Supreme Court Decision-Making Process
Process of Supreme Court Cases
- Case selection
- Writs of certiorari: Parties file petitions asking the Supreme Court to review lower court decisions. Four justices must agree to hear a case for certiorari to be granted (the Rule of Four).
- Factors influencing case selection:
- Conflict between lower courts on important legal issues (circuit splits)
- Importance of the legal issue to the nation as a whole
- The Solicitor General's recommendation to hear a case (this person represents the federal government's interests before the Court)
- Amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs from interested parties providing additional perspectives
- Deliberation
- Oral arguments: Attorneys for each side present their case and answer justices' questions, typically for 30 minutes each.
- Conference: After oral arguments, justices meet privately to discuss the case and cast preliminary votes, starting with the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, they assign who writes the opinion. If not, the most senior justice in the majority assigns it.
- Opinion writing
- Majority opinion: Written by the assigned justice, this explains the legal reasoning behind the decision. It establishes precedent and becomes binding law that lower courts must follow.
- Concurring opinion: Written by a justice who agrees with the outcome but for different legal reasons. It does not carry the same legal weight as the majority opinion.
- Dissenting opinion: Written by justices who disagree with the majority decision. Dissents don't have legal force, but they can influence future cases and signal to lower courts and litigants that the law may shift over time.
Influences on Court Decisions
- Legal precedent
- Stare decisis ("let the decision stand") is the principle of adhering to previous court decisions to provide stability and predictability in the law. Justices generally respect precedent to maintain the Court's legitimacy and consistency.
- Justices may distinguish a case from previous decisions if the facts or legal questions differ significantly. Rarely, the Court may overturn precedent if it is deemed incorrect or unworkable (Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson).
- Public opinion
- Court decisions can shape public opinion on controversial issues (Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, for example).
- Public opinion can also indirectly influence the Court. Justices generally avoid decisions that stray dramatically from public sentiment, in part to maintain the Court's legitimacy. Controversial decisions can lead to public backlash and calls for reform, such as FDR's court-packing plan in the 1930s.
- Political pressures
- Appointment process: Presidents nominate justices who align with their political ideology, and the Senate confirms or rejects nominees based on judicial philosophy and qualifications.
- Congressional checks: Congress can propose constitutional amendments to overturn Court decisions (the 11th Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia on state sovereign immunity). Congress can also adjust the Court's jurisdiction or size, though this is rarely done.
Judicial Philosophy and Interpretation
Two major approaches to reading the Constitution shape how justices decide cases:
- Originalism: Interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time of ratification. Originalists argue this constrains judges from inserting their own preferences.
- Living Constitution: Viewing the Constitution as a document that evolves with changing societal norms and values. Supporters argue this allows the Constitution to address modern problems the Framers couldn't have anticipated.
These philosophies connect to broader judicial approaches:
- Judicial restraint: Emphasizes deference to elected branches and avoids broad constitutional rulings. Advocates favor narrow decisions and respecting precedent to maintain stability.
- Judicial activism: Involves more assertive use of judicial power to address social or political issues. Critics argue it oversteps the Court's role, while supporters see it as necessary for protecting rights.
- Judicial review: The power of the Court to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions. Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), this is central to the Court's role in checks and balances. The Constitution doesn't explicitly grant this power; the Court claimed it through Marshall's reasoning in that case.
Checks and Balances on the Supreme Court
The Court has enormous power through judicial review, but the other branches have tools to keep it accountable. At the same time, structural protections exist to preserve judicial independence.
Executive Branch Checks
- Appointment power: The president nominates Supreme Court justices, shaping the Court's ideological composition over time. Nominations often reflect the president's political priorities and judicial philosophy.
- Enforcement of Court decisions: The executive branch is responsible for enforcing Court rulings, which gives the president some discretion. Presidents have occasionally resisted or delayed enforcement of controversial decisions (for example, resistance to desegregation orders after Brown v. Board).
Legislative Branch Checks
- Confirmation power: The Senate confirms or rejects Supreme Court nominees, influencing the Court's ideological balance. Senators weigh a nominee's qualifications, judicial philosophy, and potential impact on key issues.
- Constitutional amendments: Congress can propose amendments to overturn Court decisions with a two-thirds vote in both houses. Ratification requires three-fourths of the states, making this a high threshold (the 26th Amendment lowered the voting age to 18 after the Court upheld state restrictions).
- Jurisdiction stripping: Congress can remove certain cases from the Court's appellate jurisdiction through legislation. This is rarely used due to separation of powers concerns.
- Impeachment: Congress can impeach and remove justices for serious misconduct. This requires a majority vote in the House to impeach and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict. It has been attempted only once, against Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, and he was acquitted.
Judicial Independence
- Life tenure insulates justices from political pressure. They serve "during good behavior," meaning they can't be removed simply because their decisions are unpopular.
- Salary protection prevents Congress from reducing justices' compensation as a form of retaliation, as guaranteed by Article III of the Constitution.