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|[[Seth P. Waxman]] at oral argument presents his case and answers questions from the justices.|alt=A man speaking at a [[lectern]] before two supreme court justices.]]
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, ''[[amicus curiae|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, although this is rare),<ref>See 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 v. Nixon]] lasted three hours; and [[New York Times v. United States|the Pentagon papers case]] was given a two-hour argument. {{cite web |url=https://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-among-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever |title='Obamacare' will rank among the longest Supreme Court arguments ever |last=Christy |first=Andrew |date=November 15, 2011 |access-date=March 31, 2011 |publisher=NPR |archive-date=November 16, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111116000140/http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-among-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever |url-status=live}} 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.{{cite web |url=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oral-arguments-on-health-care-reform-longest-in-45-years |title=Oral arguments on health reform longest in 45 years |last=Bobic |first=Igor |date=March 26, 2012 |access-date=January 31, 2014 |publisher=Talking Points Memo |archive-date=February 4, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140204025004/http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oral-arguments-on-health-care-reform-longest-in-45-years |url-status=live}}</ref> and during that time, the justices may interrupt the advocate and ask questions. In 2019, the court adopted a rule generally allowing advocates to speak uninterrupted for the first two minutes of their argument.<ref>{{cite news |title=Supreme Court gives lawyers 2 minutes with no interruptions |url=https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/supreme-court-lawyers-2-minutes |access-date=November 20, 2022 |agency=CNN |date=October 3, 2019 |archive-date=November 20, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221120230019/https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/supreme-court-lawyers-2-minutes |url-status=live }}</ref> The petitioner gives the first presentation, and may reserve some time to [[Rebuttal|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.

===Decision===
At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for decision. Cases are decided by majority vote of the justices. After the oral argument is concluded, usually in the same week as the case was submitted, the justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied and the court sees which side has prevailed. One of the justices in the majority is then assigned to write the court's opinion, also known as the "majority opinion", an assignment made by the most senior justice in the majority, with the chief justice always being considered the most senior. Drafts of the court's opinion circulate among the justices until the court is prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case.<ref>''See generally'', [[Mark Tushnet|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}}</ref>

Justices are free to change their votes on a case up until the decision is finalized and published. In any given case, a justice is free to choose whether or not to author an opinion or else simply join the majority or another justice's opinion. There are several primary types of opinions:
* '''Opinion of the court''': this is the binding decision of the Supreme Court. An opinion that more than half of the justices join (usually at least five justices, since there are nine justices in total; but in cases where some justices do not participate it could be fewer) is known as "majority opinion" and creates binding precedent in American law. Whereas an opinion that fewer than half of the justices join is known as a "plurality opinion" and is only partially binding precedent.
* '''Concurring''': a justice agrees with and joins the majority opinion but authors a separate concurrence to give additional explanations, rationales, or commentary. Concurrences do not create binding precedent.
* '''Concurring in the judgment''': a justice agrees with the outcome the court reached but disagrees with its reasons for doing so. A justice in this situation does not join the majority opinion. Like regular concurrences, these do not create binding precedent.
* '''Dissent''': a justice disagrees with the outcome the court reached and its reasoning. Justices who dissent from a decision may author their own dissenting opinions or, if there are multiple dissenting justices in a decision, may join another justice's dissent. Dissents do not create binding precedent. A justice may also join only part(s) of a particular decision, and may even agree with some parts of the outcome and disagree with others.

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, the court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set time after oral argument. Since recording devices are banned inside the courtroom of the Supreme Court Building, the delivery of the decision to the media has historically been done via paper copies in what was known as the "[[Running of the Interns]]".<ref>{{cite magazine |last1=Kessler |first1=Robert |title=Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again? |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/case-allowing-cameras-supreme-court-proceedings/316876/ |magazine=[[The Atlantic]] |access-date=March 24, 2017 |archive-date=March 25, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170325201504/https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/case-allowing-cameras-supreme-court-proceedings/316876/ |url-status=live}}</ref> However, this practice has become passé as the Court now posts electronic copies of the opinions on its website as they are being announced.<ref>{{cite web |title=Court will resume opinion announcements from the bench, but won't provide live audio |url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/court-will-resume-opinion-announcements-from-the-bench-but-wont-provide-live-audio/ |author=Amy Howe |date=December 12, 2022 |website=SCOTUSblog |access-date=April 2, 2023}}</ref>

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.<ref name="28 USC 1">{{usc|28|1}}</ref> 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 District Court, the chief justice may order the case [[Remand (court procedure)|remanded]] to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there.<ref>{{usc|28|2109}}</ref> This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of ''[[United States v. Alcoa]]'' (1945).<ref>{{cite book |title=Industrial Organization: Contemporary Theory and Practice |last2=Richards |first2=Daniel L. |last3=Norman |first3=George |publisher=South-Western College Publishing |year=1999 |location=Cincinnati |pages=11–12 |last1=Pepall |first1=Lynne}}</ref>

===Published opinions===
{{Update|section|date=August 2021}}

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 by the [[Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States|Reporter of Decisions]]. 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|2019|01}}, there are:
* Final bound volumes of ''U.S. Reports'': 569 volumes, covering cases through June 13, 2013 (part of the October 2012 term).<ref name="USRBV">{{cite web |title=Bound Volumes |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes.aspx |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-date=January 8, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190108025637/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes.aspx |url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="USRv569">{{cite journal |title=Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term, 2012 – March 26 through June 13, 2013 |journal=United States Reports |date=2018 |volume=569 |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/569bv.pdf |access-date=January 9, 2019 |archive-date=March 31, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210331191802/https://www.supremecourt.gov//opinions/boundvolumes/569BV.pdf |url-status=live}}</ref>
* [[Slip opinion]]s: 21 volumes (565–585 for 2011–2017 terms, three two-part volumes each), plus part 1 of volume 586 (2018 term).<ref name="sliplists">{{cite web |title=Sliplists |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/sliplists.aspx |publisher=Supreme Court of the United States |access-date=January 1, 2019 |archive-date=April 6, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170406114133/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/sliplists.aspx}}</ref>

{{As of|2012|3|df=US}}, 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|reason=is there a URL that can be added to the "as of" template?|date=October 2014}} 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 Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1|Parents v. Seattle]]'', where ''[[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 are 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 (publisher)|West]] (now a part of [[Thomson Reuters]]), and ''[[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''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Research Guide |url=http://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/guides/supreme_court.cfm |work=law.georgetown.edu |publisher=Georgetown Law Library |access-date=August 22, 2012 |archive-date=August 22, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120822172547/http://www.law.georgetown.edu/library/research/guides/supreme_court.cfm |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How to Cite Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions |url=http://lib.guides.umd.edu/content.php?pid=128265&sid=1100770 |work=lib.guides.umd.edu |publisher=[[University of Maryland]] University Libraries |access-date=August 22, 2012 |archive-date=August 22, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120822172846/http://lib.guides.umd.edu/content.php?pid=128265&sid=1100770 |url-status=live}}</ref>

====Citations to published opinions====
{{further|Case citation#Supreme Court of the United States}}
Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form "{{varserif|vol}} U.S. {{varserif|page}}, {{varserif|pin}} ({{varserif|year}})", where {{varserif|vol}} is the volume number, {{varserif|page}} is the page number on which the opinion begins, and {{varserif|year}} is the year in which the case was decided. Optionally, {{varserif|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 ''___''

===Supreme Court bar===
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.{{citation needed|date=January 2022}} The rest join for a one-time fee of $200, with the court collecting 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.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Glazer |first1=Eric M. |last2=Zachary |first2=Michael |date=February 1997 |title=Joining the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court |url=http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Articles/0616A0059B6778BB85256ADB005D6106 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140405043602/http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Articles/0616A0059B6778BB85256ADB005D6106 |archive-date=April 5, 2014 |access-date=February 3, 2014 |work=Volume LXXI, No. 2 |publisher=Florida Bar Journal |page=63}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite news |last=Gresko |first=Jessica |date=March 24, 2013 |title=For lawyers, the Supreme Court bar is vanity trip |url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawyers-supreme-court-bar-vanity-trip-18778432#.UU-ctDf75QI |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130323073447/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawyers-supreme-court-bar-vanity-trip-18778432 |archive-date=March 23, 2013 |work=[[Florida Today]] |location=[[Melbourne, Florida]] |pages=2A}}</ref> Members of the Supreme Court Bar are also granted access to the collections of the Supreme Court Library.<ref>{{cite web |title=How The Court Works; Library Support |url=http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-the-court-work/library-support/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221121915/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-the-court-work/library-support/ |archive-date=February 21, 2014 |access-date=February 3, 2014 |publisher=The Supreme Court Historical Society}}</ref>

===Term===
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, and discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.<ref>{{Citation |title=The Court and Its Procedures |work=Supreme Court of the United States |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx |access-date=June 27, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220626000156/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx |archive-date=June 26, 2022 |url-status=live |ref=none}}</ref>

==Institutional powers==
[[File:Marbury v Madison John Marshall by Swatjester crop.jpg|thumb|left|Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review]]

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.<ref name="google118"/> 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 of the United States|Founding Fathers]] accepted the notion of judicial review; in [[Federalist No. 78]], [[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, and 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 established its own power to declare laws unconstitutional in ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' (1803), consummating the American system of [[Separation of powers#Checks and balances|checks and balances]]. In explaining the power of judicial review, Chief Justice [[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.<ref name="google118">{{cite book |title=Institutions of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch |year=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York City |isbn=978-0-19-530917-1 |pages=117–118 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6rWCaMAdUzgC&q=Institutions+of+American+Democracy%3A+The+Judicial+Branch |editor1-first=Kermit L. |editor1-last=Hall |editor2-first=Kevin T. |editor2-last=McGuire |access-date=October 29, 2020 |archive-date=November 17, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201117175809/https://books.google.com/books?id=6rWCaMAdUzgC&q=Institutions+of+American+Democracy%3A+The+Judicial+Branch |url-status=live}}</ref> This decision was criticized by then-President [[Thomas Jefferson]] who said, "the Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Hartmann |first=Thom |author-link=Thom Hartmann |date=June 27, 2024 |title=The Supreme Court Was Never Meant to Be Kings and Queens |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/183196/supreme-court-alito-thomas-trump |access-date=2024-07-02 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>

Since the founding of the republic, there has been a tension between the practice of judicial review and the [[democratic ideals]] of [[Equality before the law|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."<ref>{{cite book |last=Mendelson |first=Wallace |year=1992 |contribution=Separation of Powers |editor-last=Hall |editor-first=Kermit L. |editor-link=Kermit L. Hall |title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/775 775] |isbn=978-0-19-505835-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/775}}</ref> 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 ([[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 1: Federal courts|Section 1 of Article Three]]). Although 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.<ref name="google118"/>

===Constraints===
The Supreme Court 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 (U.S. state)|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]] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"<ref>Horace Greeley (1873). ''The American Conflict'', p. 106; also in ''The Life of Andrew Jackson'' (2001) by Robert Vincent Remini.</ref> Some state governments in the [[Southern United States|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]].<ref>{{cite news |date=July 8, 1974 |title=Supreme Court hears case of United States v. Nixon |url=http://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=3733 |access-date=February 20, 2019 |last1=Brokaw |first1=Tom |last2=Stern |first2=Carl |publisher=NBC Universal Media LLC |quote=But there is no guarantee that when the decision comes, it will end the matter. It may just set the stage for the next legal wrangle over compliance with the Court's decision. |archive-date=February 21, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190221054749/http://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=3733 |url-status=live}}</ref> Nixon ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.<ref>{{cite news |title=Nixon Resigns |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part3.html |access-date=February 17, 2022 |newspaper=The Washington Post |language=en |archive-date=November 25, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161125171439/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part3.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

Supreme Court decisions can be purposefully overturned by constitutional amendment, something that has happened on six occasions:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&context=faculty_publications|title='Shall Not be Construed': Reversal of Supreme Court Decisions by Constitutional Amendment|format=PDF|last=Orth|first=John V.|publisher=[[University of North Carolina School of Law]]|accessdate=April 20, 2024}}</ref>
* ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'' (1793) – overturned by the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eleventh Amendment]] (1795)
* ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' (1857) – overturned by the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]] (1865) and the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] (1868)
* ''[[Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.]]'' (1895) – overturned by the [[Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixteenth Amendment]] (1913)
* ''[[Minor v. Happersett]]'' (1875) – overturned by the [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth Amendment]] (1920)
* ''[[Breedlove v. Suttles]]'' (1937) – overturned by the [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fourth Amendment]] (1964)
* ''[[Oregon v. Mitchell]]'' (1970) – overturned by the [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|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 Fair Pay Act of 2009]], 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Vile |first=John R. |year=1992 |contribution=Court curbing |editor-last=Hall |editor-first=Kermit L. |editor-link=Kermit L. Hall |title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=[https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/202 202] |isbn=978-0-19-505835-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/202}}</ref>

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 [[Jurisdiction stripping|restricts the jurisdiction]] of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in [[Article 3 (U.S. Constitution)#Section 2: Federal jurisdiction and trial by jury|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 Era case ''[[ex parte McCardle]]'' (1869), although it rejected Congress' power to dictate how particular cases must be decided in ''[[United States v. Klein]]'' (1871).<ref>{{cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/80/128/|title=United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871)|publisher=Justia|accessdate=April 20, 2024}}</ref>

On the other hand,{{Tone inline|date=March 2024}} 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 v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.]]'' (1936), ''[[Dames & Moore v. Regan]]'' (1981), and notably in ''[[Goldwater v. Carter]]'' (1979), which effectively gave the presidency the power to terminate ratified treaties without the consent of Congress. The court's decisions can also impose limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in ''[[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]]'' (1935), the ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|Steel Seizure Case]]'' (1952), and ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' (1974).{{Citation needed|date=March 2024}}<!-- There are a lot of other cases worth mentioning, but too much detail might be inappropriate here.-->

==Law clerks==
{{further|Lists of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States}}
Each Supreme Court justice hires several [[Law clerk#Federal clerkships|law clerks]] to review petitions for writ of ''[[certiorari]]'', [[Legal research|research]] them, prepare [[bench memorandum]]s, 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.<ref name="Peppers2006">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NxiMWr730EcC |title=Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk |last=Peppers |first=Todd C. |publisher=Stanford University Press |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-8047-5382-1 |pages=195, 1, 20, 22, and 22–24 respectively |access-date=October 29, 2020 |archive-date=November 7, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107153958/https://books.google.com/books?id=NxiMWr730EcC |url-status=live}}</ref> Generally, law clerks serve a term of one to two years.

The first law clerk was hired by Associate Justice [[Horace Gray]] in 1882.<ref name=Peppers2006/><ref name=Weiden2006>{{cite book |first1=David |last1=Weiden |first2=Artemus |last2=Ward |year=2006 |title=Sorcerers' Apprentices: 100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court |publisher=NYU Press |isbn=978-0-8147-9404-3 |url=http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780814784648?auth=0 |access-date=May 28, 2013 |archive-date=January 1, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160101192913/http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780814784648?auth=0 |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.]] and [[Louis Brandeis]] were the first Supreme Court justices to use recent [[law school]] graduates as clerks, rather than hiring "a [[wikt:stenographer#Noun|stenographer]]-secretary."<ref name=Chace2007>{{cite book |first=James |last=Chace |title=Acheson: The Secretary of State Who Created the American World |location=New York City |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=2007 |publication-date=1998 |isbn=978-0-684-80843-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8Jf32GR7t3IC |page=44 |access-date=October 29, 2020 |archive-date=November 18, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201118002702/https://books.google.com/books?id=8Jf32GR7t3IC |url-status=live}}</ref> Most law clerks are recent law school graduates.

The first female clerk was [[Lucile Lomen]], hired in 1944 by Justice [[William O. Douglas]].<ref name=Peppers2006/> The first African-American, [[William T. Coleman Jr.]], was hired in 1948 by Justice [[Felix Frankfurter]].<ref name=Peppers2006/> 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.<ref name=Peppers2006/> 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 [[United States Courts of Appeals|federal court of appeals]] had also become a prerequisite to clerking for a Supreme Court justice.

Ten Supreme Court justices previously clerked for other justices: [[Byron White]] for [[Frederick M. Vinson]], [[John Paul Stevens]] for [[Wiley Rutledge]], [[William Rehnquist]] for [[Robert H. Jackson]], Stephen Breyer for [[Arthur Goldberg]], John Roberts for William Rehnquist, Elena Kagan for [[Thurgood Marshall]], Neil Gorsuch for both Byron White and [[Anthony Kennedy]], Brett Kavanaugh also for Kennedy, Amy Coney Barrett for [[Antonin Scalia]], and Ketanji Brown Jackson for Stephen Breyer. Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh served under Kennedy during the same term. Gorsuch is the first justice to clerk for and subsequently serve alongside the same justice, serving alongside Kennedy from April 2017 through Kennedy's retirement in 2018. With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, for the first time a majority of the Supreme Court was composed of former Supreme Court law clerks (Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, now joined by Barrett and Jackson, who replaced Breyer).

Several current Supreme Court justices have also clerked in the federal courts of appeals: John Roberts for Judge [[Henry Friendly]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]], Justice [[Samuel Alito]] for Judge [[Leonard I. Garth]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]], Elena Kagan for Judge [[Abner J. Mikva]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit]], [[Neil Gorsuch]] for Judge [[David B. Sentelle]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia]], Brett Kavanaugh for Judge [[Walter King Stapleton|Walter Stapleton]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]] and Judge [[Alex Kozinski]] of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]], and Amy Coney Barrett for Judge [[Laurence Silberman]] of the [[U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]].

===Politicization of the court===
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]].<ref name=nyt090710>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html |url-access=subscription |title=A Sign of the Court's Polarization: Choice of Clerks |first=Adam |last=Liptak |author-link=Adam Liptak |work=The New York Times |date=September 7, 2010 |access-date=September 7, 2010 |archive-date=July 13, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120713133454/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author1=Nelson |first=William E. |author2=Rishikof |first2=Harvey |author2-link=Harvey Rishikof |author3=Messinger |first3=I. Scott |author4=Jo |first4=Michael |date=November 2009 |title=The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation? |url=http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Nelson-et-al.-Supreme-Court-Clerkships-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1749-2009.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100727110418/http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Nelson-et-al.-Supreme-Court-Clerkships-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1749-2009.pdf |archive-date=July 27, 2010 |access-date=September 7, 2010 |work=Vanderbilt Law Review |page=1749 |volume=62 |issue=6}}</ref> "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.<ref name=nyt090710/> [[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."<ref name=nyt090710/> 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."<ref name="nyt090710" />

==Criticism and controversies==
The following are some of the criticisms and controversies about the Court that are not discussed in previous sections.

Unlike in most high courts, the United States Supreme Court has [[Life tenure|lifetime tenure]], an unusual amount of power over elected branches of government, and a difficult constitution to amend.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Quinn |first=Colm |date=March 8, 2024 |title=For a Less Politicized Supreme Court, Look Abroad |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/04/supreme-court-international/ |access-date=March 2, 2024 |website=[[Foreign Policy]] |language=en-US |quote=A criticism leveled at the Supreme Court and U.S. institutions more generally is that after more than two centuries in operation, it’s beginning to look its age, with questions of legitimacy, political interference, and power all combining to undermine the court.}}</ref> These, among other factors, have been attributed by some critics to the Court's diminished stature abroad<ref name="Liptak-2008">{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |author-link1=Adam Liptak |date=September 17, 2008 |title=U.S. Court Is Now Guiding Fewer Nations |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/us/18legal.html |access-date=June 7, 2018 |work=The New York Times |quote=}}</ref> and lower approval ratings at home, which have dropped from the mid-60s in the late 1980s to around 40% in the early 2020s. Additional factors cited by critics include the polarization of national politics, ethics scandals, and specific controversial partisan rulings, including the relaxation of [[Campaign finance in the United States|campaign finance]] rules,<ref name=Stone>{{cite journal |last=Stone |first=Geoffrey R. |author-link=Geoffrey R. Stone |date=March 26, 2012 |title=''Citizens United'' and conservative judicial activism |url=https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/2/Stone.pdf |url-status=live |journal=University of Illinois Law Review |volume=2012 |issue=2 |pages=485–500 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210217212201/http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2012/2/Stone.pdf |archive-date=February 17, 2021 |access-date=May 13, 2020}}</ref> increased gerrymandering,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Millhiser |date=2024-05-23 |title=The Supreme Court's new voting rights decision is a love letter to gerrymandering |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/351406/the-supreme-courts-new-voting-rights-decision-is-a-love-letter-to-gerrymandering |access-date=2024-05-29 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> weakened voting rights,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=June 27, 2019 |title=The Supreme Court's gerrymandering decision reveals a profound threat to democracy |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/27/18761166/supreme-court-gerrymandering-republicans-democracy |access-date=January 30, 2023 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref> [[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization|''Dobbs v. Jackson'']] and ''[[Bush v. Gore]]''.<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Millhiser |date=2024-06-10 |title=Justices Sotomayor and Kagan must retire now |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/354381/supreme-court-sotomayor-kagan-retire-now |access-date=2024-06-19 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> The continued consolidation of power by the court and, as a result of its rulings, the Republican Party, has sparked debate over when [[democratic backsliding]] becomes entrenched [[single-party rule]].<ref name=":3" />

=== Approval ratings ===
Public trust in the court peaked in the late 1980s. Since the 2022 ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization|Dobbs]]'' ruling that overturned ''Roe v. Wade'' and permitted states to restrict abortion rights, Democrats and independents have increasingly lost trust in the court, seen the court as political, and expressed support for reforming the institution.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Levendusky |first1=Matthew |last2=Patterson |first2=Shawn |last3=Margolis |first3=Michele |last4=Pasek |first4=Josh |last5=Winneg |first5=Kenneth |last6=Jamieson |first6=Kathleen H. |date=2024 |title=Has the Supreme Court become just another political branch? Public perceptions of court approval and legitimacy in a post- Dobbs world |journal=Science Advances |language=en |volume=10 |issue=10 |pages=eadk9590 |doi=10.1126/sciadv.adk9590 |issn=2375-2548|doi-access=free |pmid=38457495 |pmc=10923515 |bibcode=2024SciA...10K9590L }}</ref> Historically, the court had relatively more trust than other government institutions.<ref name="The Christian Science Monitor 2024 a314">{{cite web |author=Gass |first=Henry |date=2024-04-24 |title=A majority of Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court. Can it rebuild? |url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2024/0424/supreme-court-trust-trump-immunity-overturning-roe |access-date=2024-04-26 |website=The Christian Science Monitor}}</ref>

After recording recent high approval ratings in the late 1980s around 66% approval,<ref>{{cite news |last1=Liptak |first1=Adam |author-link1=Adam Liptak |last2=Kopicki |first2=Allison |date=June 7, 2012 |title=Approval Rating for Supreme Court Hits Just 44% in Poll |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of-supreme-court-in-new-poll.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190616214829/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of-supreme-court-in-new-poll.html |archive-date=June 16, 2019 |access-date=June 28, 2019 |work=The New York Times}}</ref> the court's ratings have declined to an average of around 40% between mid-2021 and February 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Morris |first1=G. Elliot |last2=Burton |first2=Cooper |last3=Fuong |first3=Holly |last4=Groskopf |first4=Christopher |last5=King |first5=Ritchie |last6=Koeze |first6=Ella |last7=Mehta |first7=Dhrumil |last8=Mithani |first8=Jasmine |last9=Radcliffe |first9=Mary |display-authors=8 |date=February 25, 2024 |editor-last=Frostenson |editor-first=Sarah |editor2-last=Thomson-DeVeaux |editor2-first=Amelia |title=Supreme Court : Approval Polls |url=https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/supreme-court/ |access-date=February 25, 2024 |website=FiveThirtyEight |language=en}}</ref>

=== Composition and selection ===
{{Main|United States Senate#Criticism|United States Electoral College#Impacts and reception}}

The [[United States Electoral College|electoral college]] (which elects the President who nominates the justices) and the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] which confirms the justices, have selection biases that favor rural states that tend to vote Republican, resulting in a conservative Supreme Court.<ref name="Litt-2020">{{Cite book |last=Litt |first=David |title=Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesn't, and Why Fixing It Is Easier Than You Think |publisher=Ecco |year=2020 |isbn=978-0-06-287936-3 |page=345}}</ref> Ziblatt and Levitsky estimate that 3 or 4 of the seats held by conservative justices on the court would be held by justices appointed by a Democratic president if the Presidency and Senate were selected directly by the popular vote.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |author-link=Steven Levitsky |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |author-link2=Daniel Ziblatt |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 6}}</ref> The three Trump appointees to the court were all nominated by a president who finished second in the popular vote and confirmed by Senators representing a minority of Americans.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Balz |first1=Dan |author-link=Dan Balz |last2=Morse |first2=Clara Ence |date=August 18, 2023 |title=American democracy is cracking. These forces help explain why. |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/08/18/american-democracy-political-system-failures/ |access-date=September 20, 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en}}</ref> In addition, Clarence Thomas' confirmation in 1991 and Merrick Garland's blocked confirmation in 2016 were both decided by senators representing a minority of Americans.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bump |first=Philip |date=December 2, 2021 |title=Analysis {{!}} The minoritarian third of the Supreme Court |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/12/02/minoritarian-third-supreme-court/ |access-date=September 22, 2023 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Greg Price also critiqued the Court as [[Minoritarianism|minority rule]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Price |first=Greg |date=October 6, 2018 |title=Kavanaugh Fourth Justice Picked By Unpopular President |url=https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-justices-president-popular-vote-1156542 |access-date=September 21, 2023 |website=Newsweek |language=en}}</ref>

Moreover, the [[Federalist Society]] acted as a filter for judicial nominations during the Trump administration,<ref name="Federalistsociety">{{Cite news |last=Green |first=Jamal |date=May 7, 2019 |title=Trump's Judge Whisperer Promised to Take Our Laws Back to the 1930s |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/leonard-leo-federalist-society-new-deal-trump-judges.html |access-date=February 5, 2023 |publisher=Slate |quote=A longtime leader within the Federalist Society, Leo has had Donald Trump's ear on judicial appointments and has been the main curator of the president's list of Supreme Court candidates.}}</ref> ensuring the latest conservative justices lean even further to the right.<ref name="Litt-2020" /> 86% of judges Trump appointed to circuit courts and the Supreme Court were Federalist Society members.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Kroll |first1=Andy |last2=Bernstein |first2=Andrea |last3=Marritz |first3=Ilya |last4=Sweitzer |first4=Nate |date=October 11, 2023 |title=We Don't Talk About Leonard: The Man Behind the Right's Supreme Court Supermajority |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/we-dont-talk-about-leonard-leo-supreme-court-supermajority |access-date=October 20, 2023 |website=ProPublica |language=en}}</ref> David Litt critiques it as "an attempt to impose rigid ideological dogma on a profession once known for intellectual freedom."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Litt |first=David |title=Democracy in One Book or Less: How It Works, Why It Doesn't, and Why Fixing It is Easier Than You Think |date=2020 |isbn=978-0-06-287936-3 |edition=First |location=New York, NY |publisher=HarperCollins |page=334 |oclc=1120147424}}</ref> Kate Aronoff criticizes the donations from special interests like fossil fuel companies and other dark money groups to the Federalist Society and related organizations seeking to influence lawyers and Supreme Court Justices.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Aronoff |first=Kate |date=October 14, 2020 |title=This Supreme Court Was Designed to Kill Climate Policies |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/159766/supreme-court-designed-kill-climate-policies |access-date=2024-06-19 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>

The 2016 stonewalling of Merrick Garland's confirmation and subsequent filling with Neil Gorsuch has been critiqued as a 'stolen seat' citing precedent from the 20th century of confirmations during election years,<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Stone |first=Geoffrey R. |author-link=Geoffrey R. Stone |date=February 1, 2017 |title=Opinion: Sorry, Neil Gorsuch. The Supreme Court Seat Was Already Filled |url=https://time.com/4656196/scotus-neil-gorsuch-geoffrey-stone/ |access-date=March 28, 2024 |magazine=TIME |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Cahill |first=Petra |date=November 11, 2016 |title=Empty Supreme Court seat is being 'stolen' by GOP, senator warns |url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/empty-supreme-court-seat-being-stolen-republicans-merkley-n682386 |access-date=March 28, 2024 |website=NBC News |language=en}}</ref> while proponents cited three blocked nominations between 1844 and 1866.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Trickey |first=Erick |title=The History of 'Stolen' Supreme Court Seats |url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/history-stolen-supreme-court-seats-180962589/ |access-date=March 28, 2024 |website=Smithsonian Magazine |language=en}}</ref> In recent years, Democrats have accused Republican leaders such as [[Mitch McConnell]] of hypocrisy, as they were instrumental in blocking the nomination of Merrick, but then rushing through the appointment of [[Amy Coney Barrett]], even though both vacancies occurred close to an election.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Levine |first=Marianne |date=September 22, 2020 |title=McConnell fends off accusations of hypocrisy over holding Supreme Court vote |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/21/mcconnell-pushes-back-hypocrisy-supreme-court-419569 |access-date=March 27, 2024 |work=Politico}}</ref>

===Ethics===
SCOTUS justices have come under greater scrutiny since 2022,<ref>Quinn, Melissa [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judiciary-committee-subpoenas-harlan-crow-leonard-leo-supreme-court-ethics-justice-clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/ "Senate Judiciary Committee to vote to authorize subpoenas to Harlan Crow, Leonard Leo in Supreme Court ethics probe"] CBS News November 1, 2023. Retrieved September 24, 2024.</ref> following public disclosures that began with the founder of [[Faith and Action]] admissions regarding the organization's long-term influence-peddling scheme, dubbed "Operation Higher Court", designed for wealthy donors among the religious right to gain access to the justices through events held by The [[Supreme Court Historical Society#Controversy|Supreme Court Historical Society]].<ref name=":12">{{Cite news |last1=Becker |first1=Jo |last2=Tate |first2=Julie |date=2022-12-30 |title=A Charity Tied to the Supreme Court Offers Donors Access to the Justices |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/30/us/politics/supreme-court-historical-society-donors-justices.html |access-date=2022-12-31 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref name=Marimow>{{Cite news |last=Marimow |first=Ann E. |date=December 8, 2022 |title=Advocate tells lawmakers of 'stealth' efforts to influence Supreme Court |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/08/schenck-supreme-court-influence-judiciary-committee/ |access-date=March 2, 2023 |archive-date=February 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230209102320/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/08/schenck-supreme-court-influence-judiciary-committee/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last1=Canellos |first1=Peter S. |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |date=July 8, 2022 |title='Operation Higher Court': Inside the religious right's efforts to wine and dine Supreme Court justices |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/08/religious-right-supreme-court-00044739 |work=Politico}}</ref><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Aronoff |first=Kate |date=June 18, 2024 |title=The Oily Truth About This Supreme Court |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/182809/supreme-court-fossil-fuels-chevron-barrett |access-date=2024-06-19 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>

Ethical controversies have grown during the 2020s, with reports of justices (and their close family members) accepting expensive gifts, travel, business deals, and speaking fees without oversight or [[recusal]]s from cases that present conflicts of interest.<ref>{{Cite news |date=September 7, 2023 |title=Can America's Supreme Court police itself? |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/09/07/can-americas-supreme-court-police-itself |access-date=September 21, 2023 |issn=0013-0613 |archive-date=September 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921010330/https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/09/07/can-americas-supreme-court-police-itself |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Slodysko |first1=Bryan |last2=Tucker |first2=Eric |date=July 11, 2023 |title=Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor's staff prodded colleges and libraries to buy her books |url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02 |access-date=November 13, 2023 |website=AP News |language=en |archive-date=November 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231113215428/https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-sotomayor-book-sales-ethics-colleges-b2cb93493f927f995829762cb8338c02 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Gerber |first=Scott Douglas |date=April 23, 2021 |title=Opinion: Why Supreme Court justices should not be signing $2 million book deals |url=https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/549501-supreme-court-justices-should-not-be-signing-million-dollar-book-deals/ |access-date=March 26, 2023 |website=The Hill |language=en-US |archive-date=March 26, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326220528/https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/549501-supreme-court-justices-should-not-be-signing-million-dollar-book-deals/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |author-link=Adam Liptak |date=June 22, 2016 |title=Justices Disclose Privately Paid Trips and Gifts |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/justices-disclose-privately-paid-trips-and-gifts.html |url-status=live |access-date=February 13, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200213193547/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/justices-disclose-privately-paid-trips-and-gifts.html |archive-date=February 13, 2020 |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Berman |first1=Mark |last2=Markon |first2=Jerry |date=February 17, 2016 |title=Why Justice Scalia was staying for free at a Texas resort |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/ |url-status=live |access-date=July 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170624001801/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/ |archive-date=June 24, 2017}}</ref><ref name="NYT226">{{cite news |last=Lipton |first=Eric |date=February 26, 2016 |title=Scalia Took Dozens of Trips Funded by Private Sponsors |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/scalia-led-court-in-taking-trips-funded-by-private-sponsors.html |url-status=live |access-date=September 15, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210107010320/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/us/politics/scalia-led-court-in-taking-trips-funded-by-private-sponsors.html |archive-date=January 7, 2021}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=O'Brien |first=Reity |date=June 20, 2014 |title=Justice Obscured: Supreme court justices earn quarter-million in cash on the side |publisher=[[Center for Public Integrity]] |url=https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/20/14981/supreme-court-justices-earn-quarter-million-cash-side |url-status=live |access-date=July 24, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170712155235/https://www.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/20/14981/supreme-court-justices-earn-quarter-million-cash-side |archive-date=July 12, 2017}}</ref> Spousal income and connections to cases has been redacted from the Justices' ethical disclosure forms<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Fuchs |first1=Hailey |last2=Gerstein |first2=Josh |last3=Canellos |first3=Peter |date=September 29, 2022 |title=Justices shield spouses' work from potential conflict of interest disclosures |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/29/justices-spouses-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-00059549 |access-date=October 5, 2022 |website=POLITICO |language=en |archive-date=October 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221005044753/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/29/justices-spouses-conflict-of-interest-disclosures-00059549 |url-status=live }}</ref> while justices, such as [[Samuel Alito]] and [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Clarence Thomas#Nondisclosure of finances|failed to disclose many large financial gifts]] including free vacations valued at as much as $500,000.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Jones |first=Dustin |date=May 5, 2023 |title=What to know about the Supreme Court and ethical concerns |work=NPR |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing |access-date=May 5, 2023 |archive-date=May 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230505212955/https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Kaplan |first1=Joshua |title=Friends of the Court |url=https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus |access-date=February 11, 2024 |publisher=ProPublica}}</ref> In 2024, Justices Alito and Thomas refused calls to recuse themselves from [[January 6 United States Capitol attack|January 6th]] cases where their spouses have taken public stances or been involved in efforts to overturn the election.<ref name="NYT-202405293">{{cite news |last=Raskin |first=Jamie |author-link=Jamie Raskin |date=May 29, 2024 |title=Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/opinion/alito-thomas-recuse-trump-jan-6.html |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20240529182827/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/opinion/alito-thomas-recuse-trump-jan-6.html |archivedate=May 29, 2024 |accessdate=May 29, 2024 |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=May 31, 2024 |title=Samuel Alito's refusal to recuse himself in Trump v US is another ethics breach |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/31/samuel-alito-trump-recusal-ethics-breach |access-date=2024-06-06 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Millhiser |date=May 29, 2024 |title=Alito says the Supreme Court's fake ethics code allows him to be unethical |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/352380/supreme-court-alito-ethics-recusal-insurrection-flags |access-date=2024-06-06 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |last=Smith |first=David |date=2024-06-15 |title=How the US supreme court could be a key election issue: 'They've grown too powerful' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/jun/15/supreme-court-election-issue |access-date=2024-06-15 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> In 2017, Neil Gorsuch sold a property he co-owned for $1.8 million to the CEO of [[Greenberg Traurig|a prominent law firm]],<ref name=":02">{{Cite web |last1=Schneider |first1=Jessica |last2=Sneed |first2=Tierney |date=2023-04-25 |title=Justice Neil Gorsuch's property sale to prominent lawyer raises more ethical questions {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/25/politics/gorsuch-property-sale-lawyer-ethics/index.html |access-date=2024-08-23 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> who was not listed on his ethics form when reporting a profit of between $250,000 and $500,000.<ref name=":02" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Stieb |first=Matt |date=2023-04-25 |title=It's Neil Gorsuch's Turn for a Financial Scandal |url=https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/04/its-neil-gorsuchs-turn-for-a-financial-scandal.html |access-date=2024-08-23 |website=Intelligencer |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Wang |first=Amy B. |date=2023-05-11 |title=Gorsuch property sale renews calls for Supreme Court ethics reform |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-property-sale-law-firm-ethics/ |access-date=2024-08-23 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref>

The criticism intensified after the 2024 ''[[Trump v. United States (2024)|Trump v. United States]]'' decision granted broad immunity to presidents, with Representative [[Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez]] saying she would introduce impeachment articles when Congress is back in session.<ref>{{cite web |last=Levien |first=Simon |date=July 1, 2024 |title=Supreme Court Gives Trump Substantial Immunity From Prosecution |url=https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/01/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court/3c9b3a9a-897e-5ca5-a810-ed8d11bca015?smid=url-share |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240701182808/https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/01/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court/3c9b3a9a-897e-5ca5-a810-ed8d11bca015?smid=url-share |archive-date=July 1, 2024 |access-date= |work=The New York Times}}</ref> On July 10, 2024, she filed Articles of Impeachment against Thomas and Alito, citing their "widely documented financial and personal entanglements."<ref>{{cite web | url=https://time.com/6997245/aoc-impeachment-supreme-court-clarence-thomas-samuel-alito/ | title=AOC Moves to Impeach Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Alito | date=July 11, 2024 |first=Kimberly Strawbridge |last=Robinson }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-rep-ocasio-cortez-calls-impeachment-supreme-courts-thomas-alito-2024-07-10/ |date=July 10, 2024 |work=[[Reuters]] |first1=Moira |last1=Warburton |first2=Makini |last2=Brice |title=Ocasio-Cortez seeks US House impeachment of Supreme Court's Thomas, Alito}}</ref><ref name=Impeach/><ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Hartmann |first=Thom |author-link=Thom Hartmann |date=July 12, 2024 |title=AOC's Move on Thomas and Alito Has All the Right Historical Echoes |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/183762/aoc-impeachment-thomas-alito-historical-echoes |access-date=2024-07-14 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref> As of late July, 2024, nearly 1.4 million people had signed a [[moveon.org]] petition asking Congress to remove Justice Thomas.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.peoplesworld.org/article/move-on-petition-to-impeach-justice-clarence-thomas-gets-1-4-million-signatures/ | title=Move-On petition to impeach Justice Clarence Thomas gets 1.4 million signatures | date=July 26, 2024 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://sign.moveon.org/petitions/clarence-thomas-must-go | title=Clarence Thomas must be removed from the Supreme Court! }}</ref>

President Biden proposed term limits for justices, an enforceable ethics code, and elimination of "immunity for crimes a former president committed while in office".<ref>{{Cite news |last=Biden |first=Joe |date=July 29, 2024 |title=Joe Biden: My plan to reform the Supreme Court and ensure no president is above the law |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/ |url-status=live |newspaper=The Washington Post |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240801043218/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/07/29/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement/ |archive-date=2024-08-01}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=July 29, 2024 |title=Biden calls for term limits, enforceable ethics rules for Supreme Court justices |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/07/29/nx-s1-5055094/biden-supreme-court |url-status=live |website=NPR |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240731093637/https://www.npr.org/2024/07/29/nx-s1-5055094/biden-supreme-court |archive-date=2024-07-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/07/29/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-bold-plan-to-reform-the-supreme-court-and-ensure-no-president-is-above-the-law/|title=FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces Bold Plan to Reform the Supreme Court and Ensure No President Is Above the Law|date=29 July 2024|website=Whitehouse.gov}}</ref>

Yale professor of constitutional law [[Akhil Reed Amar]] wrote an op-ed for ''[[The Atlantic]]'' titled ''Something Has Gone Deeply Wrong at the Supreme Court''.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/07/trump-v-united-states-opinion-chief-roberts/678877/ | title=Something Has Gone Deeply Wrong at the Supreme Court | website=[[The Atlantic]] | date=July 2, 2024 }}</ref>

Other criticisms of the Court include weakening [[corruption]] laws impacting branches beyond the judiciary<ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Millhiser |date=2024-06-26 |title=The Supreme Court rules that state officials can engage in a little corruption, as a treat |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/357170/supreme-court-snyder-united-states-corruption |access-date=2024-07-02 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Jouvenal |first=Justin |date=2024-06-26 |title=Supreme Court ruling on Indiana mayor is latest to weaken corruption laws |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/26/supreme-court-bribes-gratuities-corruption-mayor/ |access-date=2024-07-02 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286}}</ref> and citing falsehoods in written opinions, often supplied to the justices by amicus briefs from groups advocating a particular outcome.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Gabrielson |first=Ryan |author-link=Ryan Gabrielson |date=2017-10-17 |title=It's a Fact: Supreme Court Errors Aren't Hard to Find |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-errors-are-not-hard-to-find |access-date=2024-07-02 |website=ProPublica |language=en}}</ref> Allison Orr Larsen, Associate Dean at [[William & Mary Law School]], wrote in ''[[Politico]]'' that the court should address this by requiring disclosure of all funders of amicus briefs and the studies they cite, only admit briefs that stay within the expertise of the authors (as is required in lower courts), and require the briefs to be submitted much earlier in the process so the history and facts have time to be challenged and uncovered.<ref name=":4"/>

====Code of Conduct====
On November 13, 2023, the court issued its first-ever [[Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]] to set "ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court."<ref name=Sherman>{{Cite web |last=Sherman |first=Mark |date=November 13, 2023 |title=The Supreme Court says it is adopting a code of ethics, but it has no means of enforcement |url=https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-code-conflicts-clarence-thomas-64d393ceb6f05402d762dca06f0f4187 |access-date=November 13, 2023 |website=AP News |language=en |archive-date=November 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231113201755/https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-code-conflicts-clarence-thomas-64d393ceb6f05402d762dca06f0f4187 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24164533-supreme-court-code-of-conduct | title=DocumentCloud | access-date=November 13, 2023 | archive-date=November 13, 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231113204358/https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24164533-supreme-court-code-of-conduct | url-status=live }}</ref> The Code has been received by some as a significant first step<ref>{{Cite news |title=The Supreme Court's code of conduct is a good first step |url=https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/11/15/the-supreme-courts-code-of-conduct-is-a-good-first-step |access-date=December 2, 2023 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> but does not address the ethics concerns of many notable critics who found the Code was a significantly weakened version of the rules for other federal judges, let alone the legislature and the executive branch, while also lacking an enforcement mechanism.<ref name=Sherman/><ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilkington |first=Ed |date=November 13, 2023 |title=US supreme court announces ethics code amid pressure over gift scandals |language=en-GB |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/nov/13/us-supreme-court-ethics-code |access-date=November 13, 2023 |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=November 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231113220007/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/nov/13/us-supreme-court-ethics-code |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Biskupic |first=Joan |author-link=Joan Biskupic |date=November 14, 2023 |title=Analysis: Why the Supreme Court says ethics controversies are just a 'misunderstanding' |url=https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/14/politics/supreme-court-ethics-analysis/index.html |access-date=November 16, 2023 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> The Code's commentary denied past wrongdoing by saying that the Justices have largely abided by these principles and are simply publishing them now.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Kaplan |first1=Joshua |last2=Elliot |first2=Justin |last3=Murphy |first3=Brett |last4=Mierjeski |first4=Alex |date=November 13, 2023 |title=The Supreme Court Has Adopted a Conduct Code, but Who Will Enforce It? |work=ProPublica |url=https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-adopts-ethics-code-scotus-thomas-alito-crow |access-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114075940/https://www.propublica.org/article/supreme-court-adopts-ethics-code-scotus-thomas-alito-crow |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Liptak |first=Adam |author-link=Adam Liptak |date=November 14, 2023 |title=Supreme Court's New Ethics Code Is Toothless, Experts Say |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/us/politics/supreme-court-ethics-code-clarence-thomas-sotomayor.html |access-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-date=November 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114213617/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/us/politics/supreme-court-ethics-code-clarence-thomas-sotomayor.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Barnes Marimow 2023 b419">{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Robert |last2=Marimow |first2=Ann E. |date=November 13, 2023 |title=Supreme Court, under pressure, issues ethics code specific to justices |newspaper=Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/13/supreme-court-ethics-code/ |access-date=November 14, 2023}}</ref> This has prompted some criticism that the court hopes to legitimize past and future scandals through this Code.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Gersen |first=Jeannie Suk |author-link=Jeannie Suk |date=November 21, 2023 |title=The Supreme Court's Self-Excusing Ethics Code |language=en-US |magazine=The New Yorker |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-supreme-courts-self-excusing-ethics-code |access-date=November 23, 2023 |issn=0028-792X}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |author-link=Ian Millhiser |date=November 14, 2023 |title=The Supreme Court's new ethics code is a joke |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/14/23960027/supreme-court-new-ethics-code-clarence-thomas-unenforceable |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115194141/https://www.vox.com/scotus/2023/11/14/23960027/supreme-court-new-ethics-code-clarence-thomas-unenforceable |archive-date=November 15, 2023 |access-date=November 15, 2023 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref>

The ethics rules guiding the justices are set and enforced by the justices themselves, meaning the members of the court have no external checks on their behavior other than the impeachment of a justice by Congress.<ref name="brennancenter.org-2019">{{Cite web |date=September 24, 2019 |title=Supreme Court Ethics Reform {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-ethics-reform |access-date=December 22, 2022 |website=www.brennancenter.org |language=en |archive-date=December 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221222205855/https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-ethics-reform |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=Marimow/>

Chief Justice Roberts refused to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April 2023, reasserting his desire for the Supreme Court to continue to monitor itself despite mounting [[#Ethics|ethics scandals]].<ref>{{Cite news |last=Totenberg |first=Nina |author-link=Nina Totenberg |date=April 25, 2023 |title=Chief Justice Roberts declines to testify before Senate panel |work=NPR |url=https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172083875/chief-justice-roberts-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel |access-date=May 6, 2023 |archive-date=May 6, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230506065837/https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172083875/chief-justice-roberts-declines-to-testify-before-senate-panel |url-status=live }}</ref> Lower courts, by contrast, [[United States federal judge#Discipline|discipline]] according to the 1973 Code of Conduct for U.S. judges which is enforced by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.<ref name="brennancenter.org-2019" />

{{cite constitution |article=III |clause= |section=I |polity=the United States |date=1776 }} establishes that the justices hold their office during good behavior. Thus far only one justice (Associate Justice [[Samuel Chase]] in 1804) has ever been impeached, and none has ever been removed from office.<ref name=SCchase/>

The lack of external enforcement of ethics or other conduct violations makes the Supreme Court an outlier in modern organizational best-practices.<ref name="brennancenter.org-2019" /> 2024 reform legislation has been blocked by congressional Republicans.<ref name=":1" />

==== Democratic backsliding ====
{{Main|Democratic backsliding in the United States}}
Thomas Keck argues that because the Court has historically not served as a strong bulwark for democracy, the Roberts Court has the opportunity to go down in history as a defender of democracy. However, he believes that if the court shields Trump from criminal prosecution (after ensuring his access to the ballot), then the risks that come with an anti-democratic status-quo of the current court will outweigh the dangers that come from court reform (including court packing).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Keck |first=Thomas M. |date=February 2024 |title=The U.S. Supreme Court and Democratic Backsliding |journal=[[Law & Policy]] |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=197–218 |language=en |location=Rochester, NY|doi=10.1111/lapo.12237 |doi-access=free }}</ref> [[Aziz Z. Huq]] points to the blocking progress of democratizing institutions, [[Citizens United v. FEC|increasing the disparity]] in wealth and power, and empowering an [[authoritarian]] [[white nationalist]] movement as evidence that the Supreme Court has created a "permanent minority" incapable of being defeated democratically.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Huq |first=Aziz Z. |author-link=Aziz Huq |date=January 2022 |title=The Supreme Court and the Dynamics of Democratic Backsliding |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162211061124 |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |language=en |volume=699 |issue=1 |pages=50–65 |doi=10.1177/00027162211061124 |issn=0002-7162 |s2cid=247499952 |access-date=January 30, 2023 |archive-date=January 30, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230130062932/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00027162211061124 |url-status=live }}</ref>

''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' published an op-ed on July 3, 2024, by [[Dahlia Lithwick]] and Mark Joseph Stern criticizing several recent decisions, stating:<blockquote>The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority has, in recent weeks, restructured American democracy in the Republican Party's preferred image, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the branches and the citizens themselves.... In the course of its most recent term that conservative supermajority has created a monarchical presidency, awarding the chief executive near-insurmountable immunity from accountability for any and all crimes committed during a term in office. It has seized power from Congress, strictly limiting lawmakers' ability to write broad laws that tackle the major crises of the moment. And it has hobbled federal agencies' authority to apply existing statutes to problems on the ground, substituting the expert opinions of civil servants with the (often partisan) preferences of unelected judges. All the while, the court has placed itself at the apex of the state, agreeing to share power only with a strongman president who seeks to govern in line with the conservative justices' vision.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Lithwick |first1=Dahlia |last2=Stern |first2=Mark Joseph |date=2024-07-03 |title=The Supreme Court Is Fully MAGA-Pilled. The Time for Action Is Now or Never. |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/07/supreme-court-maga-john-roberts-trump-handmaiden.html |access-date=2024-07-05 |work=Slate |language=en-US |issn=1091-2339}}</ref></blockquote>

===Individual rights===
{{Excessive examples|date=March 2024|section}}
Some of the most notable historical decisions that were criticized for failing to protect individual rights include the ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford|Dred Scott]]'' (1857) decision that said people of African descent could not be U.S. citizens or enjoy constitutionally protected rights and privileges,<ref name="tws22oct16">{{cite news |last=Safire |first=William |author-link=William Safire |date=April 24, 2005 |title=Dog Whistle |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24ONLANGUAGE.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512173840/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24ONLANGUAGE.html |archive-date=May 12, 2011 |access-date=October 22, 2009 |work=[[The New York Times Magazine]] |quote=Chief Justice Taney stating in his opinion that: '[African Americans had] no rights which the white man was bound to respect...'}}</ref> ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896) that upheld [[Racial segregation in the United States|segregation]] under the doctrine of ''[[separate but equal]],''<ref name="tws23oct04">{{cite news |last=Savage |first=David G. |date=October 23, 2008 |title=Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions? |work=Los Angeles Times |url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23 |access-date=October 23, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081023193212/http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus23-2008oct23%2C0%2C1693757.story |archive-date=October 23, 2008 |quote=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.'}}</ref> the ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'' (1883) and ''[[Slaughter-House Cases]]'' (1873) that all but undermined civil rights legislation enacted during the [[Reconstruction era]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Road to 'Separate But Equal' (U.S. National Park Service) |url=https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-road-to-separate-but-equal.htm |access-date=March 27, 2024 |website=www.nps.gov |language=en}}</ref>

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]] criticized the [[exclusionary rule]], and Justice [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] criticized ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]'' for being ''too protective'' of the rights of [[Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp|Guantanamo]] detainees, arguing [[habeas corpus]] should be limited to sovereign territory.<ref name="tws30oct05">{{cite news |last=Savage |first=David G. |date=July 13, 2008 |title=Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-jul-13-na-scotus13-story.html |url-status=live |access-date=October 30, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100413195843/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/13/nation/na-scotus13 |archive-date=April 13, 2010 |quote=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 wrote in dissent. He said English history showed that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to sovereign English territory}}</ref>

[[File:Defend Roe v Wade 0022 (52061702833).jpg|thumb|Protestors in support of keeping ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'']]

After ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' overturned nearly 50 years of precedent set by ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', some experts expressed concern that this may be the beginning of a rollback of individual rights that had been previously established under the [[substantive due process]] principle, in part because Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] wrote in his concurring opinion in ''Dobbs'' that the decision should prompt the court to reconsider all of the court's past substantive due process decisions.<ref name="PBS NewsHour-2022">{{Cite web |date=June 26, 2022 |title=Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade puts other rights at risk |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/supreme-court-decision-on-roe-v-wade-puts-other-rights-at-risk |access-date=March 20, 2024 |website=PBS NewsHour |language=en-us}}</ref> Due process rights claimed to be at risk are:<ref name="PBS NewsHour-2022" />

* The right to privacy, including a right to contraceptives. Established in ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] (''1965).
* The right to privacy with regard to private sexual acts. Established in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' (2003).
* The right to marry an individual of the same sex. Established in ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015).
Some experts such as [[Melissa Murray (academic)|Melissa Murray]], law professor at [[New York University School of Law|N.Y.U. School of Law]], have claimed that protections for interracial marriage, established in ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' (1967), may also be at risk.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Stanton |first1=Andrew |title="Everything is on the table" after Supreme Court rulings: Law professor |url=https://www.newsweek.com/everything-table-after-supreme-court-rulings-law-professor-1810389 |website=Newsweek |access-date=March 27, 2024 |language=en |date=July 2, 2023}}</ref> Other experts such as [[Josh Blackman]], law professor at [[South Texas College of Law Houston]], argued that ''Loving'' actually relied more heavily upon [[Equal Protection Clause]] grounds than substantive due process.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Blackman |first=Josh |author-link=Josh Blackman |date=June 28, 2022 |title=Justice Thomas and Loving v. Virginia |url=https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/28/justice-thomas-and-loving-v-virginia/ |access-date=March 27, 2024 |website=[[The Volokh Conspiracy]] |language=en-US}}</ref>

Substantive due process has also been the primary vehicle used by the Supreme Court to [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|incorporate the Bill of Rights]] against state and local governments.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Scully |first=Conrad |title=LibGuides: Constitutional Law: Reconstruction Era Amendments (XIII, XIV, XV) |url=https://libguides.law.illinois.edu/c.php?g=1342446&p=9898958 |access-date=March 27, 2024 |website=libguides.law.illinois.edu |language=en}}</ref> [[Clarence Thomas]] referred to it as '[[legal fiction]],'<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Robin |first=Corey |author-link=Corey Robin |date=July 9, 2022 |title=The Self-Fulfilling Prophecies of Clarence Thomas |url=https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-self-fulfilling-prophecies-of-clarence-thomas |access-date=March 27, 2024 |magazine=The New Yorker |language=en-US |issn=0028-792X}}</ref> preferring the [[Privileges or Immunities Clause]] for incorporating the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thomas |first=Clarence |date=1989 |title=THE HIGHER LAW BACKGROUND OF THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/hjlpp12&i=79 |access-date=March 27, 2024 |website=HeinOnline}}</ref> However, outside of [[Neil Gorsuch]]'s commentary in ''[[Timbs v. Indiana]]'', Thomas has received little support for this viewpoint.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Aceves |first=William J. |date=September 9, 2019 |title=A Distinction with a Difference: Rights, Privileges, and the Fourteenth Amendment |url=https://texaslawreview.org/a-distinction-with-a-difference/ |access-date=March 27, 2024 |website=Texas Law Review |language=en-US}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=May 2024}}

===Judicial activism===
{{Excessive examples|date=March 2024|section}}
The Supreme Court has been criticized for engaging in [[judicial activism]]. This criticism is leveled by those who believe the court should not interpret the law in any way besides through the lens of past precedent or [[Textualism]]. However, those on both sides of the political aisle often level this accusation at the court. The debate around judicial activism typically involves accusing the other side of activism, whilst denying that your own side engages in it.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Judicial activism {{!}} Definition, Types, Examples, & Facts {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism |access-date=March 20, 2024 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=June 5, 2010 |title=The Associated Press: Justice questions way court nominees are grilled |url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWhwP-GmuptNw-uw8t8Z_lb1YV2QD9FMQKRG0 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100605163057/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWhwP-GmuptNw-uw8t8Z_lb1YV2QD9FMQKRG0 |archive-date=June 5, 2010 |access-date=March 25, 2024 |quote='An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like.' - Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy}}</ref>

Conservatives often cite the decision in ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973) as an example of liberal judicial activism. In its decision, the court legalized abortion on the basis of a "right to privacy" that they found inherent in the [[Due Process Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]].<ref name="judicialactivismOxford">See for example [https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/454/mode/1up?view=theater&q=%22judicial+activism%22 "Judicial activism" in ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States''], edited by Kermit Hall; article written by Gary McDowell. 1992. p. 454.</ref> ''Roe v. Wade'' was overturned nearly fifty years later by ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson]]'' (2022), ending the recognition of abortion access as a constitutional right and returning the issue of abortion back to the states. [[David Litt]] criticized the decision in ''Dobbs'' as activism on the part of the court's conservative majority because the court failed to respect past precedent, eschewing the principle of [[Stare decisis]] that usually guides the court's decisions.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Litt |first=David |date=July 24, 2022 |title=A Court Without Precedent |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/07/supreme-court-stare-decisis-roe-v-wade/670576/ |access-date=March 18, 2024 |website=The Atlantic |language=en}}</ref>

The decision in ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', which banned racial segregation in public schools was also criticized as activist by conservatives [[Pat Buchanan]],<ref name="tws23oct71">{{cite web |first=Pat |last=Buchanan |title=The judges war: an issue of power |quote=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. |publisher=Townhall.com |date=July 6, 2005 |url=http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2005/07/06/the_judges_war_an_issue_of_power |access-date=October 23, 2009 |archive-date=May 13, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513094434/http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2005/07/06/the_judges_war_an_issue_of_power |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Robert Bork]]<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sunstein |first=Carl R. |date=1991 |title=What Judge Bork Should Have Said |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12520&context=journal_articles |journal=Connecticut Law Review |volume=23 |page=2 |via=University of Chicago Law School – Chicago Unbound |access-date=November 8, 2021 |archive-date=December 4, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201204052000/https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=12520&context=journal_articles |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Barry Goldwater]].<ref name="tws22oct33">{{cite news |first=Adam |last=Clymer |author-link=Adam Clymer |title=Barry Goldwater, Conservative and Individualist, Dies at 89 |work=The New York Times |date=May 29, 1998 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/specials/goldwater-obit.html |access-date=October 22, 2009 |archive-date=March 7, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130307223049/http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/specials/goldwater-obit.html |url-status=live}}</ref> More recently, ''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'' was criticized for expanding upon the precedent in ''[[First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti]]'' (1978) that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] applies to corporations.<ref name=Stone/>

=== Outdated and an outlier ===
[[Foreign Policy]] writer Colm Quinn says that a criticism leveled at the court, as well as other American institutions, is that after two centuries they are beginning to look their age. He cites four features of the United States Supreme Court that make it different from high courts in other countries, and help explain why polarization is an issue in the United States court:<ref>{{Cite web |last=Quinn |first=Colm |date=May 4, 2022 |title=For a Less Politicized Supreme Court, Look Abroad |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/04/supreme-court-international |website=[[Foreign Policy]] |language=en-US |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240302002354/https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/04/supreme-court-international|archive-date=March 2, 2024|access-date=March 2, 2024|
quote=A criticism leveled at the Supreme Court and U.S. institutions more generally is that after more than two centuries in operation, it’s beginning to look its age, with questions of legitimacy, political interference, and power all combining to undermine the court.}}</ref>

* It is high-profile: the high court in the United States is one of the few courts in the world that can unilaterally strike down legislation passed by other politically accountable branches.
* The United States Constitution [[Constitution of the United States#Difficult to amend|is very difficult to amend]]: other countries allow for constitutional changes via referendum or with a supermajority in the legislature.
* The United States Supreme Court has a politicized nominating process.
* The United States Supreme Court lacks term limits or mandatory retirements.
[[Adam Liptak]] wrote in 2008 that the court has declined in relevance in other constitutional courts. He cites factors like [[American exceptionalism]], the relatively few updates to the constitution or the courts, the rightward shift of the court and the diminished stature of the United States abroad.<ref name="Liptak-2008" />

===Power===
[[Michael Waldman]] argued that no other country gives its Supreme Court as much power.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Waldman |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Waldman |title=The supermajority: how the Supreme Court divided America |date=2023 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |isbn=978-1-6680-0606-1 |edition=First Simon & Schuster hardcover |location=New York London; Toronto; Sydney; New Delhi}}</ref> 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."<ref name="twsvsfs32">{{cite book |last=Woodward |first=Bob |author2=Scott Armstrong |title=The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court |quote=A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=1979 |location=United States of America |page=541 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtJ23GmD3AC |isbn=978-0-7432-7402-9 |access-date=October 29, 2020 |archive-date=November 18, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201118003022/https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtJ23GmD3AC |url-status=live}}</ref> [[Larry Sabato]] wrote that the federal courts, and especially the Supreme Court, have excessive power.<ref name="tws23oct16">{{cite news |first=Larry |last=Sabato |author-link=Larry Sabato |title=It's Time to Reshape the Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country |work=The Huffington Post |date=September 26, 2007 |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/its-time-to-reshape-the-c_b_66030.html |access-date=October 23, 2009 |archive-date=May 31, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100531222116/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/its-time-to-reshape-the-c_b_66030.html |url-status=live}}</ref> Suja A. Thomas argues the Supreme Court has taken most of the constitutionally-defined power from [[juries in the United States]] for itself<ref name=":022">{{Cite book |last=Thomas |first=Suja A. |title=The missing American jury: restoring the fundamental constitutional role of the criminal, civil, and grand juries |date=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-316-61803-5 |location=New York, NY |pages=75–77, 109 |quote=The Supreme Court’s differing treatment of the traditional actors and the jury and the deference to traditional actors has contributed to the jury’s decline…The Court has failed to acknowledge any specific authority in the jury or any necessity to guard that authority...Moreover it has ultimately held constitutional almost every modern procedure before and after the a jury deliberation that has eliminated or reduced jury authority. (75-77)}}</ref> thanks in part to the influence of legal elites and companies that prefer judges over juries<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thomas |first=Suja A. |title=The missing American jury: restoring the fundamental constitutional role of the criminal, civil, and grand juries |date=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-107-05565-0 |location=New York, NY |pages=105 |quote=as the jury continued to be more diverse in gender and race, the jury was less desirable to judges and corporations…this shift has occurred, particularly in the 1930s…The Supreme Court likely has been influenced by legal elites as well as by corporations to reduce jury authority over time.}}</ref> as well as the inability of the jury to defend its power.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Thomas |first=Suja A. |title=The missing American jury: restoring the fundamental constitutional role of the criminal, civil, and grand juries |date=2016 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-316-61803-5 |location=New York, NY |pages=92–93}}</ref>

Some members of Congress considered the results from the 2021–2022 term a shift of government power into the Supreme Court, and a "judicial coup".<ref>{{cite web |last=Klein |first=Naomi |date=June 30, 2022 |title=The Supreme Court's Shock-and-Awe Judicial Coup |url=https://theintercept.com/2022/06/30/supreme-court-climate-epa-coup/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220630204421/https://theintercept.com/2022/06/30/supreme-court-climate-epa-coup/ |archive-date=June 30, 2022 |access-date=June 30, 2022 |work=[[The Intercept]]}}</ref> The 2021–2022 term of the court was the first full term following the appointment of three judges by Republican president [[Donald Trump]] — [[Neil Gorsuch]], [[Brett Kavanaugh]], and [[Amy Coney Barrett]] — which created a six-strong conservative majority on the court. Subsequently, at the end of the term, the court issued a number of decisions that favored this conservative majority while significantly changing the landscape with respect to rights. These included ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' which overturned ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' in recognizing abortion is not a constitutional right, ''[[New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen]]'' which made public possession of guns a protected right under the Second Amendment, ''[[Carson v. Makin]]'' and ''[[Kennedy v. Bremerton School District]]'' which both weakened the [[Establishment Clause]] separating church and state, and ''[[West Virginia v. EPA]]'' which weakened the power of executive branch agencies to interpret their congressional mandate.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/07/11/the-supreme-courts-conservatives-have-asserted-their-power |title=The Supreme Court's Conservatives Have Asserted Their Power |first=Jeannie Suk |last=Gersen |author-link=Jeannie Suk |date=July 3, 2022 |access-date=July 3, 2022 |work=[[New Yorker (magazine)|New Yorker]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/02/us/supreme-court-congress.html |title=Gridlock in Congress Has Amplified the Power of the Supreme Court |first=Adam |last=Liptak |author-link=Adam Liptak |date=July 2, 2022 |access-date=July 3, 2022 |work=The New York Times}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/the-conservative-supreme-court-is-just-getting-warmed-up-00043656 |title=The conservative Supreme Court is just getting warmed up |first1=Josh |last1=Gerstein |first2=Alexander |last2=Ward |date=June 30, 2022 |access-date=July 3, 2022 |work=[[Politico]]}}</ref>

==== Federalism debate ====
There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as [[James Madison]]<ref name="tws24oct22">{{cite news |last=Madison |first=James |year=1789 |title=The Federalist Papers/No. 45 The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered |quote=the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty |via=Wikisource |title-link=s:The Federalist Papers/No. 45}}</ref> and [[Alexander Hamilton]]<ref name="tws24oct47">{{cite news |author=[[Alexander Hamilton|Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius)]] |year=1789 |title=Federalist No. 28 |publisher=Independent Journal |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp |url-status=live |access-date=October 24, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224634/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp |archive-date=July 9, 2009 |quote=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.}}</ref> argued in ''[[The Federalist Papers]]'' that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments,<ref name="tws27oct501">{{cite news |last=Madison |first=James |date=January 25, 1788 |title=''The Federalist'' |work=Independent Journal |issue=44 (quote: 8th para) |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm |url-status=live |access-date=October 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091027045224/http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm |archive-date=October 27, 2009 |quote=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 a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion.}}</ref><ref name="tws27oct502">{{cite news |last=Madison |first=James |date=February 16, 1788 |title=''The Federalist'' No. 56 (quote: 6th para) |publisher=Independent Journal |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa56.htm |url-status=live |access-date=October 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090215035104/http://constitution.org/fed/federa56.htm |archive-date=February 15, 2009 |quote=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.}}</ref><ref name="tws27oct503">{{cite news |last=Hamilton |first=Alexander |author-link=Alexander Hamilton |date=December 14, 1787 |title=''The Federalist'' No. 22 (quote: 4th para) |publisher=New York Packet |url=http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm |url-status=live |access-date=October 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100203031601/http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm |archive-date=February 3, 2010 |quote=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.}}</ref><ref name="tws27oct504">{{cite news |last=Madison |first=James |date=January 22, 1788 |title=''The Federalist Papers'' |publisher=New York Packet |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp |url-status=live |access-date=October 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224058/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp |archive-date=July 9, 2009 |quote=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.}}</ref> others argue that expansive [[federal power]] is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes.<ref name="tws24oct10">{{cite news |author=Amar |first=Akhil Reed |author-link=Akhil Reed Amar |year=1998 |title=The Bill of Rights – Creation and Reconstruction |url=https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/amar-rights.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090416221333/http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/amar-rights.html |archive-date=April 16, 2009 |access-date=October 24, 2009 |work=The New York Times: Books |quote=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.}}</ref> The [[Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] explicitly states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The court has been criticized for giving the [[Federal Government of the United States|federal government]] too much power to interfere with state authority.{{citation needed|date=July 2024}} One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the [[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.<ref name="tws30oct08">{{cite news |last=Gold |first=Scott |date=June 14, 2005 |title=Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort to Weaken Species Protection Law |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-jun-14-na-cavebugs14-story.html |url-status=live |access-date=March 24, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112210116/http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/14/nation/na-cavebugs14 |archive-date=January 12, 2012 |quote=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.}}</ref> Chief Justice [[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."<ref name="tws27oct505">{{cite news |last=Reich |first=Robert B. |date=September 13, 1987 |title=The Commerce Clause; The Expanding Economic Vista |work=[[The New York Times Magazine]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/13/magazine/the-commerce-clause-the-expanding-economic-vista.html |url-status=live |access-date=October 27, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110512175507/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/13/magazine/the-commerce-clause-the-expanding-economic-vista.html |archive-date=May 12, 2011}}</ref> Justice Alito said congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is "quite broad";<ref name="tws30oct09">{{cite news |author=FDCH e-Media |date=January 10, 2006 |title=U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001087.html |url-status=live |access-date=October 30, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081019161905/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001087.html |archive-date=October 19, 2008 |quote=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}}</ref> modern-day theorist [[Robert B. Reich]] suggests debate over the Commerce Clause continues today.<ref name="tws27oct505" />

Advocates of [[states' rights]], such as constitutional scholar [[Kevin Gutzman]], have also criticized the court, saying it has misused the Fourteenth Amendment to undermine state authority. Justice [[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]], in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that states should be [[laboratories of democracy]].<ref name="tws30oct03">{{cite news |last=Cohen |first=Adam |date=December 7, 2003 |title=Editorial Observer; Brandeis's Views on States' Rights, and Ice-Making, Have New Relevance |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/opinion/editorial-observer-brandeis-s-views-states-rights-ice-making-have-new-relevance.html |url-status=live |access-date=October 30, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111215/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/opinion/editorial-observer-brandeis-s-views-states-rights-ice-making-have-new-relevance.html |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |quote=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}}</ref> One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."<ref name="tws23oct15">{{cite news |last=Graglia |first=Lino |author-link=Lino Graglia |date=July 19, 2005 |title=Altering 14th Amendment would curb court's activist tendencies |publisher=University of Texas School of Law |url=http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/071905_court.html |access-date=October 23, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101204214859/http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/071905_court.html |archive-date=December 4, 2010}}</ref> Others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level."<ref name="tws30oct02">{{cite news |last=Hornberger |first=Jacob C. |date=November 1, 2005 |title=Freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment |publisher=The Future of Freedom Foundation |url=https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/freedom-fourteenth-amendment/ |quote=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.}}</ref>

More recently, in ''[[Gamble v. United States]]'', the Court examined the doctrine of "[[separate sovereigns]]", whereby a criminal defendant can be prosecuted in state court as well as federal court on separate charges for the same offense.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Gamble v. United States |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180928200950/http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/ |archive-date=September 28, 2018 |access-date=September 28, 2018 |website=ScotusBlog}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Vazquez |first=Maegan |date=June 28, 2018 |title=Supreme Court agrees to hear 'double jeopardy' case in the fall |url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause/index.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180927065840/https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause/index.html |archive-date=September 27, 2018 |access-date=September 28, 2018 |website=CNN}}</ref>

=== Ruling on political questions ===
Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the court into the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of the elected branches of government. The ''Bush v. Gore'' decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election, awarding [[George W. Bush]] the presidency over [[Al Gore]], received scrutiny as political based on the controversial justifications used by the five conservative justices to elevate a fellow conservative to the presidency.<ref name="tws23oct12">{{cite news |last=Margolick |first=David |author-link=David Margolick |date=September 23, 2007 |title=Meet the Supremes |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Margolick-t.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090411144020/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Margolick-t.html |archive-date=April 11, 2009 |access-date=October 23, 2009 |work=The New York Times |quote=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...Toobin remains white-hot about it, calling it 'one of the lowest moments in the court’s history,' one that revealed the worst of just about everyone involved.}}</ref><ref name="tws23oct04"/><ref name="tws22oct40">{{cite web |last=McConnell |first=Michael W. |date=June 1, 2001 |title=Two-and-a-Half Cheers for Bush v Gore |url=http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5105&context=uclrev |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160225133547/http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5105&context=uclrev |archive-date=February 25, 2016 |access-date=February 16, 2016 |work=University of Chicago Law Review}}</ref><ref name="tws23oct01">{{cite news |author=CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl) |date=July 14, 2009 |title=Key Excerpt: Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore |url=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/07/key_excerpt_sotomayor_on_bush.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110513210306/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/07/key_excerpt_sotomayor_on_bush.html |archive-date=May 13, 2011 |access-date=October 23, 2009 |newspaper=The Washington Post |quote=Many critics saw the Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the judiciary improperly injecting itself into a political dispute"}}</ref><ref name="tws23oct08">{{cite news |author=Cohen |first=Adam |date=March 21, 2004 |title=Justice Rehnquist Writes on Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/opinion/21SUN4.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111524/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/opinion/21SUN4.html |archive-date=May 11, 2011 |access-date=October 23, 2009 |work=The New York Times |department=Opinion section |quote=The 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.}}</ref> The ruling was also controversial in applying logic only for that race, as opposed to drawing on or creating consistent precedent.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |date=2024-10-28 |title=If Harris wins, will the Supreme Court steal the election for Trump? |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/376150/supreme-court-bush-gore-harris-trump-coup-steal-election |access-date=2024-10-28 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Secretive proceedings===
{{further|Shadow docket|List of United States Supreme Court leaks}}

The court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chemerinsky |first=Erwin |date=October 17, 2019 |title=Opinion: The Supreme Court shrouds itself in secrecy. That needs to end |url=https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-10-17/supreme-court-transparency-television-rules |access-date=February 21, 2023 |website=Los Angeles Times |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Biskupic |first=Joan |author-link=Joan Biskupic |date=September 1, 2021 |title=In the shadows: Why the Supreme Court's lack of transparency may cost it in the long run {{!}} CNN Politics |url=https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/01/politics/transparency-analysis-supreme-court-abortion/index.html |access-date=February 21, 2023 |website=CNN |language=en}}</ref> For example, the increasing use of a '[[shadow docket]]' facilitates the court making decisions in secret without knowing how each Justice came to their decision.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Black |first1=Harry Isaiah |last2=Bannon |first2=Alicia |date=July 19, 2022 |title=The Supreme Court 'Shadow Docket' {{!}} Brennan Center for Justice |url=https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/supreme-court-shadow-docket |access-date=February 8, 2023 |website=www.brennancenter.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Jacobson |first=Louis |date=October 18, 2021 |title=PolitiFact – The Supreme Court's 'shadow docket': What you need to know |url=https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/oct/18/supreme-courts-shadow-docket-what-you-need-know/ |access-date=February 8, 2023 |website=@politifact |language=en-US}}</ref> In 2024, after comparing the analysis of shadow-docket decisions to [[Kremlinology]], Matt Ford called this trend of secrecy "increasingly troubling", arguing the court's power comes entirely from persuasion and explanation.<ref>{{Cite magazine |last=Ford |first=Matt |last2= |first2= |last3= |first3= |last4= |first4= |last5= |first5= |last6= |first6= |last7= |first7= |last8= |first8= |last9= |first9= |date=January 25, 2024 |title=The Supreme Court's Silent Rulings Are Increasingly Troubling |url=https://newrepublic.com/article/178381/supreme-court-texas-razor-wire |access-date=February 17, 2024 |magazine=The New Republic |issn=0028-6583}}</ref>

A 2007 review of [[Jeffrey Toobin]]'s book compared the Court to a cartel where its inner-workings are mostly unknown, arguing this lack of transparency reduces scrutiny which hurts ordinary Americans who know little about the nine extremely consequential Justices.<ref name="tws23oct12" /> A 2010 poll found that 61% of American voters agreed that [[Cameras in the Supreme Court of the United States|televising Court hearings]] would "be good for democracy", and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.<ref>{{cite web |date=March 9, 2010 |title=Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy |url=http://publicmind.fdu.edu/courttv/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110501085327/http://publicmind.fdu.edu/courttv/ |archive-date=May 1, 2011 |access-date=December 14, 2010 |work=PublicMind.fdu.edu}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Mauro |first=Tony |date=March 9, 2010 |title=Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras at the High Court |url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202445941834 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100705141557/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202445941834 |archive-date=July 5, 2010 |access-date=December 18, 2010 |work=[[The National Law Journal]]}}</ref>

===Too few cases===
[[Ian Millhiser]] of [[Vox Media|Vox]] speculates that the decades-long decline in cases heard could be due to the increasing political makeup of judges, that he says might be more interested in settling political disputes than legal ones.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |date=2024-05-03 |title=The Supreme Court: The most powerful, least busy people in Washington |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/24145279/supreme-court-shrinking-docket-quiet-quitting |access-date=2024-05-04 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref>

=== Too slow ===
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.<ref name="tws23oct77">{{cite journal |author=Christopher Moore |author-link=Christopher Moore (Canadian historian) |date=November 1, 2008 |title=Our Canadian Republic – Do we display too much deference to authority … or not enough? |url=http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2008/11/01/our-canadian-republic/ |url-status=live |journal=Literary Review of Canada |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091111195402/http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2008/11/01/our-canadian-republic/ |archive-date=November 11, 2009 |access-date=October 23, 2009}}</ref><ref name="tws2nov02">{{cite news |last=Tomkins |first=Adam |year=2002 |title=In Defence of the Political Constitution |publisher=22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 157 |location=United Kingdom |quote=Bush v. Gore}}</ref> In contrast, various other countries have a dedicated [[constitutional court]] that has original jurisdiction on constitutional claims brought by persons or political institutions; for example, the [[Federal Constitutional Court of Germany]], which can declare a law unconstitutional when challenged.

Critics have accused the Court of "slow-walking" important cases relating to former President Donald Trump in order to benefit his election chances in the face of the [[2024 United States presidential election]].<ref name=":2">{{Cite news |last=West |first=Sonja |date=2024-03-01 |title=SCOTUS Is Slow-Walking for Trump |url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/trump-immunity-case-scotus-delay.html |access-date=2024-06-18 |work=Slate |language=en-US |issn=1091-2339}}</ref> The Court is considering a [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)#Immunity dispute|Presidential immunity claim]] as part of the [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)]]. Critics argue that the Court has acted slowly in order to delay this case until after the election. They point out that the Court can move quickly when it wants to, as it did when it disregarded typical procedures in ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', granting the petition on a Saturday, receiving briefs on Sunday, holding oral arguments on Monday, and issuing the final opinion on Tuesday.<ref name=":2" /> Author Sonja West, of [[Slate (magazine)|''Slate'']], argues that the [[Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case)]] is of similar importance to [[Bush v. Gore]] and should therefore be treated as expeditiously, but the Court seems to be taking the opposite approach.<ref name=":2" />

=== Leaks and inadvertent publications ===
Sometimes draft opinions are deliberately [[News leak|leaked]] or inadvertently released before they are published. Such [[List of United States Supreme Court leaks|releases]] are often purported to harm the court's reputation.<ref>{{cite web |title=Explainer: The Leak of Supreme Court's Draft Roe v. Wade Reversal |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/explainer-the-leak-of-supreme-court-s-draft-roe-v-wade-reversal/6556339.html |website=Voice of America |language=en |date=4 May 2022}}</ref> Chief Justice Roberts has previously described leaks as an "egregious breach of trust" that "undermine the integrity of our operations" in reference to the leaked draft opinion for ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts orders investigation into 'egregious' leak of draft abortion opinion |url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/supreme-court-chief-justice-john-roberts-orders-investigation-into-egregious-leak-of-draft-abortion-opinion |website=PBS News |language=en-us |date=3 May 2022}}</ref>

In addition to leaks, the Court has sometimes mistakenly released opinions before they are ready to be published. On June 26, 2024, the Court inadvertently posted an opinion for ''[[Moyle v. United States]]'' to its website that seemed to indicate that the court will temporarily allow abortions in medical emergencies in Idaho.<ref>{{cite web |title=SCOTUS appears to post opinion allowing Idaho to offer emergency medical abortions |url=https://www.npr.org/2024/06/26/nx-s1-5020548/supreme-court-emtala-abortions-accidental-post |website=npr.org |publisher=npr}}</ref> The official opinion was posted the next day, which returned the case to the lower courts without a ruling on the merits.

==See also==
* [[Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts]]
* [[List of courts which publish audio or video of arguments]]
* [[List of pending United States Supreme Court cases]]
* [[List of presidents of the United States by judicial appointments]]
* [[List of supreme courts by country]]
* [[Lists of United States Supreme Court cases]]
* [[Models of judicial decision making]]
* [[Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States]]

===Selected landmark Supreme Court decisions===
{{see also|List of landmark court decisions in the United States}}
{{div col|colwidth=30em}}
* ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' (1803, judicial review)
* ''[[McCulloch v. Maryland]]'' (1819, implied powers)
* ''[[Gibbons v. Ogden]]'' (1824, interstate commerce)
* ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' (1857, slavery)
* ''[[Civil Rights Cases]]'' (1883, civil rights law) 
* ''[[Plessy v. Ferguson]]'' (1896, separate but equal treatment of races)
* ''[[Lochner v. New York]]'' (1905, labor law)
* ''[[Buck v. Bell]]'' (1927, upheld [[forced sterilization]] laws)
* ''[[Wickard v. Filburn]]'' (1942, federal regulation of economic activity)
* ''[[Korematsu v. U.S.]]'' (1942, [[Internment of Japanese Americans|Japanese internment]])
* ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' (1954, school segregation of races)
* ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'' (1962, state-sponsored prayers in [[State school|public schools]])
* ''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]'' (1963, [[Bible]] readings and recitation of the [[Lord's Prayer]] in U.S. public schools)
* ''[[Gideon v. Wainwright]]'' (1963, right to an attorney)
* ''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' (1965, contraception)
* ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'' (1966, rights of those detained by police)
* ''[[Loving v. Virginia]]'' (1967, interracial marriage)
* ''[[Lemon v. Kurtzman]]'' (1971, religious activities in public schools)
* ''[[New York Times Co. v. United States]]'' (1971, freedom of the press)
* ''[[Eisenstadt v. Baird]]'' (1972, contraception)
* ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973, [[Abortion in the United States|abortion]])
* ''[[Miller v. California]]'' (1973, obscenity)
* ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' (1974, executive privilege)
* ''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'' (1976, campaign finance)
* ''[[Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.|Chevron v. N.R.D.C.]]'' (1984, most cited administrative law case, overturned in 2024 by ''[[Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo]]'')<ref>{{Cite web |title=What Overruling Chevron Could Mean for Environmental Law |url=https://www.law.georgetown.edu/environmental-law-review/blog/what-overruling-chevron-could-mean-for-environmental-law/ |access-date=March 27, 2024 |language=en-US}}</ref>
* ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'' (2000, presidential election)
* ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' (2003, sodomy)
* ''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'' (2008, gun rights)
* ''[[Citizens United v. FEC]]'' (2010, campaign finance)
* ''[[United States v. Windsor]]'' (2013, same-sex marriage)
* ''[[Shelby County v. Holder]]'' (2013, voting rights)
* ''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' (2015, same-sex marriage)
* ''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' (2020, discrimination on [[LGBT employment discrimination in the United States|LGBT workers]])
* ''[[McGirt v. Oklahoma]]'' (2020, [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States|tribal reservation rights]])
* ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' (2022, abortion)
* ''[[New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen]]'' (2022, firearms)
* ''[[Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard]]'' (2023, [[Affirmative action in the United States|affirmative action]])
* ''[[Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo]]'' (2024, overruled [[Chevron deference]])
* ''[[Trump v. United States (2024)]]'' ([[Presidential immunity]])

{{div col end}}

==References==
{{reflist|30em}}

===Bibliography===
{{Update section|date=February 2024|reason=Should have more recent books, as older books might be out of date and not contain the latest thinking, information and analysis about the court}}{{refbegin|30em}}
* ''Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States'', 5 vols., Detroit [etc.]  Macmillan Reference USA, 2008
* [https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170605075740/https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf |date=June 5, 2017 }} (2013 ed.) (PDF).
* [[Joan Biskupic|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}}
* {{cite book |editor-last=Hall |editor-first=Kermit L. |title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1992 |location=New York |isbn=978-0-19-505835-2 |url=https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall}}
* {{cite book |editor-last1=Hall |editor-first1=Kermit L. |editor-last2=McGuire |editor-first2=Kevin T. |title=Institutions of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch |year=2005 |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=New York, New York |isbn=978-0-19-530917-1}}
* [[Harvard Law Review]] Assn. (2000). ''[[Bluebook|The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation]]'', 17th ed. [18th ed., 2005. {{ISBN|978-600-01-4329-9}}]
* [[Peter H. Irons|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). [https://web.archive.org/web/20020607011454/http://supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c01_e.html "The Supreme Court Gets a Home"], ''Supreme Court Historical Society 1976 Yearbook''. [in 1990, renamed ''The Journal of Supreme Court History'' (ISSN 1059-4329)]
* {{cite web |url={{SCOTUS URL|about/courtbuilding.pdf}} |title=The Court Building |format=PDF |access-date=February 13, 2008 |author=Supreme Court Historical Society}}
* [[Charles Warren (U.S. author)|Warren]], Charles (1924). ''The Supreme Court in United States History'' (3 volumes). Boston: [[Little, Brown and Co.]]
* [[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]] and [[Scott Armstrong (journalist)|Armstrong, Scott]] (1979). ''[[The Brethren (non-fiction)|The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court]]''. {{ISBN|978-0-7432-7402-9}}.
{{refend}}

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |last=Vladeck |first=Stephen I. |author-link=Steve Vladeck |title=The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine The Republic |publisher=Basic Books, Hachette Book Group |publication-place=New York, New York |date=2023 |isbn=978-1-5416-0263-2}}
* {{cite book |last=Waldman |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Waldman |title=The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America |publisher=Simon & Schuster |publication-place=New York; London, England; Toronto, Canada; Sydney, Australia; New Delhi, India |date=2023 |isbn=978-1-6680-0606-1 |oclc=on1380786442}}
* {{cite book |last=Biskupic |first=Joan |title=Nine black robes: inside the Supreme Court's drive to the right and the historic consequences |publisher=William Morrow & Company |publication-place=New York, New York |date=2023 |isbn=978-0-06-305278-9}}
* [[Laurence H. Tribe|Tribe, Laurence H.]], "Constrain the Court – Without Crippling It", ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'', vol. LXX, no. 13 (August 17, 2023), pp.&nbsp;50–54. "[J]udicial supremacy is neither woven into the Constitution's text and structure nor discoverable in the history of its creation – a reality that today's supposedly 'textualist' or at times 'originalist' Court conveniently ignores." (p.&nbsp;51.)
* {{Cite journal |last1=Katz |first1=Daniel Martin |last2=Bommarito |first2=Michael James |last3=Blackman |first3=Josh |author-link3=Josh Blackman |date=January 19, 2017 |orig-date=July 9, 2014 |title=A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=12 |issue=4 |pages=e0174698 |publisher=Social Science Research Network |doi=10.2139/ssrn.2463244 |pmid=28403140 |pmc=5389610 |arxiv=1407.6333 |ssrn=2463244}}
* {{cite book |last1=Tribe |first1=Laurence H. |last2=Matz |first2=Joshua |title=Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution |publisher=Henry Holt and Company |publication-place=New York |date=2014 |isbn=978-0-8050-9909-6}}
* Corley, Pamela C.; Steigerwalt, Amy; Ward, Artemus (2013). ''The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court''. Stanford University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-8047-8472-6}}.
* {{cite book |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |title=The Oath: The Obama White House and The Supreme Court |publisher=Anchor books |publication-place=New York |date=2013 |isbn=978-0-307-39071-4}}
* [[Jan Crawford Greenburg|Greenburg, Jan Crawford]] (2007). ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control for the United States Supreme Court''. New York: [[Penguin Press]]. {{ISBN|978-168217-180-6}}.
* {{cite book |last=Toobin |first=Jeffrey |title=The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court |publisher=Doubleday |publication-place=New York |date=2007 |isbn=978-0-385-51640-2}}
* McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). ''The American Supreme Court'' (4th ed.). Chicago, Illinois: [[University of Chicago Press]]. {{ISBN|0-226-55682-4}}

{{Refend}}

{{SCOTUS horizontal|state=expanded}}
{{SCOTUS Justices|state=expanded}}
{{U.S. Presidents and the Judiciary}}
{{Navboxes
|list1=
{{Americas topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of the Americas|countries_only=yes}}
{{US Judiciaries}}
{{USA-Mil-Judicial}}
{{Law of the United States}}
{{United States topics}}
}}
{{Subject bar|Law|Politics|United States
 |commons = Supreme Court of the United States
 |d       = Q11201
 |n       = Category:US Supreme Court
 |q       = Supreme Court of the United States
 |s       = Portal:Supreme Court of the United States
 |wikt    = SCOTUS
}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Supreme Court of the United States}}
[[Category:Supreme Court of the United States| ]]
[[Category:1789 establishments in the United States]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1789]]
[[Category:National supreme courts|United States, Supreme Court of the]]