👩🏾‍⚖️Supreme Court Unit 4 – Supreme Court Decision Making & Opinions

Key Players and Roles

• The Supreme Court consists of nine justices, including the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices
  • The Chief Justice presides over the court and has additional administrative responsibilities
  • Associate Justices have equal voting power in deciding cases
• Justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for lifetime appointments
• The Supreme Court also employs law clerks who assist the justices in researching cases and drafting opinions
• Attorneys representing the parties in a case present oral arguments before the court
• The Solicitor General represents the federal government in cases involving the United States
• Amicus curiae (friends of the court) may submit briefs to provide additional information or arguments

Case Selection Process

• The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions for certiorari each year, asking the court to review lower court decisions
• The court grants certiorari (agrees to hear a case) in only a small percentage of petitions, typically less than 100 per term
• Rule of Four: At least four justices must vote to grant certiorari for a case to be heard
• Justices consider factors such as the importance of the legal issue, conflicts between lower courts, and the potential impact of the decision when selecting cases
• Cases involving federal law, constitutional issues, or disputes between states are more likely to be granted certiorari
• The court may also grant certiorari in cases where the lower court decision conflicts with Supreme Court precedent or when the federal government requests review

Oral Arguments

• Oral arguments are public hearings where attorneys for each side present their case before the justices
• Each side is typically allotted 30 minutes to make their arguments, although the court may grant additional time in complex cases
• Justices often interrupt attorneys with questions to clarify points or challenge arguments
  • These questions can provide insight into the justices' thinking and potential concerns about the case
• Attorneys must be prepared to respond to questions and defend their position
• Oral arguments are an opportunity for justices to explore the implications of potential rulings and test the limits of legal theories
• The quality and persuasiveness of oral arguments can influence the justices' opinions, although they are not the sole determining factor

Conference Discussions

• After oral arguments, the justices meet in private to discuss the case and vote on the outcome
• Conferences are closed to the public and no official record is kept of the discussions
• The Chief Justice begins the discussion by summarizing the case and stating their initial views
• Associate Justices then present their opinions in order of seniority, starting with the most senior justice
• Justices may change their votes during the discussion as they hear the arguments of their colleagues
• The court's decision is based on the majority vote of the justices
• If the Chief Justice is in the majority, they assign the opinion writing to a justice in the majority
  • If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion

Opinion Writing

• After the conference, the assigned justice writes the majority opinion, which explains the court's decision and reasoning
• Justices who disagree with the majority may write dissenting opinions, expressing their alternative viewpoints and legal arguments
• Justices who agree with the majority decision but have different reasons may write concurring opinions
• Opinion drafts are circulated among the justices for review and potential revisions
  • Justices may suggest changes or negotiate language to reach a consensus or clarify points
• The final opinion is announced in open court and published, becoming binding precedent for lower courts
• The opinion writing process can take several months, depending on the complexity of the case and the level of agreement among the justices

Types of Opinions

• Majority opinion: The official decision of the court, representing the views of the majority of justices
  • Majority opinions have precedential value and establish the law of the land
• Concurring opinion: An opinion written by a justice who agrees with the majority decision but has different or additional reasons for their support
• Dissenting opinion: An opinion written by a justice who disagrees with the majority decision, explaining their alternative legal arguments and viewpoints
• Plurality opinion: When no single opinion garners a majority of justices, the opinion with the most votes becomes the plurality opinion
  • Plurality opinions have limited precedential value and may result in less clear legal guidance
• Per curiam opinion: A brief, unsigned opinion issued by the court as a whole, often used for summary decisions or when the court is equally divided
• Memorandum opinion: A short opinion, often unsigned, that addresses a narrow issue or dismisses a case without substantial discussion

Impact and Precedent

• Supreme Court decisions have far-reaching impacts on American law and society
• The court's interpretation of the Constitution and federal laws becomes binding precedent for lower courts
• Stare decisis: The principle that courts should follow previous rulings to maintain stability and consistency in the law
  • The Supreme Court may overturn its own precedents, but it generally requires compelling reasons and a significant change in circumstances
• Supreme Court decisions can shape public policy, protect individual rights, and resolve conflicts between branches of government
• The impact of a decision may extend beyond the specific case, influencing legislation, executive actions, and societal norms
• Landmark cases (Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade) have reshaped American society and sparked ongoing debates

Criticisms and Controversies

• The Supreme Court's role and power have been subject to criticism and controversy throughout history
• Judicial activism: Critics argue that the court sometimes overreaches its authority and makes policy decisions better left to elected officials
• Judicial restraint: Proponents argue that the court should defer to the other branches of government and avoid creating new rights or laws
• Confirmation process: The increasingly partisan and contentious nature of Supreme Court nominations has led to concerns about the court's legitimacy and independence
• Lack of diversity: Historically, the court has been dominated by white male justices, leading to calls for greater representation of women and minorities
• Politicization: Some argue that the court has become too politicized, with justices voting along ideological lines rather than based on legal principles
• Transparency: The court's closed-door deliberations and lack of cameras in the courtroom have been criticized as lacking transparency and public accountability
• Term limits: Some propose term limits for justices to ensure regular turnover and prevent one president from shaping the court for decades