TheSupreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by theConstitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under theJudiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justiceshas been nine in its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.[1]
The first Chief Justice of the United States wasJohn Jay; the Court's first docketed case wasVan Staphorst v. Maryland (1791), and its first recorded decision wasWest v. Barnes (1791).[2] Perhaps the most controversial of the Supreme Court's early decisions wasChisholm v. Georgia, in which it held that the federal judiciary could hear lawsuits against states. Soon thereafter, responding to the concerns of several states, Congress proposed theEleventh Amendment, which granted states immunity from certain types of lawsuits in federal courts. The Amendment was ratified in 1795.
Jay was succeeded as Chief Justice byJohn Rutledge, and then byOliver Ellsworth. No major cases came before the Supreme Court during this time.
For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation.
— Thomas Jefferson, about the Marshall Court
One of the most significant events during the history of the Court was the tenure of Chief JusticeJohn Marshall (1801 to 1835). In the landmark caseMarbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall held that the Supreme Court could overturn a law passed by Congress if it violated the Constitution, legally cementing the power ofjudicial review. The Marshall Court also made several important decisions relating tofederalism. Marshall took a broad view of the powers of the federal government—in particular, theinterstate commerce clause and theNecessary and Proper Clause. For instance, inMcCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court ruled that the interstate commerce clause and other clauses permitted Congress to create a national bank, even though the power to create a bank is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Similarly, inGibbons v. Ogden (1824), the Court found that the interstate commerce clause permitted Congress to regulate interstate navigation.
The Marshall Court also made several decisions restraining the actions of state governments. The notion that the Supreme Court could consider appeals from state courts was established inMartin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) andCohens v. Virginia (1821). In several decisions, the Marshall Court confirmed the supremacy of federal laws over state laws. For example, inMcCulloch, the Court held that a state could not tax an agency of the federal government. At the same time, however, the Marshall Court held in the landmark caseBarron v. Baltimore (1833) that theBill of Rights restricted the federal government alone, and did not apply to the states. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court would in later years hold that theFourteenth Amendment had the effect of applying most provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Marshall's forceful personality allowed him to steer his fellow justices; only once did he find himself on the losing side in a constitutional case. In that case (Ogden v. Saunders in 1827), Marshall set forth his general principles of constitutional interpretation:[5]
To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance, nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers; -- is to repeat what has been already said more at large, and all that can be necessary.
Marshall was in the dissenting minority only eight times throughout his tenure at the Court, partly because of his influence over the associate justices. AsOliver Wolcott observed when both he and Marshall served in the Adams administration, Marshall had the knack of "putting his own ideas into the minds of others, unconsciously to them".[6] However, he regularly curbed his own viewpoints, preferring to arrive at decisions by consensus.[7] He adjusted his role to accommodate other members of the court as they developed.
Marshall had charm, humor, a quick intelligence, and the ability to bring men together. His sincerity and presence commanded attention. His opinions were workmanlike but not especially eloquent or subtle. His influence on learned men of the law came from the charismatic force of his personality, and his ability to seize upon the key elements of a case and make highly persuasive arguments. Together with his vision of the future greatness of the nation, these qualities are apparent in his historic decisions and gave him the sobriquet,The Great Chief Justice.[8][9][10]
Marshall ran a congenial court; there was seldom any bickering. The Court met in Washington only two months a year, from the first Monday in February through the second or third week in March. Six months of the year the justices did circuit duty in the various states. Marshall was therefore based in Richmond, his hometown, for most of the year. When the Court was in session in Washington, the justices boarded together in the same rooming house, avoided outside socializing, and discussed each case intently among themselves. Decisions were usually made in a matter of days. Marshall wrote nearly half the decisions during his 33 years in office. Lawyers appearing before the court, including the most brilliant in the United States, typically gave oral arguments and did not present written briefs. The justices did not have clerks, so they listened closely to the oral arguments and decided among themselves what the decision should be. The court issued only one decision; the occasional dissenter did not issue a separate opinion.[11]
While Marshall was considered good at listening to the oral briefs and convincing the other justices of his interpretation of the law, he was not widely read in the law and seldom cited precedents. After the Court reached a decision, he would usually write it up himself. Often he askedJustice Story, a renowned legal scholar, to do the chore of locating precedents, saying, "There, Story; that is the law of this case; now go and find the authorities."[12]
Marshall's tenure as chief justice has been associated with the shift towards black robes ascourt dress for Supreme Court judges.[13] However, there is some evidence that indicates that the shift towards black robes occurred earlier.[13]
In 1836, Marshall was succeeded as Chief Justice byRoger B. Taney, who had a somewhat more limited view of the powers of the federal government. At a time when sectional tensions between the North and South were high, many of the Supreme Court's decisions—particularly those relating to slavery—met with controversy and contention. Most controversial was the Taney Court's decision inDred Scott v. Sandford (1857).Dred Scott, a slave fromMissouri, sued for his freedom on the grounds that his master had taken him intoIllinois and the territory ofWisconsin, both of which prohibited slavery, for extended periods of time. Taney, however, ruled that members of the African race were not and could never become citizens of the United States. Consequently, he ruled that Scott therefore had no standing to file the lawsuit. Moreover, he held that theMissouri Compromise, under which Congress prohibited slavery in certain territories that formed part of theLouisiana Purchase, was unconstitutional. The controversial decision met with outrage fromabolitionists, and contributed to the tensions that led to theCivil War during the next decade.
.jpg)
In the midst of the Civil War,Abraham Lincoln appointedSalmon P. Chase to be Chief Justice. Chase had stronganti-slavery credentials and had previously served Lincoln as Secretary of the Treasury. His post-Civil War tenure featured several key decisions affirming the indestructibility of the Union. Chase was considered highly ambitious, even for a politician. In 1872, Chase, while serving on the Supreme Court, ran for the Presidency, but his efforts were ultimately unsuccessful. Chase continued to serve as Chief Justice until his death in 1873.
In 1869, Congress increased the size of the court to consist of a chief justice and eight associate justices.
In the aftermath of the Civil War Congress passed and the states ratified theFourteenth Amendment, which, among other things, prevented states from abridging the "privileges and immunities of citizens," from denying due process of law, and from denyingequal protection of the laws to any person. Many cases that came before the Court in the post–Civil War era involved interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In theCivil Rights Cases (1883), the Court under Chief JusticeMorrison Waite held that Congress could not prohibit racial discrimination by private individuals (as opposed to governments) on the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment. Later, inPlessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court under Chief JusticeMelville Fuller determined that the equal protection clause did not prohibitracial segregation in public facilities, as long as the facilities were equal (giving rise to the infamous term "separate but equal"). The sole dissenter in that case wasJohn Marshall Harlan.[14]
In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court established that the Fourteenth Amendment protected the "liberty of contract." On the grounds of the Fourteenth Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution, it controversially overturned many state and federal laws designed to protect employees. The first important decision of the era wasLochner v. New York (1905), in which the Court overturned a New York law limiting the number of hours bakers could work each week. InAdair v. United States (1908), the Court overruled a federal law which forbade "yellow dog contracts" (contracts that prohibited workers from joining unions).Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) involved a decision that aDistrict of Columbia minimum wage law was unconstitutional.
In 1925, the Supreme Court made a landmark ruling inGitlow v. New York, establishing the doctrine ofincorporation, under which provisions of the Bill of Rights were deemed to restrict the states. Originally, as Chief Justice John Marshall ruled inBarron v. Baltimore (1833), the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government; however, during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court held in a series of decisions the Fourteenth Amendment had the effect of applying some (but not all) provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. The first such decision wasGitlow, in which the Supreme Court incorporated the protection of freedom of speech afforded by the First Amendment. Important decisions relating to incorporations were made during later decades, especially the 1960s.
During the 1930s, the Supreme Court contained both a solid liberal bloc and a solid conservative bloc. The four conservative Justices, known as "The Four Horsemen," wereJames McReynolds,George Sutherland,Willis Van Devanter andPierce Butler. Their liberal opponents on the bench –Louis Brandeis,Benjamin Cardozo andHarlan Stone, were conversely known "The Three Musketeers", while Chief JusticeCharles Evans Hughes and JusticeOwen Roberts controlled the balance by serving as the swing votes. Hughes, as a progressive Republican, tended to side with the Three Musketeers, whilst Roberts was swayed to the side of the conservatives.
As a result, the Court continued to enforce a Federallaissez-faire approach, overturning many of PresidentFranklin D. Roosevelt'sNew Deal programs, which were designed to combat theGreat Depression, by 5–4 margins. Most notably, theNational Industrial Recovery Act was overturned unanimously inSchechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), and theAgricultural Adjustment Act was struck down inUnited States v. Butler (1936).
In response, President Roosevelt proposed theJudiciary Reorganization Bill (called the "court-packing bill" by its opponents) in 1937, which would have increased the size of the Supreme Court and permitted the appointment of an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years and 6 months and refused retirement; under Roosevelt's proposal, such appointments would continue until the Court reached a maximum size of 15 justices. Ostensibly, the proposal was made to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly justices, but Roosevelt's actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support his New Deal policies and legislation. The plan quickly drew bipartisan opposition, including from Roosevelt's own vice presidentJohn Nance Garner, and it failed in Congress.[15][16]
Soon afterward, however, the ideological balance of the Supreme Court that had prevailed sinceLochner began to shift. Justice Roberts, who had previously voted with the conservative bloc in invalidating New Deal legislation, began to vote on the opposite side. Roberts' decision spelled the end of theLochner era and has been dubbed the "switch in time that saved nine." The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of Justice Van Devanter 1937 and of Justice Sutherland the following year, while Justice Butler died in November 1939. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to chief justice.[17]
The Hughes and Stone Courts overturned many convictions of African-Americans in southern courts, most notably inPowell v. Alabama (1932), and laid the groundwork for postwar school desegregation inMissouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938). In one of the last cases under Chief Justice Hughes –United States v. Classic – the Court would rule that thewhite primaries of eight former Confederate states could be regulated as general elections were.[18] This was followed up three years later by the landmarkSmith v. Allwright (1944) which outlawed white primaries entirely and paved the way for the first significant increases in black voter registration and voting in former Confederate states sincetheir virtually complete disenfranchisement in the 1890s.[19]
Between 1943 and 1946, eight of the nine sitting justices had been appointed by President Roosevelt, the sole exceptions being Owen Roberts and his replacementHarold Hitz Burton. After Stone died,Fred M. Vinson was appointed Chief Justice byHarry S. Truman.
In 1953, PresidentDwight David Eisenhower appointedEarl Warren, who was then governor of California, to the position of Chief Justice. Warren's term, which lasted until 1969, was arguably one of the most significant in the history of the Court. Under him, the Court made a long series of landmark decisions. Notable members of the liberal wing of the Court aside from Warren includedHugo Black,William O. Douglas (the longest-serving Justice in the Court's history) andWilliam J. Brennan. The foremost conservative members of the Court wereFelix Frankfurter andJohn Marshall Harlan II (grandson of the first Justice Harlan). The first important case of Warren's tenure wasBrown v. Board of Education (1954), in which the Court unanimously declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, effectively reversing the precedent set earlier inPlessy v. Ferguson and other cases.
The Warren Court also made several controversial decisions relating to the Bill of Rights. The doctrine of incorporation, which had first taken root inGitlow v. New York, was applied fully to most provisions of the Bill of Rights. InEngel v. Vitale (1962), the Court declared that officially sanctioned prayer in public schools was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Similarly, inAbington School District v. Schempp (1963), it struck down mandatoryBible readings in public schools. The Court also expanded and incorporated the rights of criminal defendants, on the basis of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. InMapp v. Ohio (1961), the Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment and ruled that illegally seized evidence could not be used in a trial.Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established that states were required to provide attorneys to indigent defendants.Miranda v. Arizona (1966) held that the police must inform suspects of their rights (including the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney) before being interrogated. (The decision is the source of the famousMiranda warning.) Another significant and controversial decision made by the Warren Court wasGriswold v. Connecticut (1965), which established that the Constitution protected the right to privacy.
Chief Justice Earl Warren was succeeded byWarren E. Burger, who served from 1969 to 1986. The Burger Court is best remembered for its ruling inRoe v. Wade (1973), which held that there is a constitutionally protected right to have anabortion in some circumstances. The Court also made important decisions relating to the First Amendment. InLemon v. Kurtzman (1971), it established the "Lemon test" for determining if legislation violates the establishment clause. Similarly, it established the "Miller test" for laws banning obscenity inMiller v. California (1973).
Other rulings includeLandmark Communications v. Virginia in which the court ruled for fining a newspaper for revealing the identity of a judge under investigation by state commissioner H. Warrington Sharp. The Burger Court also established a moratorium oncapital punishment inFurman v. Georgia (1972), holding that states generally awarded death sentences arbitrarily and inconsistently. The moratorium, however, was lifted four years later inGregg v. Georgia (1976). Also inUnited States v. Nixon (1974), the court ruled that the courts have the final voice in determining constitutional questions and that no person, not even thePresident of the United States, is completely above law.
The Burger Court largely affirmed the Warren Court's rulings, as the liberal bloc was still led by JusticesWilliam J. Brennan,Thurgood Marshall, andJohn Paul Stevens. Meanwhile, JusticeWilliam Rehnquist led the conservative bloc. Many justices during this era were considered to be moderate and did not necessarily push the law in a more conservative or liberal direction.
Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist served from Burger's retirement in 1986 until his own death on September 3, 2005. The Rehnquist Court generally took a limited view of Congress's powers under the commerce clause, as exemplified byUnited States v. Lopez (1995). The Court made numerous controversial decisions, includingTexas v. Johnson (1989), which declared that flag burning was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment;Lee v. Weisman (1992), which declared officially sanctioned, student-led school prayers unconstitutional;Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), which voided laws prohibiting late-term abortions; andLawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down laws prohibitingsodomy. (Some commentators see these decisions as part of the "culture wars.") Another controversial decision of the Rehnquist court in 2003 wasGrutter v. Bollinger which upheld affirmative action. Perhaps the most controversial decision made by the Court came inBush v. Gore (2000), which ended election recounts inFlorida following thepresidential election of 2000, allowingGeorge W. Bush to become the forty-thirdU.S. President.
Rehnquist led a remarkably stable Court. For the eleven years following whenStephen Breyer took the oath in 1994, to Rehnquist's death in 2005, the composition of the Court remained unchanged – the longest such stretch in over 180 years.[20]
JusticesRuth Bader Ginsburg andJohn Paul Stevens led the Court's liberal bloc during this era. Meanwhile, JusticesAntonin Scalia andClarence Thomas joined Chief JusticeRehnquist as the Court's conservative bloc. JusticesSandra Day O'Connor andAnthony Kennedy were considered "swing votes" in the middle of the court, though Kennedy would protest that "the cases swing".
Chief JusticeJohn G. Roberts was confirmed by theUnited States Senate on September 29, 2005, and presided over the Court for the first time on October 3, 2005, the day the 2005–2006 session opened. On October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush nominatedSamuel Alito to replace the retiringJustice Sandra Day O'Connor (who Roberts was originally going to replace), and was confirmed on January 31, 2006. Under Roberts the Court has drifted primarily to the right in areas like the death penalty (Kansas v. Marsh), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart andDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization), the exclusionary rule for Fourth Amendment violations (Hudson v. Michigan), and campaign-finance regulation (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). On November 20, 2007, the Court agreed to hear a case,District of Columbia v. Heller, that was regarded as the first important and historically significant decision on the Second Amendment to the Constitution since 1875. On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the constitutionality of aDistrict of Columbia ban on handguns.[21] On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."[22]
On August 8, 2009,Sonia Sotomayor became the first Hispanic-American to serve on the Supreme Court after being nominated byBarack Obama and confirmed by the Senate to replace the retiringJustice David Souter. On May 10, 2010, President Obama nominatedElena Kagan to replace the retiringJustice John Paul Stevens. She was confirmed on August 7, 2010. On January 31, 2017, PresidentDonald Trump nominatedNeil Gorsuch to replace the lateJustice Antonin Scalia (who died on February 13, 2016), and he was confirmed on April 7, 2017. On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominatedBrett Kavanaugh to replace the retiringJustice Anthony Kennedy. He was confirmed on October 6, 2018.
On March 16, 2020, the Supreme Court announced it would postpone oral arguments in response to theCOVID-19 pandemic, disrupting its operation for the first time in 102 years.[23] Six months later on September 18,Ruth Bader Ginsburg died at the age of 87, opening up a seat in the Supreme Court.President Donald TrumpnominatedAmy Coney Barrett as a replacement on September 26, 2020, less than two months before the2020 general election.[24] She was confirmed by theSenate in a 52–48 vote on October 26, 2020, eight days prior to the same election. On June 30, 2022, Stephen Breyer retired, andKetanji Brown Jackson, who had already been confirmed on April 7, 2022 by a 53–47 vote, was sworn in as his replacement.
JusticeRuth Bader Ginsburg led the liberal bloc during much of this court, while JusticesAntonin Scalia andClarence Thomas led the conservative bloc. Chief JusticeRoberts and JusticeAnthony Kennedy were considered to be in the "middle" of the court.
On November 13, 2023, for the first time in its history the court issued aCode of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States to set "ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court."[25][26]
 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "History of the Supreme Court of the United States" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| The court |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Procedures | ||
| Current members | ||
| Retired justices | ||
| History |
| |
| Lists of justices and nominees | ||
| Statutes affecting court size | ||
| Functionaries | ||
| Location | ||
| Related | ||
