Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. The court meets regularly in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Its main duty is to determine the legality of conduct at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—as measured either by the Constitution of the United States or by other laws passed by Congress. Much of the court’s work involves the interpretation of general legal rules and the application of these rules to specific cases.
The Supreme Court accepts only a small percentage of the cases brought before it. Because the court is the nation’s highest judicial authority, its decisions have great importance. Once it decides a constitutional question, all other courts in the United States are expected to follow the decision in similar cases.
The Supreme Court is the only court specifically created by the Constitution. Congress later created federal district and circuit courts (now known as courts of appeals), above which stands the Supreme Court. State judicial systems also have high courts that are supreme in interpreting state statutes and state constitutions. However, the Supreme Court of the United States can review the decisions of the highest state courts when the Constitution of the United States or acts of Congress are involved. This article deals only with the Supreme Court of the United States. For information on the federal court system and on state courts, see the article Court.
The role of the Supreme Court and its interpretation of the law have shifted throughout history. These changes depend largely on the beliefs of its members, and on the national conditions of the time. In the early days of the nation, for example, the court concerned itself chiefly with the proper division of authority between the state and federal governments. Since the mid-1900’s, the protection of the rights and liberties of individuals has been a major concern.
How the Supreme Court is organized
Article III of the Constitution provides for the creation of the Supreme Court and states the limits of its jurisdiction. But the Constitution leaves most details of the court’s organization and of the work it can do to Congress, which set up the initial federal court system with the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Membership.
The Supreme Court has nine members—a chief justice and eight associate justices. Congress sets the number and has changed it through the years. The first Supreme Court had six members. During Abraham Lincoln’s presidency, it had 10 members. Since 1869, the court has had nine members.
The Constitution sets no qualifications for justices but states that they shall be appointed by the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate. All justices, however, have been lawyers. Most have been judges, and some have been government officials or law school professors. In the late 1900’s, most justices appointed to the court served on the U.S. courts of appeals before their nomination. The Senate has rejected outright only 12 Supreme Court nominees.
Salary and terms.
Once appointed, justices may remain in office for life, and Congress cannot reduce their salaries. These provisions protect the justices from political control and help ensure their independence. In 2024, the salaries were $312,200 for the chief justice and $298,500 for the associate justices. Congress can remove a justice through impeachment for corrupt behavior or other abuses of office, but the lawmakers have never done so. A justice 70 years of age, who has served as a justice or judge of the United States for 10 or more years, may retire and continue to receive a full salary. A justice who has served at least 15 years as a justice or judge may retire at 65 and receive the salary.
Authority of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court declares what the law is only when an actual case comes before it. The case must involve a real dispute between opposing parties. The Supreme Court of the United States, unlike some state supreme courts, does not give legal advice or advisory opinions on pending legislation, even if requested to do so by the president or by Congress.
The Constitution permits the court to decide cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties. The Supreme Court also decides disputes involving the United States or two or more states. The most important of these cases are those that require the court to interpret the Constitution or the laws enacted by Congress.
The Supreme Court has the power to decide whether a federal or state law or executive action is constitutional. The Constitution does not expressly grant the court this power, known as judicial review. However, the Constitution, by its own terms, is the “supreme law of the land.” The court has ruled that it must review conflicts between the Constitution and federal or state law to preserve the supremacy of the Constitution.
Original and appellate jurisdiction.
The Constitution gives the Supreme Court two types of authority: (1) original jurisdiction and (2) appellate jurisdiction. The court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors or other representatives of foreign countries and in cases in which a state is one of the parties. These cases go directly to the Supreme Court, though they make up only a small part of the court’s workload.
Most of the work of the court comes from its appellate jurisdiction, which is its authority to confirm or reverse lower court decisions. Most Supreme Court cases come from the federal courts of appeals and the highest state courts. The courts of appeals normally review federal district court decisions before the Supreme Court does. In a few cases, the Supreme Court may review the decisions of federal district courts or of lower state courts. The Supreme Court also reviews the decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized court, and of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
The Supreme Court decides which of the cases under its appellate jurisdiction it will review. Because it cannot possibly review all of the cases brought before it, it selects the ones it considers most important or the ones where earlier rulings have left confusion about the law.
Writ of certiorari.
The court agrees to hear a case by granting a writ of certiorari << `sur` shee uh RAIR ee >> , a written order calling the case up from a lower court for review. The attorney for the side requesting a review submits a written petition for certiorari. It explains why the lower court judge is in error and why the case is of sufficient significance to merit review by the Supreme Court. The opposing attorney can file a written statement opposing the petition. If four justices vote to grant the petition, the court agrees to hear the case. The court controls its workload by granting only a small percentage of petitions for certiorari.
The court in action
Attorneys who have been admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court plead most cases before the court. However, other attorneys who meet specific qualifications may be allowed to present certain cases. Most litigants hire and pay their own attorneys. If a litigant has no money, the court may provide free legal service. When the U.S. government has an interest in a case before the Supreme Court, the solicitor general or members of the solicitor general’s staff usually represent the government. The attorney general of the United States may sometimes argue an important case.
Deciding cases.
The justices decide a case after they have considered written and oral arguments from each side. The written argument is called a brief. During oral arguments, the justices often interrupt and ask questions. After the attorneys’ oral arguments, the justices discuss the case in conference (in private). The chief justice begins the discussion. Then, in order of seniority (time served on the court), the associate justices give their opinions. After discussion ends, the justices vote in reverse order of seniority. Cases are decided by majority vote. If a tie occurs, the lower court decision stands and the parties have no further appeal.
Written opinions.
If the chief justice has voted with the majority, he or she selects a justice to write the opinion of the court, also called the majority opinion. If the chief justice has not voted with the majority, the senior justice of the majority assigns the opinion. A justice who disagrees with this opinion may write a dissenting opinion. Justices may also write concurring opinions if they agree with the conclusion of the majority but not with the reasons for reaching it, or if they wish to express similar reasons in their own words. If a majority of participating justices do not agree, there is no majority opinion. In this circumstance, there may be a plurality opinion signed by several, but not a majority, of the justices. A plurality opinion does not establish a precedent for later cases.
A government publication called the United States Reports publishes all Supreme Court opinions. The publishing of opinions allows lawyers, legal officials, and the general public to study the decisions of the court. This publishing is an important tradition in a free society and a safeguard against unreasonable use of power.
Effects of decisions.
Supreme Court decisions have far-ranging effects because lower courts are expected to follow the decisions in similar cases. The Supreme Court itself usually follows its earlier decisions. The policy of following previous decisions is known as stare decisis. It lends stability and predictability to the law. But the court may not consider itself bound by an earlier decision if it is convinced an error has been made, or if new circumstances require a different approach. This policy enables the court to recognize a previous error or to reflect social, political, and economic change.
Landmark decisions
The Supreme Court has decided cases that touch almost every aspect of American life. One of the most important early Supreme Court cases was Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In the decision, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the court may rule an act of Congress unenforceable if the act violates the Constitution. This ruling was the first instance of judicial invalidation of a federal law.
Federalism.
The court has interpreted the Constitution as granting broad powers to the federal government. These powers bar certain exercises of state power when they conflict with national interests. For example, in the 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland, the court determined that Congress had the power to charter a national bank. The court then struck down a Maryland law that would have taxed the bank.
The power of the federal government increased during the mid-1800’s, aided by the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868. This amendment forbids the states from denying any person due process, equal protection, or the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States. Since the amendment’s passing, the court has varied in the extent to which it prevents states from trespassing on these protected rights.
Civil rights.
In 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the court held that Black people, even those freed from slavery, were not and could not become U.S. citizens. Then in 1868, the 14th Amendment made Black people citizens and guaranteed to all people “equal protection of the laws.” In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the court interpreted that provision to allow “separate but equal” facilities for white people and Black people. But in 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the court ruled that a state could not separate students by race. Later, the court decided that it is sometimes permissible to give preference to racial minorities in jobs and other matters as a way to correct the effects of past discrimination.
In 1873, in Bradwell v. State, the Supreme Court decided that Illinois could exclude women from the practice of law. The 19th Amendment, adopted in 1920, gave women the right to vote, but many laws continued to treat men and women differently. Women’s rights generally remained restricted until the 1960’s, when Congress began to pass laws expanding the employment and educational opportunities of women and the court actively enforced those laws.
A landmark decision in the area of women’s rights occurred in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade. In this case, the court declared that a state could not prohibit abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, and could do so only under limited conditions in the second three months. Later decisions modified Roe somewhat, but its basic principle remained intact for nearly 50 years. In the 2022 case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court overruled Roe, deciding that there was in fact no constitutional right to abortion.
Election issues.
For most of its history, the Supreme Court was reluctant to hear challenges to election districting. But in 1962, in Baker v. Carr, the court changed its position and said that unfair distribution of seats in state legislatures could be challenged in federal courts. Then in 1964, in Reynolds v. Sims, it ruled that states must redraw election districts to guarantee that all districts are roughly equal in population.
In 2000, the Supreme Court played a major role in deciding the presidential race between Texas Governor George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore. Five weeks after the election, the court ruled in Bush v. Gore that the state of Florida should not continue vote recounts, because a consistent statewide standard did not exist. The court also ruled that there was not enough time to develop a statewide standard and to perform a manual recount. Gore then conceded the election to Bush.
Freedom of speech.
Starting around World War I (1914-1918), the Supreme Court heard many cases involving the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment. Early decisions upheld lower courts that found dissenters guilty of a crime for protesting United States entry into the war. The legal protection of free speech grew steadily from the 1930’s to the 1960’s. In 1964, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the court ruled that a newspaper could not be punished for publishing false statements about a public official unless it knew or should have known that the statements were false. In 1969, in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court held that a person could not be punished for urging a violation of the law unless it was clear that the violation would likely occur.
Criminal law.
In the 1960’s, the Supreme Court strengthened the protections given a person accused of a crime. In the 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio, the court ruled that prosecutors could not introduce into a trial evidence obtained without a search warrant, though later court rulings provided for certain exceptions. In 1963, in Gideon v. Wainwright, the court held that states must provide free legal counsel to any person charged with a felony who could not afford to hire a lawyer. In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona ruled that the police must inform an accused person of his or her right to remain silent and to consult with a lawyer before questioning the person. The court reaffirmed Miranda in a 2000 decision.
The Supreme Court has also placed limits on the power of the state to impose the death penalty. In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the court held that some state laws authorizing the penalty were unconstitutional. The court claimed that the death penalty, as administered under the laws, qualified as cruel and unusual punishment. In response to this decision, more than 35 states enacted new laws authorizing the death penalty. The Supreme Court basically approved these laws in Gregg v. Georgia in 1976. Still, the court’s members remained sharply divided about actual administration of the death penalty.
Church and state.
The Bill of Rights prohibits laws establishing religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court has spent many years trying to interpret these clauses, which may appear to contradict each other. In the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale, the court banned prayer in public schools. The justices upheld this ruling in a 2000 case involving prayers at school football games. But in the 1995 case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the court held that a state could not deny funding to a religion-oriented student publication if it funded other, nonreligious publications.
Controversy on the court
The Supreme Court has divided sharply on many cases. Divisions on the court often mirror divisions within the wider American public, regarding such matters as the scope of minority rights or the relationship between church and state. Legal experts believe that the court’s lack of complete agreement in such cases should be expected and is even desirable. It reflects the seriousness of the cases and the presence of different points of view.
Members of the court also divide sharply on matters of judicial methodology—that is, the approach that courts should take in interpreting the Constitution. Some justices insist that the court should interpret and apply the Constitution to agree with the original intentions of those who wrote it. Others argue for a more creative role for the court in building “a living Constitution” that responds to the new and changing problems of the nation.
