The United States Supreme Court
Seventh Grade Civics
Judicial Branch
Section Three: The United States Supreme Court
“The Constitution does not resolve, and was not intended to resolve, society’s problems. Rather, the Constitution provides a framework for the creation of democratically determined solutions, which protect each individual’s basic liberties…while securing a democratic form of government. We judges cannot insist that Americans participate in that government, but we can make clear that our Constitution depends on it.” Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The Supreme Court Justices
The Supreme Court exerts its influence all across the United States, not just in Washington, D.C. It stands above all other courts. Its main job is to decide whether laws are allowable under the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only two instances. The court can preside over trials in cases that involve diplomats from foreign countries and in cases in which a state is involved. In all other instances, the Supreme Court hears cases that have come on appeal from lower district courts or from federal regulatory agencies. The Supreme Court is not required to hear all the cases presented to it. It carefully chooses the cases it hears. It has final authority in any case involving the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties with other nations. The decisions of the Court are binding on all lower courts. When the Court refuses to review a case, the decision of the lower court remains unchanged.
The Supreme Court is made of eight associate justices led by a chief justice. Congress sets this number and has the power to change it. The justices are important political decision makers. Their rulings often affect citizens as much as do presidential or congressional decisions. There have only been 17 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court since its introduction.
Judicial Branch
Section Three: The United States Supreme Court
“The Constitution does not resolve, and was not intended to resolve, society’s problems. Rather, the Constitution provides a framework for the creation of democratically determined solutions, which protect each individual’s basic liberties…while securing a democratic form of government. We judges cannot insist that Americans participate in that government, but we can make clear that our Constitution depends on it.” Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The Supreme Court Justices
The Supreme Court exerts its influence all across the United States, not just in Washington, D.C. It stands above all other courts. Its main job is to decide whether laws are allowable under the U.S. Constitution.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only two instances. The court can preside over trials in cases that involve diplomats from foreign countries and in cases in which a state is involved. In all other instances, the Supreme Court hears cases that have come on appeal from lower district courts or from federal regulatory agencies. The Supreme Court is not required to hear all the cases presented to it. It carefully chooses the cases it hears. It has final authority in any case involving the Constitution, acts of Congress, and treaties with other nations. The decisions of the Court are binding on all lower courts. When the Court refuses to review a case, the decision of the lower court remains unchanged.
The Supreme Court is made of eight associate justices led by a chief justice. Congress sets this number and has the power to change it. The justices are important political decision makers. Their rulings often affect citizens as much as do presidential or congressional decisions. There have only been 17 Chief Justices of the Supreme Court since its introduction.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices and year their term started, from top to bottom, left to right: John Jay (1789), John Rutledge (1795), Oliver Ellsworth (1796), John Marshall (1801), Roger B. Taney (1836), Salmon P. Chase (1864), Morrison Waite (1874), Melville Fuller (1888), Edward Douglass White (1910), William Howard Taft (1921), Charles Evans Hughes (1930), Harlan F. Stone (1941), Fred M. Vinson (1946), Earl Warren (1953), Warren E. Burger (1969), William Rehnquist (1986), John G. Roberts, Jr. (2005)
The main duty of justices is to hear and rule on cases. They choose which cases to hear from among the thousands appealed to the Court each year. They then decide the case itself and issue a written explanation for the decision, called the Court’s opinion. The chief justice has additional duties, such as presiding over sessions and conferences at which cases are discussed.
Selection of Justices
The president appoints Supreme Court justices, with the consent of the Senate. Presidents are careful to choose nominees who are likely to be approved by the Senate. When selecting nominees, the president often gets help from the attorney general and other Justice Department officials. The president’s decision may also be influenced by the American Bar Association, the largest national organization of attorneys; interest groups, such as labor and civil rights groups; and other Supreme Court justices, who may recommend or support certain candidates. Senators have usually felt that the president should have a fairly free hand in appointing new justices. Throughout history, though, the Senate has rejected many presidential nominees to the Supreme Court because of doubts about the qualifications or the legal philosophy of the persons nominated.
The main duty of justices is to hear and rule on cases. They choose which cases to hear from among the thousands appealed to the Court each year. They then decide the case itself and issue a written explanation for the decision, called the Court’s opinion. The chief justice has additional duties, such as presiding over sessions and conferences at which cases are discussed.
Selection of Justices
The president appoints Supreme Court justices, with the consent of the Senate. Presidents are careful to choose nominees who are likely to be approved by the Senate. When selecting nominees, the president often gets help from the attorney general and other Justice Department officials. The president’s decision may also be influenced by the American Bar Association, the largest national organization of attorneys; interest groups, such as labor and civil rights groups; and other Supreme Court justices, who may recommend or support certain candidates. Senators have usually felt that the president should have a fairly free hand in appointing new justices. Throughout history, though, the Senate has rejected many presidential nominees to the Supreme Court because of doubts about the qualifications or the legal philosophy of the persons nominated.
President Bill Clinton looks on as Ruth Bader Ginsburg is sworn in as the second female Supreme Court Justice in 1993 by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
Background of the Justices
Supreme Court justices are always lawyers. They have had successful careers practicing or teaching law, serving as judges in lower courts, or holding other public positions prior to appointment.
Political support and agreement with the president’s ideas are important factors in who gets appointed. Once appointed, a justice may make rulings that the president does not like.
Background of the Justices
Supreme Court justices are always lawyers. They have had successful careers practicing or teaching law, serving as judges in lower courts, or holding other public positions prior to appointment.
Political support and agreement with the president’s ideas are important factors in who gets appointed. Once appointed, a justice may make rulings that the president does not like.
Civil rights activist and lawyer, Thurgood Marshall was appointed by President Lyndon B. Johnson and sworn in to the Supreme Court in 1967. Marshall broke the pattern of the Court being an “old white man’s club” by being the first African American Supreme Court Justice.
The first 178 years of the Supreme Court’s existence there were only white males appointed to the bench. They were typically older individuals with long histories in the courtroom. The civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s brought about the appointment of the first African American justice in 1967, Thurgood Marshall. Marshall had been involved for several decades in civil rights issues, serving in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as a lawyer, most notably, arguing the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case before the Supreme Court in 1954. Marshall argued many cases before the Supreme Court in those years with the NAACP. His appointment to the Court by President Lyndon B. Johnson acknowledged his efforts and knowledge of the needs of minorities in the nation. Marshall would serve on the Court until his retirement in 1991. He died two years later. There has been only one other African American justice on the Supreme Court since then, a former Assistant Attorney General for Missouri, Clarence Thomas. Thomas was appointed to the Court to replace Marshall in 1991. There are three women serving as Supreme Court justices today, but the first female justice was not appointed until 1981 with Sandra Day O’Connor.
The first 178 years of the Supreme Court’s existence there were only white males appointed to the bench. They were typically older individuals with long histories in the courtroom. The civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s brought about the appointment of the first African American justice in 1967, Thurgood Marshall. Marshall had been involved for several decades in civil rights issues, serving in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as a lawyer, most notably, arguing the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case before the Supreme Court in 1954. Marshall argued many cases before the Supreme Court in those years with the NAACP. His appointment to the Court by President Lyndon B. Johnson acknowledged his efforts and knowledge of the needs of minorities in the nation. Marshall would serve on the Court until his retirement in 1991. He died two years later. There has been only one other African American justice on the Supreme Court since then, a former Assistant Attorney General for Missouri, Clarence Thomas. Thomas was appointed to the Court to replace Marshall in 1991. There are three women serving as Supreme Court justices today, but the first female justice was not appointed until 1981 with Sandra Day O’Connor.
President Reagan sits with his appointee to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice in 1981.
Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, replacing the retired Thurgood Marshall. Thomas is only the second African American to serve on the Court.
Powers of the Court
The powers of the Supreme Court have developed since its creation. Today the Supreme Court enjoys a great deal of power and prestige. The legislative and executive branches of government must follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court is removed from politics and from the influences of special-interest groups, it is more likely that the parties involved in a case before the Court will get a fair hearing. The Court exercises political influence in several ways. The most important is through the use of judicial review. Additionally, the Court interprets the meanings of laws.
Judicial Review
A significant job of the Supreme Court is to decide whether laws or actions by government officials are allowed by the Constitution, or are constitutional. It does this through a process called judicial review. This is the power to say whether any federal, state, or local law or government action goes against the Constitution. If the Court decides a law is unconstitutional, it has the power to nullify, or cancel, that law or action. This authority was established through the decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Marbury v. Madison The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. The Court claimed this power in 1803 when it decided the case of Marbury v. Madison. On his last night in office, President John Adams signed an order making William Marbury, and others, justices of the peace. When Thomas Jefferson took office the next day, he told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to carry out Adam’s order.
William Marbury took his case directly to the Supreme Court, under the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. John Marshall, the chief justice, wrote an opinion stating that Marbury’s claim was valid according to the Judiciary Art. Marshall also ruled that one part of the act gave the Court powers that it should not have and was therefore unconstitutional.
Powers of the Court
The powers of the Supreme Court have developed since its creation. Today the Supreme Court enjoys a great deal of power and prestige. The legislative and executive branches of government must follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. Because the Supreme Court is removed from politics and from the influences of special-interest groups, it is more likely that the parties involved in a case before the Court will get a fair hearing. The Court exercises political influence in several ways. The most important is through the use of judicial review. Additionally, the Court interprets the meanings of laws.
Judicial Review
A significant job of the Supreme Court is to decide whether laws or actions by government officials are allowed by the Constitution, or are constitutional. It does this through a process called judicial review. This is the power to say whether any federal, state, or local law or government action goes against the Constitution. If the Court decides a law is unconstitutional, it has the power to nullify, or cancel, that law or action. This authority was established through the decision of Marbury v. Madison (1803).
Marbury v. Madison The Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. The Court claimed this power in 1803 when it decided the case of Marbury v. Madison. On his last night in office, President John Adams signed an order making William Marbury, and others, justices of the peace. When Thomas Jefferson took office the next day, he told his Secretary of State, James Madison, not to carry out Adam’s order.
William Marbury took his case directly to the Supreme Court, under the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789. John Marshall, the chief justice, wrote an opinion stating that Marbury’s claim was valid according to the Judiciary Art. Marshall also ruled that one part of the act gave the Court powers that it should not have and was therefore unconstitutional.
Chief Justice John Marshall
John Marshall’s opinion set forth three principles of judicial review: 1.) The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, 2.) If there is a conflict between the Constitution and any other law, the Constitution rules, and 3.) The judicial branch has a duty to uphold the Constitution. Thus it must be able to determine when a law conflicts with the Constitution and to nullify, or cancel, unconstitutional laws.
Marbury v. Madison helped make the judicial branch equal in power to the other two branches. The power of judicial review is an important part of the system of checks and balances of the national government. By declaring acts of Congress or executive orders unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can check the actions of the legislative and executive branches. The final interpretation of the United States Constitution is reserved to the Supreme Court.
Interpreting Laws
The Court also exercises power when it interprets laws. Congress often uses very general language when it writes laws. For example, Congress passed a law that imposed a five-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of a violent crime in which he or she “uses” a gun. What does “uses” mean? What if a robber has a gun in his pocket but does not actually show it during the crime. In 1995 the Court ruled that “uses” means the person must show, fire, or at least say he has a gun.
Because a Supreme Court decision is the law of the land, a ruling like this affects law enforcement and courts all across the United States. Over the years the Court has interpreted many major laws.
Limits on the Courts’ Power
In the American system of checks and balances, there are limits on the power of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The Court depends on the executive branch as well as state and local officials, such as governors or police officers, to enforce its decisions. The executive branch usually follows Court rulings, but there have been exceptions. President Andrew Jackson refused to obey a Court ruling in the case of Worcester v. Georgia, in which Chief Justice John Marshall ordered the state of Georgia to stop violating federal land treaties with the Cherokee nation in 1832. Jackson is reported to have said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him carry it out.”
John Marshall’s opinion set forth three principles of judicial review: 1.) The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, 2.) If there is a conflict between the Constitution and any other law, the Constitution rules, and 3.) The judicial branch has a duty to uphold the Constitution. Thus it must be able to determine when a law conflicts with the Constitution and to nullify, or cancel, unconstitutional laws.
Marbury v. Madison helped make the judicial branch equal in power to the other two branches. The power of judicial review is an important part of the system of checks and balances of the national government. By declaring acts of Congress or executive orders unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can check the actions of the legislative and executive branches. The final interpretation of the United States Constitution is reserved to the Supreme Court.
Interpreting Laws
The Court also exercises power when it interprets laws. Congress often uses very general language when it writes laws. For example, Congress passed a law that imposed a five-year prison sentence for anyone convicted of a violent crime in which he or she “uses” a gun. What does “uses” mean? What if a robber has a gun in his pocket but does not actually show it during the crime. In 1995 the Court ruled that “uses” means the person must show, fire, or at least say he has a gun.
Because a Supreme Court decision is the law of the land, a ruling like this affects law enforcement and courts all across the United States. Over the years the Court has interpreted many major laws.
Limits on the Courts’ Power
In the American system of checks and balances, there are limits on the power of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. The Court depends on the executive branch as well as state and local officials, such as governors or police officers, to enforce its decisions. The executive branch usually follows Court rulings, but there have been exceptions. President Andrew Jackson refused to obey a Court ruling in the case of Worcester v. Georgia, in which Chief Justice John Marshall ordered the state of Georgia to stop violating federal land treaties with the Cherokee nation in 1832. Jackson is reported to have said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him carry it out.”
The decisions of President Andrew Jackson to ignore the Supreme Court opinion would lead to the removal of American Indians in the Southeast and force them to walk to Indian Territory in Oklahoma, becoming known as the “Trail of Tears.”
The president did not choose to enforce this Court decision. Because most citizens agreed with Jackson, there was no public pressure to force him to uphold the Court’s decision.
Congress can get around a Court ruling by passing a new law or changing a law ruled unconstitutional. Congress and state legislatures can also try to undo Court rulings by adopting a new amendment and thus changing the Constitution. The system of checks and balances also includes the president’s power to appoint justices and Congress’s power to approve judicial appointments or to impeach and remove justices.
Another limit is the fact that the Court can only hear and make rulings on the cases that come to it. All cases submitted to the Court must be actual legal disputes. A person cannot simply ask the Court to decide whether a law is constitutional. The Court will not rule on a law or action that has not been challenged on appeal. The Court also accepts only cases that involve a federal question. Traditionally, the Court has refused to deal with political questions because it believes that these are issues the executive or legislative branch of the United States government should resolve. However, in the 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court for the first time heard two cases involving the recounting of votes in the state of Florida.
The president did not choose to enforce this Court decision. Because most citizens agreed with Jackson, there was no public pressure to force him to uphold the Court’s decision.
Congress can get around a Court ruling by passing a new law or changing a law ruled unconstitutional. Congress and state legislatures can also try to undo Court rulings by adopting a new amendment and thus changing the Constitution. The system of checks and balances also includes the president’s power to appoint justices and Congress’s power to approve judicial appointments or to impeach and remove justices.
Another limit is the fact that the Court can only hear and make rulings on the cases that come to it. All cases submitted to the Court must be actual legal disputes. A person cannot simply ask the Court to decide whether a law is constitutional. The Court will not rule on a law or action that has not been challenged on appeal. The Court also accepts only cases that involve a federal question. Traditionally, the Court has refused to deal with political questions because it believes that these are issues the executive or legislative branch of the United States government should resolve. However, in the 2000 presidential election, the Supreme Court for the first time heard two cases involving the recounting of votes in the state of Florida.