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>

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}}

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>

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

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}}

| {{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}}

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>

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>

=== Ruling on political questions ===

===Secretive proceedings===