Supreme Court of the United States: Difference between revisions

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}}

===Early beginnings===

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>

===From Taney to Taft===

{{main|Taney Court|Chase Court|Waite Court|Fuller Court|White Court (judges)|l5=White Court|Taft Court}}

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>

[[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.]]

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}}

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>

==Composition==

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.

[[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]]

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>

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===

[[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>

| {{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]]

| [[John Roberts Supreme Court nominations|78–22]]

| 50

| {{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]]

| [[Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination|52–48]]

| 43

| {{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]]

| [[Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination|58–42]]

| 55

| {{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]]

| [[Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination|54–45]]

| 49

| {{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.]]

| [[Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination|50–48]]

| 53

| {{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]]

| [[Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination|52–48]]

| 48

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>

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

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}}

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}}

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.

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"

| {{sort|02|[[File:Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px]]}}

| {{Sortname|Anthony|Kennedy}}<br />{{dts|1936|7|23}}<br />[[Sacramento, California]]

| 82

| {{age nts|1936|7|23}}

| {{sort|04|[[File:DavidSouter.jpg|100px]]}}

| [[David Souter]]<br />{{dts|1939|9|17}}<br />[[Melrose, Massachusetts]]

| 69

| {{age nts|1939|9|17}}

===Original jurisdiction===

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>

* 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.

=== Written evidence ===

===Politicization of the court===

==Criticism and controversies==

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>

=== Composition and selection ===

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>

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>

====Code of Conduct====

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/>

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>

=== Outdated and an outlier ===

[[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>

==== Federalism debate ====

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" />

=== Ruling on political questions ===

===Secretive proceedings===