(Pictured) The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present.
Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
The highest court in the United States, the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the law and setting precedent to which the country’s legal system adheres in most cases. “Landmark” Supreme Court cases are those that have significantly shaped history and have easily-felt impacts on U.S. citizens.
Composition of the Highest Court
Since the Judiciary Act was passed in 1869, the Court’s number of Justices (judges) has been fixed at nine. The number of Justices lies in the hands of Congress. In the early days of the republic, the number fluctuated from as low as five to as high as ten. The number has been fixed at nine, with one serving as Chief Justice, to prevent ties and deadlocks.
Incumbent presidents are tasked with appointing Justices to the Court. Nominees sit before the Senate and are essentially interviewed before the Senate confirms the nominee by a vote. Only a simple majority of the Senate vote is required to confirm a Justice to the bench. Traditionally, a cloture vote – a vote to end debate and proceed with a vote on a bill/nomination – required a two-thirds majority in the Senate to proceed. The “nuclear” option to pass cloture votes with a simple majority was introduced in 2013 by Senate Democrats. It was later used by Republicans to prevent the nomination of Merrick Garland after the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016, citing then-President Obama’s (D-IL) “lame duck” status.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D-NY) attempted to add more Justices during his tenure to appoint his hand-picked nominees to tilt the Court in favor of his intended agenda, a practice known as “court packing.” Democrats were vocal about the practice after the overturning of Roe V. Wade, but no serious progress on the highly controversial practice was made.
A President can withdraw his nominee for the Supreme Court at any time and the Senate has no obligation to call for a nominee to testify or to advance the nomination from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Justices serve lifelong terms that end with death, retirement, or impeachment. Only one Justice has ever been impeached: Samuel Chase in 1805. Articles of Impeachment passed the U.S. House but he was acquitted by the Senate.
A quorum of six Justices is required for a case to be heard. The Supreme Court typically receives about 8,000 requests for hearings each year, but ultimately only hears about eighty of them. Other hearings are passed back down the appellate courts for their deliberations.
The current Court stands at six Justices who have been appointed by Republican or conservative residents, and three appointed by Democratic or liberal presidents. Clarence Thomas, the most tenured with thirty-two years on the bench, John Roberts (Chief Justice), Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett are the Justices appointed by Republican presidents. Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson are the Justices appointed by Democratic presidents.
Marbury Vs. Madison (1803)
When Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election, Adams and Congress quickly passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which created new courts and added new judges. Adams did this with the sole intention of frustrating the incoming Jefferson administration. Forty-two new justices of the peace were created but were not valid until the appointees’ commissions were delivered by the Secretary of State, then James Madison.
Jefferson believed the commissions were void and instructed Madison to not deliver them. William Marbury had been appointed Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. He petitioned the Supreme Court to force Madison to deliver him his commission to serve.
The Court found that while Madison’s refusal to deliver Marbury’s commission was illegal, the Court did not force him to deliver it. The Court actually found that Marbury’s ability to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it would have extended the Court beyond its jurisdiction established in the Constitution. Such powers were deemed to conflict with the Constitution, as Congress did not have power to modify it through regular legislation, since the Supremacy Clause puts the Constitution before general laws.
Due to a simple act of political retribution, the single-most important Supreme Court case was decided: the power to declare laws unconstitutional. It also established the associated practice of judicial review and reinforced the importance of the Separation of Powers.
McCulloch Vs. Maryland (1819)
In 1816, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, Maryland passed legislation to levy taxes on the banks. James McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the Second Bank, refused to pay the tax. The Maryland Appeals Court ruled that the Second Bank was unconstitutional as the Constitution did specify federal powers in chartering banks.
The Court ruled unanimously that the federal government did have the power to charter a bank and that states could not tax extensions of the federal government enacted through constitutional authority. Since the powers were not specifically outlined in the Constitution, Chief Justice John Marshall redefined “necessary” powers to be interpreted as “appropriate and legitimate,” delineating subsequent actions of the federal government.
In short, this case established implied powers of the Constitution to the federal government and reinforced supremacy of the Constitution over laws.
Dred Scott Vs. Sandford (1857)
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri, then a slave state. For ten years in the mid-1800s, he lived with his owners in Illinois, a free state, and areas of the Louisiana Purchase. Pursuant to the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in Purchase territory. After he returned to Missouri, Scott filed for his freedom, arguing that since he had been a resident of a free state, he was freed.
The Court ruled that since Scott was black whose ancestors were “imported” into the country, Scott was not an American citizen and his case had no standing in federal court. The Court also ruled that since slaves were considered property under the Fifth Amendment, any law that would deprive a person of their property was unconstitutional.
Dissenting Justices claimed that constitutional rights could apply to Scott, as black men had obtained suffrage in five states.
This case remains one of the most controversial decisions of the Court.
Plessy Vs. Ferguson (1896)
This case revolves around the “separate but equal” setup of society during Reconstruction. Louisiana’s Separate Car Act required separate railway cars for whites and blacks. Homer Plessy challenged this by sitting in a “whites only” railcar. Plessy, who was mostly white but considered black under Louisiana law, was asked to leave the car, refused, and was arrested.
The Court found the law to be constitutional and that “separate” treatment of different races did not imply inferiority.
This case is also considered one of the most controversial decisions of the Court.
Brown Vs. Board of Education (1954)
This case stemmed from a “separate but equal” lawsuit against the Board of Education for public schools in Topeka, Kansas. The Court ruled that separate but equal educational facilities based on race were inherently unequal and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court found that separate facilities imparted an intrinsic sense of inferiority. This decision is also unique in that the majority opinion used language devoid of legalese, making it digestible by the general public.
This case reversed the decision found in Plessy Vs. Ferguson.
Mapp Vs. Ohio (1961)
Dollree Mapp was involved in illegal gambling operations of mobster Shondor Birns. After Cleveland police received an anonymous tip of possible betting slips and a suspect for a bombing of a rival racketeer, police forced their way into her home without a search warrant. In addition to gambling paraphernalia, they found pornographic material. When Mapp refused to testify against Birns, she was prosecuted for possession of lewd material.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects Americans from illegal searches and seizures. Mapp could not be prosecuted for lewd materials on the grounds that all evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure were inadmissible in court.
Engel Vs. Vitale (1962)
In the New York school system, each day began with a voluntary, nondenominational prayer acknowledging God. The practice was challenged in court by multiple organizations claiming that the prayer was a violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled that the state cannot hold prayers in public school, even if participation is voluntary and not tied to any religion in particular.
Gideon Vs. Wainwright (1963)
Clarence Gideon was charged in Florida with felony breaking and entering. He requested a lawyer since he could not afford one, but Florida law only appointed lawyers to indigent defendants for capital cases. He represented himself in trial and was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. The Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applied in this case. It guarantees the right of all criminally charged with legal counsel.
Miranda Vs. Arizona (1966)
Ernesto Miranda was arrested on rape and kidnapping charges. He confessed to the crimes and the confession was admitted as evidence in trial. However, the police had not informed Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during interrogation. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment requires law enforcement to inform suspects of their rights to remain silent and obtain legal counsel during interrogations while in police custody.
This case led to such rights read to suspects being known as Miranda Rights.
