วิกิพีเดีย

ผลต่างระหว่างรุ่นของ "รอยซ์"

เรียกดูประวัติแบบโต้ตอบ
← การแก้ไขก่อนหน้าการแก้ไขถัดไป →
เนื้อหาที่ลบ เนื้อหาที่เพิ่ม
เห็นภาพข้อความวิกิ
Tiemianwusi (คุย | ส่วนร่วม)
การแก้ไข 38,884 ครั้ง
ไม่มีความย่อการแก้ไข
Tiemianwusi (คุย | ส่วนร่วม)
การแก้ไข 38,884 ครั้ง
ไม่มีความย่อการแก้ไข
บรรทัด 1:
{{FixBunching|beg}}
{{Other uses|Secret society (disambiguation)}}
{{Infobox High Court
{{Globalize|date=December 2010}}
|court_name = {{nowrap|Supreme Court of the United States}}
| image = Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
| imagesize = 150px
| established = 1789
| country = United States
| location = [[Washington, D.C.]]
| coordinates = {{Coord|38|53|26.55|N|77|00|15.64|W|display=inline,title}}
| type = [[President of the United States|Presidential]] nomination with [[United States Senate|Senate]] [[advice and consent|confirmation]]
| authority = [[Constitution of the United States|U.S. Constitution]]
| terms = [[Supreme Court of the United States#Tenure|Life tenure]]
| positions = 9, [[#Size of the Court|by statute]]
| website = [http://www.supremecourt.gov/ supremecourt.gov]
| chiefjudgetitle = [[Chief Justice of the United States]]
| chiefjudgename = [[John G. Roberts]]
| termstart = September 29, 2005
}}
{{FixBunching|mid}}
{{Politics of the United States}}
{{FixBunching|end}}
 
The '''Supreme Court of the United States''' is the highest judicial body in the [[United States]], and leads the federal [[United States federal courts|judiciary]]. It consists of the [[Chief Justice of the United States]] and eight [[Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States|Associate Justices]], who are nominated by the [[President of the United States|President]] and confirmed with the "[[advice and consent]]" (majority vote) of the [[United States Senate|Senate]]. Once appointed, justices effectively have life tenure, serving "during good Behaviour<!-- This is how it is spelled in the Constitution, please DO NOT "fix" the spelling -->",<ref name="constitution">{{cite web|url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/|title=U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1|accessdate=2007-09-21}}</ref> which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on [[Impeachment in the United States|impeachment]].<ref>''See, in dicta'' [[Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.]], [http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./458/50 458 U.S. 50], 59 (1982); [[United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles]], [http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./350/11/ 350 U.S. 11], 16 (1955).</ref> The Court meets in [[Washington, D.C.]] in the [[United States Supreme Court Building]]. The Supreme Court is primarily an [[appellate court]], but it has [[original jurisdiction]] over a small range of cases.<ref name="overview">{{cite web|url={{SCOTUS URL|about/briefoverview.pdf}} |title=A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court|format=PDF|publisher=United States Supreme Court|accessdate=2009-12-31}}</ref> The Supreme Court is sometimes informally referred to as the '''High Court''' or by the [[Acronym and initialism|acronym]] '''SCOTUS'''.
{{Refimprove|date=May 2009}}
{{Citation style|date=May 2009}}
[[File:Secret Society Buildings New Haven.jpg|thumb|right|240px|"Secret Society Buildings at Yalle College", by Alice Donlevy<ref>Alice Donlevy was the author of a book on illustration called "Practical Hints on the Art of Illumination," published by A. D. F. Randolph, New York, 1867</ref> ca. 1880. Pictured are: Psi Upsilon (Beta Chapter), 120 High Street. Left center: Skull & Bones (Russell Trust Association), 44 High Street. Right center: Delta Kappa Epsilon (Phi Chapter), east side of York Street, south of Elm Street. Bottom: Scroll and Key (Kingsley Trust Association), 490 College Street.]]
 
==History==
A '''secret society''' is a club or organization whose activities and inner functioning are concealed from non-members. The society may or may not attempt to conceal its existence. The term usually excludes covert groups, such as [[intelligence agencies]] or guerrilla insurgencies, which hide their activities and memberships but maintain a public presence. The exact qualifications for labeling a group as a secret society are disputed, but definitions generally rely on the degree to which the organization insists on [[secrecy]], and might involve the retention and transmission of [[secret knowledge]], [[Denial of request|denial]] of membership in or knowledge of the group, the creation of personal bonds between [[members]] of the organization, and the use of secret rites or rituals which solidify members of the [[group]].
{{Main|History of the Supreme Court of the United States}}
Eras of the [[History of the Supreme Court of the United States|history of the Supreme Court]] are named after the [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] of that time.
 
The earliest Courts under Chief Justices [[John Jay|Jay]], [[John Rutledge|Rutledge]], and [[Oliver Ellsworth|Ellsworth]] (1789–1801) heard few cases, and the Supreme Court's first decision was ''[[West v. Barnes]]'' (1791), a case involving a procedural issue.<ref>{{cite web
== Definition ==
|title = Dates of Supreme Court decisions and arguments, United States Reports volumes 2-107 (1791–1882)
Several definitions for the term have been put forward. The term "secret society" is used to describe [[fraternal organization]]s that may have secret ceremonies and means of identification and communication, ranging from ([[college fraternity|collegiate fraternities]]) to organizations described in [[conspiracy theories]] as immensely powerful, with self-serving financial or [[New World Order (conspiracy)|political agendas]], global reach, and often [[Luciferianism|Luciferian]] beliefs.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}}
|format = PDF
|url = http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf
|last = Ashmore
|first = Anne
|publisher = Library, Supreme Court of the United States
|month = August
|year = 2006
|accessdate = 2009-04-26
}}</ref> Further, the Court initially lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.<ref name=tws31oct01>{{cite news
| author = Scott Douglas Gerber (editor)
| title = Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall
| quote = (page 3) Finally, many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked prestige.
| publisher = New York University Press
| year = 1998
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=0tEkU5LiYsQC&pg=PA1
| isbn = 0-8147-3114-7
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref>
 
[[File:Old City Hall-Supreme Court Front.jpg|thumb|left|alt=Image of two story brick building.|The Court lacked its own building until 1935; from 1791 to 1801, it met in Philadelphia's [[Old City Hall (Philadelphia)|City Hall]].]]
A purported "family tree of secret societies" has been proposed, although it may not be comprehensive.<ref>Stevens (1899), p. vii.</ref>
That changed during the [[John Marshall|Marshall]] Court (1801–1835),<ref name=tws31oct02>{{cite news
| author = Garrett Epps
| title = Don't Do It, Justices
| quote = The court's prestige has been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = October 24, 2004
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56446-2004Oct23.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] (see ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'')<ref name=tws31oct05>{{cite news
| author = Jeffrey Rosen (book review of "Packing the Court" by James MacGregor Burns)
| title = Black Robe Politics
| quote = From the beginning, Burns continues, the Court has established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup" in Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = July 5, 2009
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202033.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref><ref name=tws31oct09>{{cite news
| title = The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America -- Marbury v. Madison (1803)
| quote = With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of “checks and balances” created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
| publisher = US News & World Report
| year = 1803
| url = http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page19.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> and made several important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional [[Balance of power (federalism)|balance of power]] between the federal government and the states.<ref name=tws31oct03>{{cite news
| author = Cliff Sloan and David McKean
| title = Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters
| quote = More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate.
| publisher = Newsweek
| date = February 21, 2009
| url = http://www.newsweek.com/id/185803
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> In ''[[Martin v. Hunter's Lessee]]'',<ref name=tws31oct08>{{cite news
| title = The Constitution In Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Supreme Court
| quote = The decision ... in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is the authority on which lawyers and Judges have rested the doctrine that where there is in question, in the highest court of a State, and decided adversely to the validity of a State statute... such claim is reviewable by the Supreme Court ...
| publisher = New York Times
| date = February 27, 1893
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D0CEFDE1031E033A25754C2A9649C94629ED7CF
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
| format=PDF
}}</ref> the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the [[United States Constitution|federal Constitution]] made by [[state supreme court]]s.<ref name=tws31oct04>{{cite news
| author = Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter Breyer
| title = Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore
| quote = Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court ... The Virginia court refused to obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).
| publisher = USA Today
| date = 2000-12-13
| url = http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref><ref name=tws31oct06>{{cite news
| title = Decisions of the Supreme Court -- Historic Decrees Issued in One Hundred an Eleven Years
| quote = Very important also was the decision in Martin vs. Hunter's lessee, in which the court asserted its authority to overrule, within certain limits, the decisions of the highest State courts.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = February 3, 1901
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E03EED8133EE333A25750C0A9649C946097D6CF
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
| format=PDF
}}</ref> Both ''[[Marbury v. Madison|Marbury]]'' and ''[[Martin v. Hunter's Lessee|Martin]]'' confirmed that the Court was entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of [[federal law]].
 
The Marshall Court ended the practice of each judge issuing his opinion ''[[seriatim]]'',<ref name=tws31oct11>{{cite news
Application of the term is often hotly disputed, as it can be seen as pejorative.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}}
| title = The Supreme Quiz
| quote = According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade the other justices to stop seriatim opinions -- each issuing one -- so that the court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s, however, there's been a significant increase in individual "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions.
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = October 2, 2000
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A58066-2000Oct2&notFound=true
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> a remnant of British tradition,<ref name=tws31oct10>{{cite news
| author = Dan Slater
| title = Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled
| quote = The first Chief Justice, John Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in England in which each appellate judge writes an opinion in ruling on a single case. (You may have read old tort cases in law school with such opinions). Marshall sought to do away with this practice to help build the Court into a coequal branch.
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = April 18, 2008
| url = http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/04/18/justice-stevens-on-the-death-penalty-a-promise-of-fairness-unfulfilled/
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> and instead began issuing a single majority opinion.<ref name=tws31oct11/> Justice [[Samuel Chase]] was [[Impeachment in the United States|impeached]] by [[United States Congress|Congress]]<ref name=tws31oct12>{{cite news
| author = Claire Suddath
| title = A Brief History Of Impeachment
| quote = Congress tried the process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase was overzealous and notoriously unfair ... But Chase never committed a crime — he was just incredibly bad at his job. The Senate acquitted him on every count.
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = Dec. 19, 2008
| url = http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867783,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> within a greater power struggle between the [[Democratic-Republican Party|Democratic-Republicans]] and the [[Federalist Party (United States)|Federalists]] after the transition of power following the [[United States presidential election, 1800|election of 1800]]. Chase's 1805 acquittal by the [[United States Senate|Senate]] has been cited as recognition by Congress of the principle of [[judicial independence]].<ref name=tws31oct13>{{cite news
| author = [[Linda Greenhouse]]
| title = Rehnquist Joins Fray on Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence
| quote = the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel Chase, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives ... This decision by the Senate was enormously important in securing the kind of judicial independence contemplated by Article III" of the Constitution, Chief Justice Rehnquist said
| publisher = New York Times
| date = April 10, 1996
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/10/us/rehnquist-joins-fray-on-rulings-defending-judicial-independence.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref>
 
The [[Roger B. Taney|Taney]] Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as ''[[Sheldon v. Sill]]'', which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent ''them'' from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.<ref name=tws31oct16>{{cite news
Therefore, the criteria that can be adopted as a definition for the term are important for which organizations any one definition would include or exclude.{{Citation needed|date=October 2008}}
| author = Edward Keynes, with Randall K. Miller
| title = The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion
| quote = (page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction.
| publisher = Duke University Press
| year = 1989
| url = http://books.google.com/books?id=_Ebb2wsxkF4C&pg=PA115| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> The Taney Court is primarily remembered for its ruling in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'',<ref name=tws31oct21>{{cite news
| author = Sherrilyn A. Ifill
| title = Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense
| quote = But his decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless existence within the United States until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-fulfilling statement in Dred Scott, that blacks had "no rights which the white man [was] bound to respect," has ensured his place in history—not as a brilliant jurist, but as among the most insensitive
| publisher = US News & World Report
| date = May 27, 2009
| url = http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/05/27/sotomayors-great-legal-mind-long-ago-defeated-race-gender-nonsense.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> the case which may have helped precipitate the [[United States Civil War|Civil War]].<ref name=tws4494>{{cite book
| last = Irons
| first = Peter
| coauthors = Howard Zinn (wrote foreword)
| title = A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution
| publisher = Penguin Books
| year = 2006
| location = United States
| pages = 176, 177
| quote = The rhetorical battle that followed the Dred Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the gunfire and bloodshed of the Civil War (p.176)... his opinion (Taney's) touched off an explosive reaction on both sides of the slavery issue... (p.177)
| isbn = 0143037372}}</ref> In the [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction era]], the [[Salmon P. Chase|Chase]], [[Morrison Waite|Waite]], and [[Melville Fuller|Fuller]] Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution,<ref name=tws31oct06/> and developed the doctrine of [[substantive due process]] (''[[Lochner v. New York]]'';<ref name=tws31oct24>{{cite news
| title = Liberty of Contract?
| quote = The term "substantive due process" is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner--the finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships.
| publisher = Exploring Constitutional Conflicts
| date = 2009-10-31
| url = http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/libertyofk.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> ''[[Adair v. United States]]'').<ref name=tws31oct100>{{cite news
| title = Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161
| quote = No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908
| publisher = Cornell University Law School
| year = 1908
| url = http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0208_0161_ZS.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref>
 
Under the [[Edward Douglass White|White]] and [[William Howard Taft|Taft]] Courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (''[[Adkins v. Children's Hospital]]''),<ref name=tws31oct101>{{cite book
Alan Axelrod, author of the ''International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders'', defines a secret society as an organization that:
| author = Bernard H. Siegan
* Is exclusive
| title = The Supreme Court's Constitution
* Claims to own special secrets
| quote = In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court invalidated a classification based on gender as inconsistent with the substantive due process requirements of the fifth amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District of Columbia. (p.146)
* Shows a strong inclination to favor its own
| publisher = Transaction Publishers
| year = 1987
| url = http://books.google.com/?id=XABdIe1foccC&pg=PA146
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
| isbn = 9780887386718
}}
| pages = 146
| isbn = 0-88738-127-8</ref> and the Court held that the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] applied some provisions of the [[United States Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]] to the states through the [[Incorporation (Bill of Rights)|Incorporation doctrine]].<ref name=twsff4frj>{{cite book
| last = Bodenhamer
| first = David J.
| coauthors = James W. Ely
| title = The Bill of Rights in modern America
| publisher = Indiana University Press
| quote = ... of what eventually became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill of Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection.
| year = 1993
| location = Bloomington, Indiana
| page = 245
| url = http://books.google.com/?id=L-_9mFCeBSIC&pg=PA245
| isbn = 978-0-253-35159-3}}</ref>
 
During the [[Charles Evans Hughes|Hughes]], [[Harlan Fiske Stone|Stone]], and [[Fred M. Vinson|Vinson]] Courts (1930–1953), the court gained [[United States Supreme Court building|its own accommodation]] in 1935<ref name=tws31oct>{{cite news
David V. Barrett, author of ''Secret Societies: From the Ancient and Arcane to the Modern and Clandestine'', uses slightly different terms to define what does and does not qualify as a secret society. He defines it as any group that possesses the following characteristics:
| author = [[Joan Biskupic]]
* It has "carefully graded and progressed teachings"
| title = Supreme Court gets makeover
* Teachings are "available only to selected individuals"
| quote = The building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 1935.
* Teachings lead to "hidden (and 'unique') truths"
| publisher = USA Today
* Truths bring "personal benefits beyond the reach and even the understanding of the uninitiated."
| year = 2008
| url = http://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2005-03-28-high-court-makeover_x.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
| date=2005-03-29
}}</ref> and changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate Franklin Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] (''[[West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish]],<ref name=tws31oct103>{{cite news
| author = Justice Roberts
| title = Responses of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden
| quote = I agree that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish correctly overruled Adkins. Lochner era cases - Adkins in particular - evince an expansive view of the judicial role inconsistent with what I believe to be the appropriately more limited vision of the Framers.
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = September 21, 2005
| url = http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=%22west+coast+hotel+co.+v.+parrish%22+(site%3Anewsweek.com+OR+site%3Apost-gazette.com+OR+site%3Ausatoday.com+OR+site%3Awashingtonpost.com+OR+site%3Atime.com+OR+site%3Areuters.com+OR+site%3Aeconomist.com+OR+site%3Amiamiherald.com+OR+site%3Alatimes.com+OR+site%3Asfgate.com+OR+site%3Achicagotribune.com+OR+site%3Anytimes.com+OR+site%3Awsj.com+OR+site%3Ausnews.com+OR+site%3Amsnbc.com+OR+site%3Anj.com+OR+site%3Atheatlantic.com)&aq=o&oq=&aqi=
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}{{dead link|date=January 2011}}</ref> [[Wickard v. Filburn]]''),<ref name=tws31oct107>{{cite news
| author = Seth lipsky
| title = All the News That's Fit to Subsidize
| quote = He was a farmer in Ohio ... during the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in for farmers. With subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one could grow—even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm.
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = October 22, 2009
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704597704574486242417039358.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> giving a broader reading to the powers of the Federal Government.<ref name=tws31oct109>{{cite news
| author = [[Adam Cohen]]
| title = What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal
| quote = Some prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed Wickard ... for paving the way for strong federal action...
| publisher = New York Times
| date = December 14, 2004
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref>
 
The [[Earl Warren|Warren]] Court (1953–1969) made many rulings, sometimes celebrated, sometimes controversial, expanding the application of the Constitution to [[civil liberties]], leading a renaissance in [[substantive due process]].<ref name=tws31oct110>{{cite news
Barrett goes on to say that "a further characteristic common to most of them is the practice of rituals which non-members are not permitted to observe, or even to know the existence of." Barrett's definition would rule out many organizations called secret societies; graded teaching are not part of the [[Fraternities and sororities in North America|American college fraternities]], the [[Carbonari]], or the [[Know Nothing]]s.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}}
| author = United Press International
| title = Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years
| quote = Justice Black developed his controversial theory, first stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = September 25, 1971
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0227.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> It held [[desegregation|segregation in public schools]] unconstitutional (''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'');<ref name=tws31oct113>{{cite news
| title = 100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
| quote = On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" ... and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement...
| publisher = US News & World Report
| date = May 17, 1954
| url = http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/document_page87.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'');<ref name=tws31oct114>{{cite news
| title = Essay: In defense of privacy
| quote = The biggest legal milestone in this field was last year's Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overthrew the state's law against the use of contraceptives as an invasion of marital privacy, and for the first time declared the "right of privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself.
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = July 15, 1966
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836012-3,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> that public schools cannot have official prayer (''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'')<ref name=tws31oct120>{{cite news
| author = [[Nancy Gibbs]]
| title = America's Holy War
| quote = In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state officials that was recommended for use in New York State schools. "It is no part of the business of government," ruled the court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite."
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = Dec. 9, 1991
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,974430,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> or ''mandatory'' [[Bible]] readings (''[[Abington School District v. Schempp]]'');<ref name=tws31oct121>{{cite news
| author = William R. Mattox Jr., Katrina Trinko
| title = Teach the Bible? Of course.
| quote = Public schools need not proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students about the Good Book ... In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education," was permissible under the First Amendment.
| publisher = USA Today
| date = August 17, 2009
| url = http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-teach-the-bible-of-course-.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> that many guarantees of the [[Bill of Rights]] apply to the states (''e.g., [[Mapp v. Ohio]]'',<ref name=tws31oct131>{{cite news
| title = The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle
| quote = Last week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court refused for the first time to give retroactive effect to a great Bill of Rights decision—Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = June 18, 1965
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898882,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]'');<ref name=tws31oct132>{{cite news
| author =
| title = Guilt and Mr. Meese
| quote = 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's the famous decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence unless an accused person has been warned by police of the right to silence and to a lawyer, and waived it.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = January 31, 1987
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/opinion/guilt-and-mr-meese.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> found an [[equal protection]] clause is contained in the [[Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] (''[[Bolling v. Sharpe]]'');<ref name=tws31oct202>{{cite news
| author =
| title = Road to the Brown decision
| quote = 1950: Bolling vs. Sharpe, the second of the cases that would become part of Brown, is filed by a group of black students seeking admission to a Washington, D.C., junior high.
| publisher = Chicago Tribune
| date = May 16, 2004
| url = http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/bal-pe.timeline16may16,0,3198737.story
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> and that the Constitution grants the right to a [[public defender|court-appointed attorney]]<ref name=tws31oct203>{{cite news
| title = The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment
| quote = Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963). ... the court said flatly in 1904: 'The Sixth Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal courts." But in the light of Gideon ... ruled Black, statements 'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to states can no longer be regarded as law.'
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = April 16, 1965
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841844,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> for those unable to afford one (''[[Gideon v. Wainwright]]'').<ref name=tws31oct203/>
 
The [[Warren E. Burger|Burger]] Court (1969–1986) ruled the Constitution protected a woman's right to privacy and control over her own body, thus striking down outright abortion bans (''[[Roe v. Wade]]''),<ref name=tws31oct204>{{cite news
=== Oath taking ===
| author = Karen O'Connor
Many organizations require members to take an oath at membership, not just secret societies. Such oaths often include promises to keep certain things about the organization secret.
| title = Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight
| quote = The shocker, however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right to privacy...
| publisher = US News & World Report
| date = January 22, 2009
| url = http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/22/roe-v-wade-on-anniversary-abortion-is-out-of-the-spotlight.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> reached controversial rulings on [[affirmative action]] (''[[Regents of the University of California v. Bakke]]'')<ref name=tws31oct205>{{cite news
| title = Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose
| quote = Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative action'...
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = July 10, 1978
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946798,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> and campaign finance regulation (''[[Buckley v. Valeo]]'');<ref name=tws31oct207>{{cite news
| title = Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo
| quote = ...Buckley v. Valeo. The nation's political system has suffered ever since from that decision, which held that mandatory limits on campaign spending unconstitutionally limit free speech. The decision did much to promote the explosive growth of campaign contributions from special interests and to enhance the advantage incumbents enjoy over underfunded challengers.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = November 12, 1998
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/opinion/time-to-rethink-buckley-v-valeo.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> ruled the methods several states employed to implement the [[death penalty]] unconstitutional (''[[Furman v. Georgia]]'');<ref name=tws31oct208>{{cite news
| author = Staff writer
| title = Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's Key Decisions
| quote = Furman v. Georgia ... Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = June 29, 1972
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/rehnquist/rehnquist_key_decisions.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> but also held the death penalty itself was ''not'' unconstitutional (''[[Gregg v. Georgia]]'').<ref name=tws31oct208/><ref name="history1">History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (eds) ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.'' [[Oxford University Press]], 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6</ref><ref name=tws31oct2122>{{cite news
| title = A Supreme Revelation
| quote = Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the Supreme Court. Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v. Georgia, which had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only four years earlier.
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = April 19, 2008
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120856145124627875.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref>
 
The [[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]] Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of the concept of [[federalism]],<ref name=tws31oct2brn2b>{{cite news
=== Politics ===
| author = Linda Greenhouse
Since some secret societies have political aims, they are illegal in several countries. [[Poland]], for example, has included a ban of secret political parties and political organizations in its constitution.<ref>{{citation|title=The Constitution of the Republic of Poland|date=1997-04-02|url=http://sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm|quote=Political parties and other organizations whose programs are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programs or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited.}}</ref>
| title = The Chief Justice on the Spot
| quote = The federalism issue at the core of the new case grows out of a series of cases from 1997 to 2003 in which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of scrutiny to Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the Reconstruction amendments.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = January 8, 2009
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09greenhouse.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> which included restrictions on [[United States Congress|Congressional power]] under both the [[Commerce Clause]] (''[[United States v. Lopez]]'',<ref name=tws31octrtr45>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80
| quote = United States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the stakes in the debate over federal authority even higher. The decision declared unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = September 4, 2005
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E2DF1531F937A3575AC0A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=5
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> ''[[United States v. Morrison]]'')<ref name=tws31oct309>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = The Rehnquist Court and Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy
| quote = Intrastate activity that was not essentially economic was beyond Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in United States v. Morrison.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = June 12, 2005
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12green.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> and the fifth section of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] (''[[City of Boerne v. Flores]]''),<ref name=tws31oct310>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Inmates Who Follow Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally
| quote = His (Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision, City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the predecessor to the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as applied to the states.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = March 22, 2005
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E6DC1F3CF931A15750C0A9639C8B63
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> as well as strengthening state [[sovereign immunity]] (''[[Seminole Tribe v. Florida]]'',<ref name=tws31oct4004>{{cite news
| author = [[Vikram David Amar]]
| title = Casing John Roberts
| quote = SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA (1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = July 27, 2005
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> ''[[Alden v. Maine]]'').<ref name=tws31oct555>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More Toward States in Federalism
| quote = The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436, proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface ... On a deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Court's struggle over an even more basic issue: the Government's substantive authority over the states.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = April 1, 1999
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/01/us/justices-seem-ready-to-tilt-more-toward-states-in-federalism.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> It was also noted for its 5 to 4 decision in ''[[Bush v. Gore]]'', which ended the electoral recount during the [[United States presidential election, 1800|presidential election of 2000]] and led to the presidency of [[George W. Bush]].<ref name=tws31oct44454>{{cite news
| author = Charles Krauthammer
| title = The Winner in Bush v. Gore?
| quote = Re-enter the Rehnquist court. Amid the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. ... the Supreme Court eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida Supreme Court in its tracks--and stayed its willfulness. By 5-4, mind you, ...
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = Dec. 18, 2000
| url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998788,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> In addition, the Rehnquist court decriminalized homosexual sex (''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'');<ref name=tws31oct34654>{{cite news
| author = Michael A. Lindenberger
| title = The Court's Gay Rights Legacy
| quote = The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to be gay without being criminals.
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = Michael A. Lindenberger
| url = http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818504,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> narrowed the right of labor union organizers to enter an employer's property (''[[Lechmere Inc. v. NLRB]]'');<ref name=tws31octhowru>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Supreme Court Roundup; Limits Placed on Union Organizers on Employers' Property
| quote = The Court ruled that organizers should be able to enter an employer's property only in 'the rare case' when the union could demonstrate that 'unique obstacles' prevented it from reaching potential members in any other way.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = January 28, 1992
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/28/us/supreme-court-roundup-limits-placed-on-union-organizers-on-employers-property.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> altered the ''Roe v. Wade'' framework for assessing abortion regulations (''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'');<ref name=tws31octffsfs>{{cite news
| author = Justice Sotomayor
| title = Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' -- The 'Roe' recital
| quote = The court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court.
| publisher = USA Today
| date = July 16, 2009
| url = http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/retire-the-ginsburg-rule-.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> and gave sweeping meaning to [[ERISA]] pre-emption (''[[Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.]]'',<ref name=tws31octhowdy>{{cite news
| title = Supreme Court roundup; Justices disallow limit on contraceptive ads
| quote = The decision, Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, No. 81-1578, was an interpretation of two New York laws, the Human Rights Law and the Disability Benefits Law, in light of ERISA, the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
| publisher = NEW YORK TIMES
| date = June 25, 1983
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1983/06/25/us/supreme-court-roundup-justices-disallow-limit-on-contraceptive-ads.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> ''[[Egelhoff v. Egelhoff]]''),<ref name=tws31octbbghg>{{cite news
| title = Other Matters -- Divorce and Beneficiary Designations
| quote = Egelhoff v. Egelhoff, 121 S. Ct. 1322 (2001). The United States Supreme Court reversed holding that ERISA preempted state law and thus the ex-spouse was entitled to the proceeds of the life insurance and pension plan.
| publisher = ProfessorBeyer.com
| date = 2009-10-31
| url = http://www.professorbeyer.com/Case_Summaries/2001/Egelhoff.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref> thereby denying plaintiffs access to state courts with the consequence of limiting compensation for torts to very circumscribed remedies (''[[Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila]]'',<ref name=tws31octbnhgh>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Justices Limit Ability to Sue Health Plans
| quote = The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously rejected efforts by states to give patients in managed care a right that Congress has so far declined to provide: the ability to sue managed-care companies for damages for refusing to cover treatment that a doctor has deemed medically necessary.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = June 22, 2004
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/22/politics/22CARE.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> ''[[CIGNA Healthcare of Texas Inc. v. Calad]]'');<ref name=tws31octbnhgh/> affirmed the power of Congress to extend the term of copyright (''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'');<ref name=tws31octffsfaa>{{cite news
| title = Supreme Court decision
| quote = the Supreme Court decision today upholding the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which added 20 years to all existing copyrights. The vote in the case, Eldred v. Ashcroft, was 7 to 2. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion. Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens dissented.
| publisher = NEW YORK TIMES
| date = January 16, 2003
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/16/business/16BTEX.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=RjwilmsiBot}}</ref> and expanded the government's power of eminent domain (''[[Kelo v. City of New London]]'').<ref name=tws31octaalss>{{cite news
| author = Charles Lane
| title = Justices Affirm Property Seizures
| quote = The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted ... The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain ...
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = June 24, 2005
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-31
}}</ref>
 
The [[John G. Roberts|Roberts]] Court (2005–present) began with the confirmation and swearing in of Chief Justice John G. Roberts on September 29, 2005, and is the current presiding court.<ref name=tws1nov01>{{cite news
=== Colleges and universities ===
| author = Charles Babington and Peter Baker
Many student societies established on university campuses in the United States have been considered secret societies. Perhaps one of the most famous secret college societies is the [[Skull and Bones]] at [[Yale University|Yale]]. Secret societies are disallowed in a few colleges. [[Virginia Military Institute]] has rules that no cadet may join a secret society,<ref>{{cite web |title=Regulations for the Virginia Military Institute, Part II, Revised 5 December 2008, 12-16(b) |url=http://www.vmi.edu/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=13639 |publisher=vmi.edu }}</ref> and secret societies have been banned at [[Princeton University]] since the beginning of the 20th century. British Universities, too, have a long history of secret societies or quasi-secret societies such as [[Pitt Club|The Pitt Club]] at [[Cambridge University]], [[Bullingdon Club]] at [[Oxford University]], the [[The 16' Club|16' Club]] at [[University of Wales, Trinity Saint David|St David's College]], the [[Speculative Society]] at the [[University of Edinburgh]], and the [[Strafford Club]] at the [[University of St Andrews]]. At one time it was common to refer to all collegiate fraternities as "secret societies".
| title = Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice
| quote = John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court.
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = September 30, 2005
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> The Roberts Court is seen as more conservative than the previous court.<ref name=tws1nov02>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right
| quote = It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared ... This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = July 1, 2007
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/washington/01scotus.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> Some of the major rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (''[[Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England|Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood]]'',<ref name=tws1nov03>{{cite news
| author = O'Connor, J. -- Supreme Court
| title = AYOTTE, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF NORTHERN NEW ENGLAND et al.
| quote = Held: If enforcing a statute that regulates access to abortion would be unconstitutional in medical emergencies, invalidating the statute entirely is not always necessary or justified, for lower courts may be able to render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.
| publisher = FindLaw
| year = 2006
| url = http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-1144
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'');<ref name=tws1nov04>{{cite news
| author = [[Charlie Savage]]
| title = Respecting Precedent, or Settled Law, Unless It’s Not Settled
| quote = Gonzales v. Carhart — in which the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure opponents call “partial birth abortion” — to be settled law.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = July 14, 2009
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/politics/15abortion.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> anti-trust legislation (''[[Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.]]'');<ref name=tws1nov05>{{cite news
| author = [[Joseph Pereira]]
| title = State Law Targets 'Minimum Pricing'
| quote = Earlier this month, a federal judge in Marshall, Texas, citing the Supreme Court decision, dismissed the case of a leather-handbag retailer, Kay's Kloset, that sued a manufacturer, Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc., over its enforcement of a minimum-pricing agreement.
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = April 28, 2009
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087840110661643.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> the death penalty (''[[Baze v. Rees]]'',<ref name=tws1nov21>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment
| quote = His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = April 18, 2008
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washington/18memo.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> ''[[Kennedy v. Louisiana]]'');<ref name=tws1nov22>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
| quote = The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday ... The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = June 26, 2008
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] (''[[Hudson v. Michigan]]'');<ref name=tws1nov06>{{cite news
| author = Adam Liptak
| title = Justices Weigh Value of a Rule That Limits Evidence
| quote = Justice Scalia repeated his view, expressed in Hudson v. Michigan in 2006, that police departments are more professional than they used to be, reducing the need for the exclusionary rule.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = October 7, 2008
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08scotus.html?fta=y
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|free speech]] of government employees and of high school students (''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'',<ref name=tws1nov07>{{cite news
| title = Defining `whistle-blower'
| quote = The high court was divided along ideological lines on the case. It held that the Los Angeles County district attorney's office did not violate the free-speech rights of Deputy Dist. Atty. Richard Ceballos by denying him a promotion because of his memo alleging that police officers lied to obtain a search warrant.
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = June 2, 2006
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/02/opinion/ed-whistleblower02
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> ''[[Morse v. Frederick]]'');<ref name=tws1nov08>{{cite news
| author = Stanley Fish
| title = Clarence Thomas Is Right
| quote = On June 25th the Supreme Court held in Morse v. Frederick that it was all right to discipline a high school student because he and some of his friends had unfurled a banner reading “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” at a school-sponsored event.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = July 8, 2007
| url = http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/morse-v-frederick/
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> military detainees (''[[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]]'',<ref name=tws1nov09>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = Supreme Court Blocks Guantánamo Tribunals
| quote = The Supreme Court on Thursday repudiated the Bush administration's plan to put Guantánamo detainees on trial before military commissions, ruling broadly that the commissions were unauthorized by federal statute and violated international law.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = June 29, 2006
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washington/29cnd-scotus.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> ''[[Boumediene v. Bush]]'');<ref name=tws1nov10>{{cite news
| author = JOHN YOO
| title = The Supreme Court Goes to War
| quote = Last week's Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush has been painted as a stinging rebuke of the administration's antiterrorism policies. From the celebrations on most U.S. editorial pages, one might think that the court had stopped a dictator from trampling civil liberties. Boumediene did anything but. The 5-4 ruling...
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = June 17, 2008
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121366596327979497.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> school desegregation (''[[Parents v. Seattle]]'');<ref name=tws1nov11>{{cite news
| author = Paul e. peterson
| title = School Choice and Racial Balance
| quote = Schools that admit students on the basis of race run afoul of the Constitution, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the recent Supreme Court case, Parents v. Seattle. Over-subscribed schools may not use race as a tie-breaker when deciding which students to admit.
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = July 24, 2007
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118524106566875763.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> voting rights (''[[Crawford v. Marion County Election Board]]'');<ref name=tws1nov12>{{cite news
| author = Robert Barnes
| title = High Court Upholds Indiana Law On Voter ID
| quote = The widely awaited election-year case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was the most sharply partisan voting rights issue the court has considered since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election.
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = April 29, 2008
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800968.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second Amendment]] (''[[District of Columbia v. Heller]]'',<ref name=tws1nov13>{{cite news
| author = Robert Barnes
| title = Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights
| quote = The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense. But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller...
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = October 1, 2009
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html
| accessdate = 2009-11-01
}}</ref> ''[[McDonald v. Chicago]]''), and campaign finance (''[[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]]'').<ref>{{cite web |title=A Bad Day for Democracy |work=The Christian Science Monitor |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-day-for-democracy| accessdate=January 22, 2010}}</ref>
 
== See also Composition==
===Size of the Court===
* [[African traditional religion]]
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, but Article III authorizes the Congress to fix the number of justices. The [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] called for the appointment of six justices. As the country grew geographically, Congress increased the number of justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: the court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863.
* [[Aurora Society]]
 
* [[Collegiate secret societies in North America]]
At the request of Chief Justice [[Salmon P. Chase]], Congress passed the [[Judicial Circuits Act]] (1866) which provided that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court should have eventually reached seven by [[wikt:attrition|attrition]]. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. However, this law did not play out to completion, for in the [[Judiciary Act of 1869]],<ref>{{usstat|16|44}}</ref> also known as the Circuit Judges Act, the number of justices was again set at nine, where it has since remained.
* [[Conspiracy theory]]
 
* [[Cult]]
President [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] attempted to expand the Court in 1937, seeking to appoint an additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70&nbsp;years 6&nbsp;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 judges, but the President's actual purpose was to pack the Court with justices who would support [[New Deal]] policies and legislation.<ref>{{cite web |last=Mintz |first=S. |title=The New Deal in Decline |work=Digital History |publisher=University of Houston |year=2007 |url=http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=479 |accessdate=2009-10-27}}</ref> This plan, usually called the "[[Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937|Court-packing Plan]]", failed in Congress and proved a political disaster for Roosevelt.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hodak |first=George |title=February 5, 1937: FDR Unveils Court Packing Plan |work=ABAjournal.com |publisher=American Bar Association |year=2007 |url=http://abajournal.com/magazine/february_5_1937/ |accessdate=2009-01-29}}</ref> The balance of the Court shifted with the retirement of [[Willis Van Devanter]] and the confirmation of [[Hugo Black]] in August 1937. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven Supreme Court justices and elevated [[Harlan Fiske Stone]] to Chief Justice.<ref>"Justices, Number of", in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (editors), ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.'' Oxford University Press 1992, ISBN 0-19-505935-6</ref>
* [[Fight Club (film)|Fight Club]]
 
* [[Organized crime]]
===Appointment and confirmation===
* [[Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)]]
{{Main|Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States}}
* [[Secret societies in popular culture]]
[[Article Two of the United States Constitution]] gives the [[President of the United States|President]] power to appoint justices "by and with the [[advice and consent]] of the [[United States Senate|Senate]]". Most Presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice's decisions may end up being contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a justice, the President may ''nominate'' anyone to serve. However, that person must receive Senate confirmation.
* [[Witchcraft]]
 
[[File:Supreme Court US 2010.jpg|350px|thumb|left|'''The Roberts Court''', 2010<br />Back row (left to right): [[Sonia Sotomayor]], [[Stephen G. Breyer]], [[Samuel A. Alito]], and [[Elena Kagan]]. Front row (left to right): [[Clarence Thomas]], [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]] [[John G. Roberts]], [[Anthony Kennedy]], and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]]]
 
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press, and from advocacy groups, which [[lobbying|lobby]] senators to confirm or to reject a nominee, depending on whether the nominee's track record aligns with the group's views. The [[United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary|Senate Judiciary Committee]] conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full [[Senate of the United States|Senate]] with a positive, negative or neutral report. The Committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent; the first nominee to appear before the committee was [[Harlan Fiske Stone]] in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to [[Wall Street]]. However, the modern practice of questioning began with [[John Marshall Harlan II]] in 1955.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm|title=United States Senate. "Nominations"}}</ref> A simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Once the Committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected [[List of failed nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States|twelve]] Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm [[Robert Bork]].
 
Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a Supreme Court nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate on the nomination has begun in the full Senate. A [[filibuster]] indefinitely prolongs the debate, preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President [[Lyndon Johnson]]'s nomination of sitting Associate Justice [[Abe Fortas]] to succeed [[Earl Warren]] as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. The President may also withdraw a nominee's name before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed: most recently, President [[George W. Bush]] withdrew his nomination of [[Harriet Miers]] before Committee hearings had begun.
 
Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the [[Harry Truman|Truman]] through [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]] administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.<ref>{{cite web|last=Balkin|first=Jack M.|url=http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/balkin.php|title=The passionate intensity of the confirmation process|accessdate=2008-02-13|publisher=Jurist}}</ref>
 
Once the Senate confirms the nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the [[United States Department of Justice|Department of Justice]] must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.<ref>''See'' {{usc|5|2902}}.</ref> The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.<ref>{{usc|28|4}}.</ref>
 
====Recess appointments====
When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a [[recess appointment|recess appointee]] to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the Senate must confirm the nominee. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice [[John Rutledge]] was not subsequently confirmed for a regular appointment. No president since [[Dwight Eisenhower]] has made a [[recess appointment]] to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts.
 
In 1960, toward the end of Eisenhower administration (he had made three such appointments), the Senate passed a resolution stating that it was the sense of the Senate that recess appointments to the Supreme Court should not be made except under unusual circumstances.<ref name="recessapp">{{cite journal| last=Fisher|first=Louis|date=2001-09-05|title = Recess Appointments of Federal Judges|journal = CRSN Report for Congress|volume = RL31112|series = Congressional Research Service|publisher=The Library of Congress|url=http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL31112.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2010-08-06|pages=16–18|quote=''Resolved'', That it is the sense of the Senate that the making of recess appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States may not be wholly consistent with the best interests of the Supreme Court, the nominee who may be involved, the litigants before the Court, nor indeed the people of the United States, and that such appointments, therefore, should not be made except under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.}}</ref> Being a resolution, it has no legally binding effect, but was intended as an expression of the position of the Senate and as a guide to executive actions. The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party lines.<ref name="recessapp" />
<ref>Democrats supported the resolution 48-4, and Republicans opposed it 33-0.</ref>
 
===Tenure===
The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is well understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they can voluntarily resign or retire. A justice can also be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. However, only one justice has been impeached by the House ([[Samuel Chase]], in 1805) and he was acquitted in the Senate. Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, [[William O. Douglas]] was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and again in 1970), but they have not reached a vote in the House. No mechanism presently exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, both unable to resign and unable to resume service.<ref name="hufpost">{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html|title=Anticipating the Incapacitated Justice|last=Appel|first=Jacob M.|date=2009-08-22|work=Huffington Post|accessdate=2009-08-23}}</ref>
 
Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when [[Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.]] and [[William H. Rehnquist]] were nominated to replace [[Hugo Black]] and [[John Marshall Harlan II]], who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between [[Stephen Breyer]]'s nomination in 1994 and the departures of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] (by death and retirement, respectively) in 2005 and 2006.
 
Despite the variability, all but four Presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. President [[William Henry Harrison]] died a month after taking office, though his successor ([[John Tyler]]) made an appointment during that presidential term. President [[Zachary Taylor]] likewise died early in his presidential term, although his successor ([[Millard Fillmore]]) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. President [[Andrew Johnson]] was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a contraction in the size of the Court (see [[Supreme Court of the United States#Size of the Court|Size of the Court]] above). President [[Jimmy Carter]] is the only President who completed at least one full term in office without making a nomination to the Court during his presidency.
 
Three presidents have appointed justices who collectively served more than 100 years: [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], [[Andrew Jackson]] and [[Abraham Lincoln]].<ref name="congressorg">{{cite web|url=http://www.congress.org/news/2010/06/16/how_presidents_influence_the_court|title=How Presidents Influence the Court|last=Ali|first=Ambreen|date=2010-06-16|work=Congress.org|accessdate=2010-06-16}}</ref>
 
==Supreme Court membership==
===Current justices===
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:center"
|-
!Name
! Born
! Appt. by
! Senate conf. vote
! Age at appt.
! First day /<br/>Length of service
! class = "unsortable"|Prior positions
|-
| [[File:File-Official roberts CJ cropped.jpg|100px|Roberts]]
'''{{Sortname|John G.|Roberts}}'''
([[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]])
|{{dts|1955|1|27}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1955|1|27}})<br/>in [[Buffalo, New York]]
| {{Sortname|George W.|Bush}}
| 78–22
| 50
| style="white-space:nowrap;"|{{dts|2005|9|29}}<br/>{{age in years and months|2005|9|29}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]] (2003–2005); Private practice (1993–2003); Professor, [[Georgetown University Law Center]] (1992–2005); [[United States Solicitor General|Principal Deputy Solicitor General]] (1989–1993); Private practice (1986–1989); [[White House Counsel|Associate Counsel to the President]] (1982–1986); [[United States Attorney General|Special Assistant to the Attorney General]] (1981–1982)
|-
| [[File:Antonin Scalia, SCOTUS photo portrait crop.jpg|100px|Scalia]]
'''{{Sortname|Antonin|Scalia}}'''
|{{dts|1936|3|11}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1936|3|11}})<br/>in [[Trenton, New Jersey|Trenton]], [[New Jersey]]
| {{Sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
| 98–0
| 50
| {{dts|1986|9|26}}<br/>{{age in years and months|1986|9|26}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]] (1982–1986); Professor, [[University of Chicago Law School]] (1977–1982); [[United States Assistant Attorney General|Assistant Attorney General]] (1974–1977); Professor, [[University of Virginia School of Law]] (1967–1974); Private practice (1961–1967)
|-
| [[File:Anthony_Kennedy_(2009,_cropped).jpg|100px|Kennedy]]
'''{{Sortname|Anthony|Kennedy}}'''
| {{dts|1936|7|23}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1936|7|23}})<br/>in [[Sacramento]], [[California]]
| {{Sortname|Ronald|Reagan}}
| 97–0
| 51
| {{dts|1988|2|18}}<br/>{{age in years and months|1988|2|18}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] (1975–1988); Professor, [[McGeorge School of Law]], [[University of the Pacific (United States)|University of the Pacific]] (1965–1988); Private practice (1963–1975)
|-
| [[File:Clarence Thomas official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px|Thomas]]
'''{{Sortname|Clarence|Thomas}}'''
| {{dts|1948|6|23}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1948|6|23}})<br/>in [[Pin Point, Georgia|Pin Point]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]]
| {{Sortname|George H. W.|Bush}}
| 52–48
| 43
| {{dts|1991|10|23}}<br/>{{age in years and months|1991|10|23}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]] (1990–1991); Chairman, [[Equal Employment Opportunity Commission]] (1982–1990); [[legislative assistant]] for [[Missouri]] [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[John Danforth]] (1979–1981); employed by [[Monsanto Company]] Inc. (1977–1979); [[Missouri Attorney General|Assistant Attorney General]] in [[Missouri]] under [[State Attorney General]] [[John Danforth]] (1974–1977)
|-
| [[File:Ruth Bader Ginsburg official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px|Ginsburg]]
'''{{Sortname|Ruth Bader|Ginsburg}}'''
| {{dts|1933|3|15}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1933|3|15}})<br/>in [[New York City]], [[New York]]
| {{Sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
| 96–3
| 60
| {{dts|1993|8|10}}<br/>{{age in years and months|1993|8|10}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit]] (1980–1993); General Counsel, [[American Civil Liberties Union]] (1973–1980); Professor, [[Columbia Law School]] (1972–1980); Professor, [[Rutgers University|Rutgers University School of Law]] (1963–1972)
|-
| [[File:Stephen Breyer official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px|Breyer]]
'''{{Sortname|Stephen|Breyer}}'''
| {{dts|1938|8|15}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1938|8|15}})<br/>in [[San Francisco]], [[California]]
| {{Sortname|Bill|Clinton}}
| 87–9
| 56
| {{dts|1994|8|3}}<br/>{{age in years and months|1994|8|3}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]] (1990–1994); [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]] (1980–1990); Professor, [[Harvard Law School]] (1967–1980)
|-
| [[File:010 alito cropped.jpg|100px|Alito]]
'''{{Sortname|Samuel|Alito}}'''
| {{dts|1950|4|1}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1950|4|1}})<br/>in [[Trenton, New Jersey|Trenton]], [[New Jersey]]
| {{Sortname|George W.|Bush}}
| 58–42
| 55
| {{dts|2006|1|31}}<br/>{{age in years and months|2006|1|31}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit]] (1990–2006); Professor, [[Seton Hall University School of Law]] (1999–2004); [[United States Attorney|U.S. Attorney]] for the District of New Jersey (1987–1990); [[United States Assistant Attorney General|Deputy Assistant Attorney General]] (1985–1987); [[United States Solicitor General|Assistant to the Solicitor General]] (1981–1985); [[United States Attorney|Assistant U.S. Attorney]] for the District of New Jersey (1977–1981)
|-
| [[File:Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe crop.jpg|100px|Sotomayor]]
'''{{Sortname|Sonia|Sotomayor}}'''
| {{dts|1954|6|25}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1954|6|25}})<br/>in [[New York City]], [[New York]]
| {{Sortname|Barack|Obama}}
| 68–31
| 55
| {{dts|2009|8|8}}<br/>{{age in years and months|2009|8|8}}
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit]] (1998–2009); [[United States District Court for the Southern District of New York|District Judge, District Court for the Southern District of New York]] (1992–1998); Private practice (1984–1991); [[Assistant District Attorney]], [[New York County]], [[New York]] (1979–1984)
|-
| [[File:Elena Kagan-1-1.jpg|100px|Kagan]]
'''{{Sortname|Elena|Kagan}}'''
| {{dts|1960|4|28}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1960|4|28}})<br/>in [[New York City]], [[New York]]
|| {{Sortname|Barack|Obama}}
| 63–37
| 50
| {{dts|2010|8|7}}<br/>{{age in years and months|2010|8|5}}
| [[Solicitor General of the United States]] (2009–2010); [[Dean of Harvard Law School]] (2003–2009); Professor, [[Harvard Law School]] (2001–2003); Visiting Professor, [[Harvard Law School]] (1999–2001); Associate [[White House Counsel]] (1995–1999); Deputy Director of the [[Domestic Policy Council]] (1995–1999); Professor, [[University of Chicago Law School]] (1995); Associate Professor, [[University of Chicago Law School]] (1991–1995)
|}
 
====Court demographics====
{{main|Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States}}
Historically, the Court was primarily composed of white male [[Protestantism|Protestants]].<ref>{{cite book| first1=Jeffrey A.|last1=Segal|first2=Harold J.|last2=Spaeth|title=The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited |publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press. |year=2002|isbn=0-521-78971-0|page=183}}</ref> The first [[Roman Catholic]] appointed to the Court was [[Roger Taney]] in 1836, with the second ([[Edward Douglass White]]) appointed in 1898. Prior to the 20th century and the civil rights movement, concerns about diversity in government were mainly geographic, to represent all [[Regionalism (politics)|regions]] of the country, as opposed to ethnic, religious, or gender diversity.<ref name=obrien46>{{cite book|name=O'Brien, David M.|title=Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics|edition = 6th |year=2003 |page=46|publisher=W.W. Norton & Company|isbn=0393932184}}</ref> The 20th century saw the first appointment of a [[Judaism|Jewish]] justice ([[Louis Brandeis]], 1916), the first two appointments of [[African American]]s ([[Thurgood Marshall]], 1967; and his successor [[Clarence Thomas]], 1991), and the first appointment of a woman ([[Sandra Day O'Connor]], 1981), while the 21st century saw the appointment of the first [[Hispanic and Latino Americans|Latino]] justice ([[Sonia Sotomayor]], 2009). O'Connor, whose appointment fulfilled [[Ronald Reagan]]'s [[United States presidential election, 1980#Campaign promises|campaign promise]] to place a woman on the Court, was later joined by [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], appointed by [[Bill Clinton]] in 1993. After O'Connor's retirement in 2006, Ginsburg was joined by Sotomayor, named to the Court by [[Barack Obama]]; a year later, Obama also appointed [[Elena Kagan]]. All justices were [[Caucasian race|Caucasians]] of European heritage until the 1967 appointment of Marshall.
 
In terms of religion, most justices have been Protestants, including thirty-five [[Episcopal Church in the United States of America|Episcopalians]], nineteen [[Presbyterian]]s, ten [[Unitarianism|Unitarians]], five [[Methodist]]s, and three [[Baptists]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html|title = Religion of the Supreme Court|publisher=adherents.com|date=2006-01-31|accessdate=2010-07-09}}</ref> Following the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court is without a Protestant for the first time in its history.<ref name=Gibson>{{cite web|author=Gibson, David|title=No Protestants: A New Order in the Supreme Court|date=2010-05-10|accessdate=2010-07-08|publisher=Politics Daily|url=http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/05/10/no-protestants-a-new-order-in-the-supreme-court/}}</ref>
 
The Court currently consists of six males and three females; one African American and eight Caucasians (one of whom is Latino); six Roman Catholics and three Jews. As of {{date||mdy}}, the average age of the justices is {{age in years and months|1945|11|27}}, and the average service length of the justices is {{age in years and months|1998|07|18}}.
 
With the accession of [[Elena Kagan]], all of the justices have an [[Ivy League]] background.<ref>{{cite news|author = Baker, Peter|title = Kagan Is Sworn in as the Fourth Woman, and 112th Justice, on the Supreme Court|work = [[New York Times]]|date = August 7, 2010|url = http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08kagan.html|accessdate = August 8, 2010}}</ref>
 
===Retired justices===
Currently, there are three living retired justices: [[John Paul Stevens]], [[Sandra Day O'Connor]], and [[David Souter]]. As retired justices, they may be designated for temporary assignments to sit with several [[United States Courts of Appeals]]. Normally, such assignments are made by the [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]]; they are analogous to the types of assignments that may be given to judges of lower courts who have selected [[senior status]], although a retired Supreme Court justice never sits as a member of the Supreme Court itself.
 
Justices sometimes strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role.<ref>David N. Atkinson, ''Leaving the Bench'' (University Press of Kansas 1999)ISBN 0-7006-0946-6</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=An Invisible Chief Justice|first=Linda|last=Greenhouse|authorlink=Linda Greenhouse|url=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/an-invisible-chief-justice/ |publisher=The New York Times|date=2010-09-09|accessdate=2010-09-09|quote=Had [O'Connor] anticipated that the chief justice would not serve out the next Supreme Court term, she told me after his death, she would have delayed her own retirement for a year rather than burden the court with two simultaneous vacancies. [...] Her reason for leaving was that her husband, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, needed her care at home.}}</ref> The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Court's strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, if at all possible, justices seek to depart under favorable presidents and Senates to ensure that a like-minded successor will be appointed.
 
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center"
|-
!Name
!Born
!Appt. by
!Retired under
!Conf. vote
!Age at appt.
!First day
!Date of retirement
|-
| [[File:John Paul Stevens official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpg|100px|Stevens]]
'''[[John Paul Stevens]]'''
|{{dts|1920|4|20}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1920|4|20}})<br/>in [[Chicago]], [[Illinois]]
|[[Gerald Ford]]
|[[Barack Obama]]
|98–0
|55
|December 19, 1975
|June 29, 2010
|-
| [[File:Sandra Day O'Connor 1982.jpg|100px|O'Connor]]
'''[[Sandra Day O'Connor]]'''
|{{dts|1930|3|26}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1930|3|26}})<br/>in [[El Paso]], [[Texas]]
|[[Ronald Reagan]]
|[[George W. Bush]]
|99–0
|51
|September 25, 1981
|January 31, 2006
|-
| [[File:DavidSouter.jpg|100px|Souter]]
'''[[David Souter]]'''
| {{dts|1939|9|17}}<br/>(age {{age nts|1939|9|17}})<br/>in [[Melrose, Massachusetts|Melrose]], [[Massachusetts]]
| [[George H. W. Bush]]
| [[Barack Obama]]
| 90–9
| 51
|{{dts|1990|10|9}}
|June 29, 2009
|}
 
===Seniority and seating===
Many of the internal operations of the Court are organized by the [[seniority]] of the justices; the Chief Justice is considered the most senior member of the Court, regardless of the length of his or her service. The Associate Justices are then ranked by the length of their service.
 
During Court sessions, the justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court: Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas, Scalia (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan. In the official yearly Court photograph, justices are arranged similarly, with the five most senior members sitting in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg), and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan).
 
In the justices' private conferences, the current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority from the Chief Justice first to the most junior Associate Justice last. The most junior Associate Justice in these conferences is tasked with any menial labor the justices may require as they convene alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving coffee, and transmitting the orders of the Court to the court's clerk.<ref>See for example ''Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on the Supreme Court became its most influential justice'', by [[Joan Biskupic]], Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also ''Rookie on the Bench: The Role of the Junior Justice'' by Clare Cushman, Journal of Supreme Court History '''32''' no. 3 (2008), pp. 282–296.</ref>
Justice [[Joseph Story]] served the longest as the junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] follows close behind, with 4,199 days when [[Samuel Alito]] joined the court on January 31, 2006.<ref name="juniorjustice">{{cite web|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1199873130560|title= Breyer Just Missed Record as Junior Justice|accessdate=2008-01-11}}</ref>
 
===Salary===
For the years 2009 and 2010, associate justices have been paid $213,900 and the chief justice $223,500.<ref name="salary">{{cite web|url=http://www.uscourts.gov/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/JudgesJudgeships/docs/JudicialSalarieschart.pdf |title=Judicial Salaries Since 1968 |work=United States Courts |accessdate=2010-09-25}}</ref> [[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Salaries|Article III, Section 1]] of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once a justice meets [[United States federal judge#Retirement|age and service requirements]], the justice may retire and earn his or her final salary for life, plus cost of living increases.
 
===Judicial leanings===
While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches, jurists are informally categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial [[Judicial conservatism|conservatives]], [[judicial philosophy#Judicial Moderate|moderates]], or [[Judicial liberalism|liberals]]. Such leanings, however, refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative one, because Supreme Court justices are not members of the executive or legislative branches.
 
As of the October 2010 term of the Court, the Court consists of five justices appointed by Republican Presidents, and four appointed by Democratic Presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito comprise the Court's [[Judicial conservatism|conservative]] wing. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's [[Judicial liberalism|liberal]] wing; after one term on the Court, Justice Sotomayor is also seen as a member of the liberal wing, voting much as her predecessor, Justice Souter, might have voted.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Toobin| first=Jeffrey |authorlink=Jeffrey Toobin|date=2010-03-22|title=After Stevens. What will the Supreme Court be without its liberal leader?|journal=The New Yorker|url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/03/22/100322fa_fact_toobin|accessdate=2010-03-16|quote=So far, Sotomayor seems to be voting much like Souter, an ally of Stevens, whom she replaced.}}</ref><ref name=barnes>{{cite news|title=The un-routine sets apart Sotomayor's first term|first=robert|last=barnes |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2010-07-11|accessdate=2010-07-12|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/10/AR2010071002968.html?sid=ST2010071002894|quote=It is hard to find a significant case in which Sotomayor's replacement of Souter made a difference in the outcome.}}</ref> [[John McGinnis]], a law professor at [[Northwestern University School of Law]], stated that Sotomayor "appears to be a typical member of the liberal wing," but noted that experts have said justices don't come into their own until they have served five years or so, pointing to Souter's first year as an example;<ref name=barnes/> however, McGinnis also noted that Sotomayor has a longer judicial track record than Souter did. According to statistics compiled by [[SCOTUSblog]], during the 2009 term Sotomayor agreed most often with Ginsburg and Breyer (90% of the time in full, in part, or in judgment, second only to the 92% agreement between Scalia and Thomas), and disagreed most often with Scalia and Alito (31% of the time).<ref name="StatPack09">{{cite web|publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]]|title = Justice agreement, Stat Pack 09|date = 2010-07-07|accessdate = 2010-07-08|format=PDF|url= http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Final-Charts-070710-JA.pdf}}</ref>
Justice [[Anthony Kennedy]], generally considered a [[Judicial conservatism|conservative]] who "occasionally vote[s] with the liberals",<ref>Toobin, Jeffrey. ''[[The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court]]'', Doubleday, 2007 ISBN 0-385-51640-1</ref> is often the [[swing vote]] that determines the outcome of close cases.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001356.html?nav=hcmodule|title=''Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle''|publisher=The Washington Post|last=Lane|first=Charles|date=2006-01-31|accessdate=2008-02-14}}</ref>
 
{{Asof|2011|01|11}}, recent appointee Elena Kagan has authored one opinion for the Court, an 8-1 decision on statutory interpretation of the Bankruptcy Code.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-907.pdf|title=Slip opinion, Ransom v. FIA Card Services N.A., fka MBNA America Bank, N.A.|date=2011-01-11|accessdate=2011-01-11|format=PDF}} Justice Scalia dissented.</ref>
 
In an article in [[SCOTUSblog]],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/everything-you-read-about-the-supreme-court-is-wrong/|author=Golstein, Tom| authorlink=Tom Goldstein|title=Evertyhing you read about the Supreme Court is wrong (except here, maybe)|publisher=[[SCOTUSblog]]|date=2010-06-30|accessdate=2010-07-07}}</ref> [[Tom Goldstein]] argues that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions." He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% decided by a 5-to-4 vote; barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also points to several cases that seem to fly against the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.<ref>Among the examples mentioned by Goldstein are:
*''Dolan v. United States'', which interpreted judges' prerogatives broadly, typically a "conservative" result, in which the majority consisted of the five junior Justices: Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.
*''Magwood v. Patterson'', expanding habeas corpus petitions, a "liberal" result, in an opinion by Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
*''Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. [[Allstate|Allstate Insurance]] Co.'', which yielded a pro-plaintiff result in an opinion by Scalia joined by Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
</ref><ref>Golstein notes that in the 2009 term, the justice most consistently pro-government was Alito, and not the commonly perceived "arch-conservatives" Scalia and Thomas.</ref>
Goldstein argues that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant [[Summary judgment|summary dismissals]] (usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) are an illustration that the conservative justices have not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein states that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacks merit: Thomas has most often called for overruling prior precedent (even if long standing) that he views as having been wrongly decided, and during the 2009 term Scalia and Thomas voted most often to invalidate legislation.
 
====Politicization of the Court====
Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s," according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.<ref name=nyt090710>{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html?pagewanted=1&hpw |title=Polarization of Supreme Court Is Reflected in Justices' Clerks |author=Adam Liptak |publisher=[[The New York Times]] |date=September 7, 2010 |accessdate=September 7, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/articles/2009/11/Nelson-et-al.-Supreme-Court-Clerkships-62-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1749-2009.pdf |title=The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation? |author=William E. Nelson, Harvey Rishikof, I. Scott Messinger, Michael Jo |publisher=Vanderbilt Law Review |date=Vol. 62:6:1749 |accessdate=September 7, 2010}}</ref> "As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts," former federal court of appeals judge [[J. Michael Luttig]] said.<ref name=nyt090710/> [[David J. Garrow]], professor of history at the [[University of Cambridge]], stated that the Court had thus began to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a composition of the clerk work force that is getting to be like the House of Representatives," Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only ideological purists."<ref name=nyt090710/>
 
According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."<ref name=nyt090710/>
 
=== Justices as circuit justices ===
In addition to their roles as justices of the Supreme Court sitting as a body, each justice also sits as a "circuit justice" and is assigned to oversee one or more [[United States Courts of Appeals|federal judicial circuits]].<ref>''See'' {{usc|28|42}}.</ref> The main role of a circuit justice is "to grant interim relief in order to preserve the jurisdiction of the full Court to consider an applicant's claim on the merits."<ref>''Kimble v. Swackhamer'', 439 U.S. 1385, 1385 (1978) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers).</ref> These requests are usually for stays, and relief may be granted as to either federal<ref>''Russo v. Byrne'', 409 U.S. 1219, 1221 (1972) (Douglas, J., in chambers).</ref> or state court rulings.<ref>''M.I.C., Ltd. v. Bedford Township'', 463 U.S. 1341, 1342 (1983) (Brennan, J., in chambers).</ref>
 
As of September 28, 2010, the allotment of the justices among the circuits is:<ref>[http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092810zr.pdf Allotment Order dated Sept. 28, 2010].</ref>
 
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Circuit !! Justice
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|District of Columbia Circuit]] || Chief Justice Roberts
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit]] || Justice Breyer
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]] || Justice Ginsburg
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] || Justice Alito
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]] || Chief Justice Roberts
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] || Justice Scalia
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]] || Justice Kagan
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]] || Justice Kagan
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|Eighth Circuit]] || Justice Alito
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] || Justice Kennedy
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit]] || Justice Sotomayor
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]] || Justice Thomas
|-
| [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Federal Circuit]] || Chief Justice Roberts
|}
 
==Facilities==
[[File:USSupremeCourtWestFacade.JPG|right|200px|thumb|[[United States Supreme Court building|U.S. Supreme Court building]].]]
{{Main|United States Supreme Court Building}}
The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants' Exchange Building in [[New York City]], which then was the national capital. [[Philadelphia]] became the capital city later in 1790, and the Court followed Congress and the President there, meeting briefly in [[Independence Hall (United States)|Independence Hall]], and then from 1791 to 1800 at Old City Hall at 5th and Chestnut Streets. After [[Washington, D.C.]] became the capital in 1800, the Court occupied various spaces in the [[United States Capitol]] building until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home at One First Street Northeast, Washington, DC. The four-story building was designed by architect [[Cass Gilbert]] in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the [[United States Capitol|Capitol complex]] and [[Library of Congress]], and is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes space for the courtroom, justices' chambers, an extensive [[law library]], various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services such as workshop, stores, [[cafeteria]], and a [[gym]]nasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the [[Architect of the Capitol]]. However, it maintains its own police force, the [[Supreme Court Police]], separate from the [[United States Capitol Police|Capitol Police]].
 
On May 3, 2010, the Supreme Court announced that, due mainly to security concerns, the public (including parties to the cases being argued, the attorneys who represent them, and visitors to Oral arguments or the building) would no longer be allowed to enter the building through the main door on top of the iconic steps on the west side.<ref name="announcemay3">{{cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Visitor_Entrance_Release-_2010.doc|format=WORD|title=Press release on new visitor entrance|date=2010-05-03|accessdate=2010-05-06}}</ref> Visitors must now enter through ground-level doors located at the plaza, leading to a reinforced area for security screening. The main doors at the top of the steps may still be used to exit the building.<ref name="announcemay3"/> Justice [[Stephen Breyer|Breyer]] released a statement, joined by Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ginsburg]], expressing his opinion that although he recognizes the security concerns that led to the decision, he does not believe on balance that the closure is justified.<ref name="breyerstate">{{cite web|title=Statement Concerning the Supreme Court's Front Entrance; memorandum by Justice Breyer|format=PDF|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Justice_Breyer_Statement-1.pdf|date=2010-05-03|accessdate=2010-05-06}}</ref> Calling the decision "dispiriting", he said he was not aware of any Supreme Court in the world that had closed its main entrance to the public.<ref name="breyerstate"/>
 
Visitors can tour the building on their own, though not the courtroom itself.<ref name=tws24oct204/> The building is open to the public from 9&nbsp;am to 4:30&nbsp;pm weekdays but closed on weekends and [[federal holiday|holiday]]s.<ref name=tws24oct201>{{cite web
| title = Visiting the Court
| publisher = Supreme Court of the United States
| date = 2010-03-18
| url = http://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visiting.aspx
| accessdate = 2010-03-19
}}</ref> It is located across the street from the [[United States Capitol]] at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue<ref name=tws24oct201/><ref name=tws24oct211>{{cite web
| title = Visiting-Capitol-Hill
| publisher = docstoc
| date = 2009-10-24
| url = http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11663498/Visiting-Capitol-Hill
| accessdate = 2009-10-24
}}</ref> There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.<ref name=tws24oct204/> When the Court is not in session, lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30&nbsp;am to 3:30&nbsp;pm and reservations are not necessary.<ref name=tws24oct204/> When the Court is in session the public may attend oral arguments, which are held twice each morning on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in two-week intervals from October through late April, with breaks during December and February. Visitors are seated on a first-come first-served basis. One estimate is there are about 250 seats available.<ref name=tws24oct209>{{cite web
| title = How The Court Works
| publisher = The Supreme Court Historical Society
| date = 2009-10-24
| url = http://www.supremecourthistory.org/works/supremecourthistory_works_howthecourtworks_05.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-24
}}</ref> Sometimes, there are also afternoon argument sessions.<ref name=tws24oct201/> The number of open seats varies from case to case. For important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. In mid-May until the end of June, the court releases orders and opinions beginning at 10&nbsp;am, and these 15 to 30-minute sessions are open to the public on a similar basis.<ref name=tws24oct204>{{cite news
| title = Plan Your Trip (quote:) "In mid-May, after the oral argument portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench Mondays at 10AM for the release of orders and opinions."
| publisher = US Senator John McCain
| date = 2009-10-24
| url = http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=VisitingWashingtonDC.PlanYourTrip#supremecourt
| accessdate = 2009-10-24
}}</ref> [[Supreme Court Police]] are available to answer questions.<ref name=tws24oct201/>
 
==Jurisdiction==
[[File:Marbury v Madison John Marshall by Swatjester crop.jpg|thumb|275px|Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review.]]
{{Main|Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States}}
 
Section 2 of [[Article Three of the United States Constitution]] outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
 
{{bquote|The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.}}
 
The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution]], which forbade federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, states may waive this immunity, and Congress may abrogate the states' immunity in certain circumstances (see [[Sovereign immunity#In the United States|Sovereign immunity]]). In addition to constitutional constraints, Congress is authorized by Article III to regulate the court's appellate jurisdiction: for example, the federal courts may hear cases only if one or more of the following conditions are met:
*1. [[diversity jurisdiction|diversity of citizenship]] (meaning, the parties are residents of two different states or countries, including foreign states<ref>{{cite web | title = United States Code: Title 28,1330. Actions against foreign states | url = http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001330----000-.html | accessdate = October 7, 2010}}</ref>), plus a controversy of at least $75,000.<ref>{{cite web | title = United States Code: Title 28,1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs | url = http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001332----000-.html }}</ref>
*2. If the case asks a federal question.<ref>{{cite web | title = United States Code: Title 28,1331. Federal question | url = http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001331----000-.html}}</ref>
*3. If the United States federal government (including the Post Office<ref>{{cite web | title = United States Code: Title 28,1339. Postal matters | url = http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001339----000-.html}}</ref>) is a party in the case.<ref>{{cite web | title = United States Code: Title 28,1345. United States as a Plaintiff | url = http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001345----000-.html}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title = United States Code: Title 28,1346. United States as a Defendant}}</ref>
 
Exercise of this power (for example, the [[Detainee Treatment Act]], which provided that "'no court, justice, or judge' shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a [[Guantanamo Bay]] detainee")<ref>{{cite web|author=Justice Scalia |url=http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-184.ZD.html |title='&#39;Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'&#39; (Scalia, J., dissenting) |publisher=Law.cornell.edu |accessdate=2010-06-20}}</ref> can become controversial; see [[Jurisdiction stripping]].
 
The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise [[original jurisdiction]] in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.<!--Actually quite a few habeas corpus cases are brought under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction each year.––>
 
The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]] and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in ''[[Martin v. Hunter's Lessee]]'' (1816) and ''[[Cohens v. Virginia]]'' (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are several devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases.
 
Since [[Article Three of the United States Constitution]] stipulates that federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies", the Supreme Court avoids deciding cases that are moot and does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in ''[[DeFunis v. Odegaard]]'', {{ussc|416|312|1974}}, the Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law school affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claim would not be able to redress any injury he had suffered. The mootness exception is not absolute. If an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review", the Court will address it even though the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result. In ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'', {{ussc|410|113|1973}}, and other abortion cases, the Court addresses the merits of claims pressed by pregnant women seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because it takes longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.
 
===Justices as Circuit Justices===
The United States is divided into thirteen [[United States court of appeals|circuit courts of appeals]], each of which is assigned a "Circuit Justice" from the Supreme Court. Although this concept has been in continuous existence throughout the history of the republic, its meaning has changed through time.
 
Under the [[Judiciary Act of 1789]], each Justice was required to "ride circuit," or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice encountered opposition from many Justices, who cited the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it because a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891. Today, the duties of a "Circuit Justice" are generally limited to receiving and deciding requests for stays in cases coming from the circuit or circuits to which the Justice is assigned, and other clerical tasks such as addressing certain requests for extensions of time. A Circuit Justice may (but in practice almost never does) sit as a judge of that circuit. When he or she does so, a Circuit Justice has seniority over the Chief Judge of that circuit.
 
The Chief Justice is traditionally assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland and Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia. Each Associate Justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.
 
{{As of|2009|8|17|df=US}}, the circuits were assigned as follows:<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/081709zr.pdf
|title=Supreme Court orders
|date=2009-08-17
|format=PDF
|accessdate=2009-08-17}}</ref>
{| class="wikitable" border="0"
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|D.C. Circuit]], John G. Roberts, Jr.
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]], John Paul Stevens
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit|First Circuit]], Stephen G. Breyer
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|Eighth Circuit]], Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|Second Circuit]], Ruth Bader Ginsburg
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]], Anthony M. Kennedy
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]], Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit|Tenth Circuit]], Sonia Sotomayor
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit|Fourth Circuit]], John G. Roberts, Jr.
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|Eleventh Circuit]], Clarence Thomas
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]], Antonin G. Scalia
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|Federal Circuit]], John G. Roberts, Jr.
|-
| For the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|Sixth Circuit]], John Paul Stevens
|
|}
The circuit assignments often reflect the geographic regions where the assigned Justices served as judges or practitioners before joining the Supreme Court. Five of the current Justices are assigned to circuits on which they once sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Breyer (First Circuit), Justice Alito (Third Circuit), Justice Stevens (Seventh Circuit), and Justice Kennedy (Ninth Circuit). Furthermore, Justices Thomas and Ginsburg are assigned to the circuits that include their home states (the Eleventh and Second Circuits, respectively).
 
==Process==
{{Main|Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States}}
 
===Case selection===
Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs of [[certiorari#United States law|certiorari]], commonly referred to as "cert". The Court may review any case in the federal courts of appeals "by writ of ''certiorari'' granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case".<ref>{{usc|28|1254}}</ref> The Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.<ref>{{usc|28|1257}}; see also [[Adequate and independent state grounds]]</ref> The party that lost in the lower court is the ''[[petitioner]]'' and the party that prevailed is the ''[[respondent]]''. All case names before the Court are styled ''petitioner'' v. ''respondent'', regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in ''State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda''. If the defendant is convicted, and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes ''[[Miranda v. Arizona]]''.
 
There are situations where the Court has [[original jurisdiction]], such as when two states have a dispute against each other, or when there is a dispute between the United States and a state. In such instances, a case is filed with the Supreme Court directly. Examples of such cases include ''[[United States v. Texas]]'', a case to determine whether a parcel of land belonged to the United States or to Texas, and ''[[Virginia v. Tennessee]]'', a case turning on whether an incorrectly drawn boundary between two states can be changed by a state court, and whether the setting of the correct boundary requires Congressional approval. Although it has not happened since 1794 in the case of [[Georgia v. Brailsford]], parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction may request that a [[jury]] determine issues of fact.<ref>{{usc|28|1872}} ''See'' ''[[Georgia v. Brailsford (1794)|Georgia v. Brailsford]]'', {{ussc|3|1|1794}}, in which the Court conducted a jury trial.</ref>
 
The common shorthand name for cases is typically the first party (the petitioner). For example, ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'' is referred to simply as ''Brown'', and ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' as ''Roe''. The exception to this rule is when the name of a state, or the United States, or some government entity, is the first listed party. In that instance, the name of the second party is the shorthand name. For example, ''[[Iowa v. Tovar]]'' is referred to simply as ''Tovar'', and ''[[Gonzales v. Raich]]'' is referred to simply as ''Raich'', because the first party, [[Alberto Gonzales]], was sued in his [[official capacity]] as the [[United States Attorney General]].
 
A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called a ''conference''. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves; the public and the Justices' clerks are excluded. If four Justices vote to grant the petition, the case proceeds to the briefing stage; otherwise, the case ends. Except in [[death penalty]] cases and other cases in which the Court orders briefing from the respondent, the respondent may, but is not required to, file a response to the cert petition.
 
The court grants a petition for cert only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the court's Rule 10. Such reasons include:
*Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
*Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
*Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.
When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a "circuit split". If the court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment [[on the merits]] of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.
 
To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Court each year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives each year, it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as the "[[cert pool]]." Currently, all justices except for Justice Stevens and Justice Alito participate in the cert pool.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129799113829|title=Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool|author=Tony Mauro|publisher=Legal Times|date=2005-10-21|accessdate=2007-10-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144330162287|title=Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party|author=Tony Mauro|publisher=Legal Times|date=2006-07-04|accessdate=2007-10-31}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html?ex=1380168000&en=d58acbfb583fd4f2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink|title=A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'|author=Adam Liptak|publisher=New York Times|date=2008-09-25|accessdate=2008-10-17}}</ref>
 
===Oral argument===
When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. At this point, both parties file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from reasons the parties may urge for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, ''[[amicus curiae|amici curiae]]'', or "friends of the court," may also file briefs. The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from October through April. Each side has thirty minutes to present its argument, and during that time, the Justices may interrupt the advocate and ask questions. The petitioner gives the first presentation, and may reserve some time to rebut the respondent's arguments after the respondent has concluded. ''Amici curiae'' may also present oral argument on behalf of one party if that party agrees. The Court advises counsel to assume that the Justices are familiar with and have read the briefs filed in a case.
 
===Decision===
At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for decision. Cases are decided by majority vote of the Justices. It is the Court's practice to issue decisions in all cases argued in a particular Term by the end of that Term. Within that Term, however, the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set time after oral argument. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied, and the most senior Justice in the majority assigns the initial draft of the Court's opinion to a Justice on his or her side. Drafts of the Court's opinion, as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions,<ref>''See generally,'' [[Mark Tushnet|Tushnet, Mark, ed.]] (2008) ''I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases'', Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp. 256, ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6</ref> circulate among the Justices until the Court is prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case.
 
It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides evenly on a case. If that occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but does not establish binding precedent. In effect, it results in a return to the ''[[status quo ante]]''. For a case to be heard, there must be a quorum of at least six justices.<ref name="28 USC 1">{{usc|28|1}}</ref> If a quorum is not available to hear a case and a majority of qualified justices believes that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next term, then the judgment of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been evenly divided. For cases brought directly to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the Chief Justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there.<ref name="28 USC 1"/>
 
===Published opinions===
The Court's opinions are published in three stages. First, a slip opinion is made available on the Court's web site and through other outlets. Next, several opinions are bound together in paperback form, called a preliminary print of ''[[United States Reports]]'', the official series of books in which the final version of the Court's opinions appears. About a year after the preliminary prints are issued, a final bound volume of ''U.S. Reports'' is issued. The individual volumes of ''U.S. Reports'' are numbered so that users may cite this set of reports—or a competing version published by another commercial legal publisher—to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs to find the cases quickly and easily.
 
{{As of|2010|2|df=US|url=http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes.html}}, there are 548 volumes of ''U.S. Reports''. Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form vvv U.S. ppp (yyyy). The number before the "U.S." refers to the volume number, and the number after the U.S. refers to the page within that volume. The number in parentheses is the year in which the case was decided. For instance, the citation for ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' is 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and it means the case was decided in 1973 and appears on page 113 of volume 410 of ''U.S. Reports''. For hot-from-the-press judgments, the volume and page numbers are replaced with "___".
 
==Institutional powers and constraints==
The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of [[judicial review]]; nevertheless, the power of this Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the [[Founding Fathers]] accepted the notion of judicial review; in [[Federalist No. 78]], [[Alexander Hamilton]] wrote: "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'' (1803), consummating the system of [[checks and balances]]. This power allows judges to have the last word on allocation of authority among the three branches of the federal government, which grants them the ability to set bounds to their own authority, as well as to their immunity from outside checks and balances.
 
The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of [[nonacquiescence]] came in 1832, when the state of [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] ignored the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Worcester v. Georgia]]''. President [[Andrew Jackson]], who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "[[John Marshall]] has made his decision; now let him enforce it!";<ref>The American Conflict by Horace Greeley (1873), p. 106; also in The Life of Andrew Jackson (2001) by Robert Vincent Remini</ref> however, this alleged quotation has been disputed. State militia in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]''. More recently, many feared that President [[Richard Nixon]] would refuse to comply with the Court's order in ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' (1974) to surrender the [[Watergate tapes]]. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.
 
Some argue that the Supreme Court is "the most separated and least checked of all branches of government."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Mendelson
|first=Wallace|year=1992|contribution=Separation of Powers|editor-last=Hall|editor-first=Kermit L.|editor-link=Kermit L. Hall|title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=775|isbn=0195058356}}</ref>
Justices are not required to stand for election by virtue of their tenure "during good behavior," and their pay may "not be diminished" while they hold their position ([[Article Three of the United States Constitution#Section 1: Federal Courts|Section 1 of Article Three]]). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been removed from office. Supreme Court decisions have been purposefully overridden by constitutional amendment in only four instances: the [[Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution|Eleventh Amendment]] overturned ''[[Chisholm v. Georgia]]'' (1793); the [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth]] Amendments in effect overturned ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' (1857); the [[Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Sixteenth Amendment]] reversed ''[[Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co.]]'' (1895); and the [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-sixth Amendment]] overturned some portions of ''[[Oregon v. Mitchell]]'' (1970). However, when the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the [[Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009|Lilly Ledbetter act]], superseding the limitations given in ''[[Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.]]'' in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Vile|first=John R.|year=1992|contribution=Court curbing|editor-last=Hall|editor-first=Kermit L.
|editor-link=Kermit L. Hall|title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States|publisher=Oxford University Press|pages=202|isbn=0195058356}}</ref>
 
In addition, the other two branches can restrain the Court through other mechanisms. Congress can increase the number of justices, giving the President power to influence future decisions by appointments (as in Roosevelt's Court Packing Plan discussed above). Congress can pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in [[Article 3 (U.S. Constitution)#Section 2: Federal jurisdiction and trial by jury|Section 2]] of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted ''"with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."'' The Court sanctioned such congressional action in the [[Reconstruction era of the United States|Reconstruction]] case ''[[ex parte McCardle]]'' (1869), though it rejected Congress' power to dictate how particular cases must be decided in ''[[United States v. Klein]]'' (1871).
 
On the other hand, through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court has defined the scope and nature of the powers and separation between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; for example, in ''[[United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp.]]'' (1936), ''[[Dames & Moore v. Regan]]'' (1981), and notably in ''[[Goldwater v. Carter]]'' (1979), (where it effectively gave the Presidency the power to terminate ratified treaties without the consent of Congress or the Senate). The Court's decisions can also impose limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in ''[[Humphrey's Executor v. United States]]'' (1935), the ''[[Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer|Steel Seizure Case]]'' (1952), and ''[[United States v. Nixon]]'' (1974).<!-- There are a lot of other cases worth mentioning, but on the other hand too much detail might be inappropriate here.-->
 
==Criticism==
Some criticisms leveled at the Supreme Court are:
 
*'''Judicial activism'''. The Supreme Court has been criticized for not keeping within Constitutional bounds by engaging in [[judicial activism]], rather than merely interpreting law and exercising [[judicial restraint]]. Claims of judicial activism are not confined to any particular ideology.<ref name="judicialactivismOxford">See for example "Judicial activism" in ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States'', edited by Kermit Hall; article written by Gary McDowell</ref> An often cited example of [[conservatism|conservative]] judicial activism is the 1905 decision in ''[[Lochner v. New York]]'', which has been criticized by many prominent thinkers, including [[Robert Bork]], Justice [[Antonin Scalia]], and Chief Justice [[John Roberts]].<ref name="judicialactivismOxford"/><ref name=tws23oct20>{{cite news
| author = [[Damon W. Root]]
| title = Lochner and Liberty
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = September 21, 2009
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427193229878748.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> An often cited example of [[Modern liberalism in the United States|liberal]] judicial activism is [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973), which legalized abortion in part on the basis of the "right to privacy" expressed in the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]], a reasoning that some critics argued was circuitous.<ref name="judicialactivismOxford"/> Legal scholars,<ref name=tws22oct08>{{cite news
| author = Peter Steinfels
| title = 'A Church That Can and Cannot Change': Dogma
| publisher = New York Times: Books
| date = May 22, 2005
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref><ref name=tws23oct05>{{cite news
| author = David G. Savage
| title = Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?
| quote = a lack of judicial authority to enter an inherently political question that had previously been left to the states
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = October 23, 2008
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> justices,<ref name=tws22oct10>{{cite news
| author = [[Neil A. Lewis]]
| title = Judicial Nominee Says His Views Will Not Sway Him on the Bench
| quote = he has written scathingly of Roe v. Wade
| publisher = New York Times
| date = September 19, 2002
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/us/judicial-nominee-says-his-views-will-not-sway-him-on-the-bench.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> and presidential candidates<ref name=tws22oct03>{{cite news
| title = Election Guide 2008: The Issues: Abortion
| publisher = New York Times
| year = 2008
| url = http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/abortion.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> have criticized the Roe decision. The progressive [[Brown v. Board of Education]] decision has been criticized by conservatives such as [[Patrick Buchanan]]<ref name=tws23oct71>{{cite web
| author = Pat Buchanan
| title = The judges war: an issue of power
| quote = The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power.
| publisher = Townhall.com
| date = July 6, 2005
| url = http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2005/07/06/the_judges_war_an_issue_of_power
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> and former presidential contender [[Barry Goldwater]].<ref name=tws22oct33>{{cite news
| author = [[Adam Clymer]]
| title = Barry Goldwater, Conservative and Individualist, Dies at 89
| publisher = New York Times
| date = May 29, 1998
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/specials/goldwater-obit.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> [[Abraham Lincoln|Lincoln]] warned, referring to the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|Dred Scott]] decision, that if government policy became "irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers."<ref name=tws23oct50>{{cite news
| author = Abraham Lincoln
| title = First Inaugural Address
| quote = At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
| publisher = National Center
| date = March 4, 1861
| url = http://www.nationalcenter.org/LincolnFirstInaugural.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Former justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] justified judicial activism with these words: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."<ref name=tws22oct02>{{cite news
| author = George F. Will
| title = Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice
| quote = Thurgood Marshall quote taken from the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = May 27, 2009
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> During different historical periods, the Court has leaned in different directions.<ref>Irons, Peter. ''A People's History of the Supreme Court''. London: Penguin, 1999. ISBN 0-670-87006-4</ref><ref name=tws23oct44>{{cite news
| author = Adam Liptak
| title = To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left
| quote = Every judge who’s been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell...in 1971...has been more conservative than his or her predecessor
| publisher = New York Times
| date = January 31, 2009
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/weekinreview/01liptak.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Critics from both sides complain that activist-judges abandon the Constitution and substitute their own views instead.<ref name=tws22oct21>{{cite news
| author = Charles Babington
| title = Senator Links Violence to 'Political' Decisions
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = April 5, 2005
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref><ref name=tws22oct18>{{cite news
| author = Adam Liptak
| title = A Court Remade in the Reagan Era's Image
| publisher = New York Times
| date = February 2, 2006
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/politicsspecial1/02conservatives.html?pagewanted=print
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref><ref name=tws22oct05>{{cite news
| author = David G. Savage
| title = Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = July 13, 2008
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/13/nation/na-scotus13
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> Critics include writers such as [[Andrew Napolitano]],<ref name=tws23oct59>{{cite news
| author = Andrew P. Napolitano
| title = No Defense
| publisher = New York Times
| date = February 17, 2005
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17napolitano.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> [[Phyllis Schlafly]],<ref name=tws23oct60>{{cite news
| author = Thomas B. Edsall and Michael A. Fletcher
| title = Again, Right Voices Concern About Gonzales
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = September 5, 2005
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090401338.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> [[Mark Levin|Mark R. Levin]],<ref name=tws23oct61>{{cite news
| author = Charles Lane
| title = Conservative's Book on Supreme Court Is a Bestseller
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = March 20, 2005
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50246-2005Mar19.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> and Mark Sutherland,<ref name=tws484ki>{{cite book
| last = Sutherland
| first = Mark
| authorlink =
| coauthors = Dave Meyer, William J. Federer, Alan Keyes, Ed Meese, Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Phillips, Alan E. Sears, Ben DuPre, Rev. Rick Scarborough, David C. Gibbs III, Mathew D. Staver, Don Feder, Herbert W. Titus
| title = Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America
| publisher = The National Policy Center
| year = 2005
| location = St. Louis, Missouri
| page = 242
| url = http://books.google.com/?id=VBrjcQkzV94C&pg=PA96
| isbn = 0-9753455-6-7}}</ref> as well as [[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning historian [[James MacGregor Burns]].<ref name=tws27oct304>{{cite news
| author = [[Michiko Kakutani]]
| title = Appointees Who Really Govern America
| publisher = New York Times
| date = July 6, 2009
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07kaku.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref><ref name=tws27oct303>{{cite news
| author = By Emily Bazelon
| title = The Supreme Court on Trial: James MacGregor Burns takes aim at the bench.
| publisher = Slate Magazine
| date = July 6, 2009
| url = http://www.slate.com/id/2222028/
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref> Past presidents from both parties have attacked judicial activism, including [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt|Franklin Roosevelt]], [[Richard Nixon|Nixon]], and [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]].<ref>Special keynote address by President Ronald Reagan, November 1988, at the second annual lawyers convention of the [[Federalist Society]], Washington, D.C.</ref><ref name=tws23oct48>{{cite news
| author = [[Stuart Taylor Jr.]]
| title = Reagan Points to a Critic, Who Points Out It Isn't So
| publisher = New York Times
| date = October 15, 1987
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/15/us/reagan-points-to-a-critic-who-points-out-it-isn-t-so.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Failed Supreme Court nominee [[Robert Bork]] wrote: "What judges have wrought is a coup d'état, – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless."<ref name=tws23oct53>{{cite news
| author = Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
| title = Judge Bork: Judicial Activism Is Going Global
| quote = What judges have wrought is a coup d’etat – slow moving and genteel, but a coup d’etat nonetheless.
| publisher = Fox News
| date = September 11, 2003
| url = http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97117,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Senator [[Al Franken]] quipped that when politicians talk about judicial activism, "their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than [the politician] would like."<ref name=tws22oct11>{{cite news
| author = Naftali Bendavid
| title = Franken: ‘An Incredible Honor to Be Here’
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = July 13, 2009
| url = http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/13/franken-an-incredible-honor-to-be-here/
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> It has been argued that the Supreme Court is in some respects "certainly a legislative body."<ref>{{Cite document|volume=64|publisher=Cornell L. Rev.|page=1|date=1978-79|title=Supreme Court as a Legislature|author=Hazard, Geoffrey C. Jr.|url=http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/clqv64&section=7|postscript=<!--None-->}}</ref>
 
*'''Federal versus state power'''. There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as [[James Madison]]<ref name=tws24oct22>{{cite news
| author = James Madison aka "Publius"
| title = The Federalist Papers/No. 45 The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
| quote = the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty
| publisher = Wikisource
| year = 1789
| url = http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._45
| accessdate = 2009-10-24
}}</ref> and [[Alexander Hamilton]]<ref name=tws24oct47>{{cite news
| author = Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius)
| title = Federalist No. 28
| quote = Power being almost always the rival of power; the General Government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government; and these will have the same disposition toward the General Government.
| publisher = Independent Journal
| year = 1789
| url = http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp
| accessdate = 2009-10-24
}}</ref> argued in the [[Federalist Papers]] that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments,<ref name=tws27oct501>{{cite news
| author = James Madison
| title = The Federalist No. 44 (quote: 8th para)
| quote = seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion.
| publisher = Independent Journal
| date = January 25, 1788
| url = http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref><ref name=tws27oct502>{{cite news
| author = James Madison
| title = The Federalist No. 56 (quote: 6th para)
| quote = In every State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be done by the federal legislature, than to review the different laws, and reduce them in one general act.
| publisher = Independent Journal
| date = February 16, 1788
| url = http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa56.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref><ref name=tws27oct503>{{cite news
| author = Alexander Hamilton
| title = The Federalist No. 22 (quote: 4th para)
| quote = The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy.
| publisher = New York Packet
| date = December 14, 1787
| url = http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref><ref name=tws27oct504>{{cite news
| author = Madison
| title = Federalist Papers
| quote = The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits.
| publisher = New York Packet
| date = January 22, 1788
| url = http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref> others argue that expansive [[federal power]] is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes.<ref name=tws24oct10>{{cite news
| author = [[Akhil Reed Amar]]
| title = The Bill of Rights -- Creation and Reconstruction
| quote = many lawyers embrace a tradition that views state governments as the quintessential threat to individual and minority rights, and federal officials--especially federal courts--as the special guardians of those rights.
| publisher = New York Times: Books
| year = 1998
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/amar-rights.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-24
}}</ref> The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the [[Federal Government of the United States|federal government]] too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the [[Commerce Clause]] by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used to protect non-commercial cave bugs ''within'' a state.<ref name=tws30oct08>{{cite news
| author = Scott Gold
| title = Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort to Weaken Species Protection Law
| quote = Purcell filed a $60-million lawsuit against the U.S. government in 1999, arguing that cave bugs could not be regulated through the commerce clause because they had no commercial value and did not cross state lines. 'I'm disappointed,' Purcell said.
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = June 14, 2005
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/14/nation/na-cavebugs14
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref> Chief Justice [[John Marshall]] asserted Congress's power over interstate commerce was "complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution."<ref name=tws27oct505>{{cite news
| author = Robert B. Reich
| title = The Commerce Clause; The Expanding Economic Vista
| publisher = New York Times Magazine
| date = September 13, 1987
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/13/magazine/the-commerce-clause-the-expanding-economic-vista.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-27
}}</ref> Justice [[Samuel Alito|Alito]] said congressional authority under the [[Commerce Clause]] is "quite broad."<ref name=tws30oct09>{{cite news
| author = FDCH e-Media
| title = U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court
| quote = I don't think there's any question at this point in our history that Congress' power under the commerce clause is quite broad, and I think that reflects a number of things, including the way in which our economy and our society has developed and all of the foreign and interstate activity that takes place -- Samuel Alito
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = January 10, 2006
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001087.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref> Modern day theorist [[Robert B. Reich]] suggests debate over the [[Commerce Clause]] continues today.<ref name=tws27oct505/> Advocates of [[states' rights]] such as constitutional scholar [[Kevin Gutzman]] have also criticized the Court, saying it has misused the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] to undermine state authority. Justice [[Louis Brandeis|Brandeis]], in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that "states should be free to serve as ''laboratories'' of democracy."<ref name=tws30oct03>{{cite news
| author = Adam Cohen
| title = Editorial Observer; Brandeis's Views on States' Rights, and Ice-Making, Have New Relevance
| quote = But Brandeis's dissent contains one of the most famous formulations in American law: that the states should be free to serve as ''laboratories'' of democracy
| publisher = New York Times
| date = December 7, 2003
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/opinion/editorial-observer-brandeis-s-views-states-rights-ice-making-have-new-relevance.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref> One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."<ref name=tws23oct15>{{cite news
| author = Lino Graglia
| title = Altering 14th Amendment would curb court's activist tendencies
| publisher = University of Texas School of Law
| date = July 19, 2005
| url = http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/071905_court.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> However, others see the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] as a positive force that extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level."<ref name=tws30oct02>{{cite news
| author = Jacob C. Hornberger
| title = Freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment
| quote = Fourteenth Amendment. Some argue that it is detrimental to the cause of freedom because it expands the power of the federal government. Others contend that the amendment expands the ambit of individual liberty. I fall among those who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment has been a positive force for freedom.
| publisher = The Future of Freedom Foundation
| date = 2009-10-30
| url = http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=com.ubuntu%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=%22misused+the+fourteenth+amendment%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref>
 
*'''Judicial interference in political disputes'''. Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of the other two branches of government. The [[Bush v. Gore]] decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose [[George W. Bush]] over [[Al Gore]], has been criticized extensively, particularly by [[liberals]].<ref name=tws23oct07>{{cite news
| author = David G. Savage
| title = Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?
| quote = UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as 'utterly lacking in any legal principle" and added that the court was "remarkably unashamed to say so explicitly.'
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = October 23, 2008
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref name=tws22oct40>{{cite news
| author = reporter from the Baltimore Sun
| title = Here are eight people who could be considered the fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the death of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- Michael McConnell (biography)
| quote = criticized the Supreme Court for its decision in Bush v. Gore
| publisher = Chicago Tribune
| date = September 5, 2005
| url = http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/bal-scotus-candidates0905,0,2713818.story
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref><ref name=tws23oct01>{{cite news
| author = CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl)
| title = Key Excerpt: Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore
| quote = Many critics saw the Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the judiciary improperly injecting itself into a political dispute"
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = July 14, 2009
| url = http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/07/key_excerpt_sotomayor_on_bush.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref><ref name=tws23oct08>{{cite news
| author = Adam Cohen (Opinion section)
| title = Justice Rehnquist Writes on Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore
| quote = The Bush v. Gore majority, made up of Mr. Rehnquist and his fellow conservatives, interpreted the equal protection clause in a sweeping way they had not before, and have not since. And they stated that the interpretation was 'limited to the present circumstances,' words that suggest a raw exercise of power, not legal analysis.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = March 21, 2004
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/opinion/21SUN4.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}} {{Dead link|date=October 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref name=tws23oct12>{{cite news
| author = Kevin McNamara (letter to the editor)
| title = Letters -- Supreme Court Activism?
| publisher = New York Times
| date = June 3, 2009
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/lweb04douthat.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref><ref name=tws23oct13>{{cite news
| author = David Margolick
| title = Meet the Supremes
| quote = Beat reporters and academics initially denounced the court’s involvement in that case, its hastiness to enter the political thicket and the half-baked and strained decision that resulted.
| publisher = New York Times
| date = September 23, 2007
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Margolick-t.html?pagewanted=print
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Another example are Court decisions on apportionment and [[Gerrymandering|re-districting]]: in [[Baker v. Carr]], the court decided it could rule on apportionment questions; Justice [[Felix Frankfurter|Frankfurter]] in a "scathing dissent" argued against the court wading into so-called "political questions."<ref name=tws28oct876>{{cite news
| author = CQ Transcriptions
| title = U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court
| quote = ...Baker v. Carr, the reapportionment case. We heard Justice Frankfurter who delivered a scathing dissent in that...
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = January 13, 2006
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011300802.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-28
}}</ref>
 
*'''Failing to protect individual rights'''. Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the [[Dred Scott v. Sandford|Dred Scott]] (1857) decision upheld slavery;<ref name=tws22oct16>{{cite news
| author = [[William Safire]]
| title = Dog Whistle
| publisher = New York Times Magazine
| date = April 24, 2005
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24ONLANGUAGE.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> [[Plessy v Ferguson]] (1896) upheld [[Racial segregation in the United States|segregation]] under the doctrine of ''[[separate but equal]]'';<ref name=tws23oct04>{{cite news
| author = David G. Savage
| title = Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = October 23, 2008
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}} {{Dead link|date=September 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> [[Kelo v. City of New London]] (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including [[New Jersey]] governor [[Jon Corzine]], as undermining property rights.<ref name=tws22oct24>{{cite news
| author = [[Laura Mansnerus]]
| title = Diminished Eminence In a Changed Domain
| publisher = New York Times
| date = October 16, 2005
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802EED9173FF935A25753C1A9639C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref><ref name=tws22oct26>{{cite news
| author = [[Ronald Smothers]]
| title = In Long Branch, No Olive Branches
| publisher = New York Times
| date = October 16, 2005
| url = http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EED9173FF935A25753C1A9639C8B63
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> A student criticized a 1988 ruling that allowed school officials "to block publication of a student article in the high school newspaper."<ref name=tws22oct13>{{cite news
| author = David Templeton
| title = Reporter fights to air her story -- Article on choking game pulled from student newspaper
| publisher = Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
| date = March 12, 2006
| url = http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06071/667880-58.stm
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> Some critics suggest the 2009 bench with a conservative majority has "become increasingly hostile to voters" by siding with Indiana's voter identification laws which tend to "disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters," according to one report.<ref name=tws23oct10>{{cite news
| author = Adam Cohen
| title = Editorial Observer -- A Supreme Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters
| publisher = New York Times
| date = January 15, 2008
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15tue4.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Senator [[Al Franken]] criticized the Court for "eroding individual rights."<ref name="tws22oct11"/> However, others argue that the Court is ''too protective'' of some individual rights, particularly those of people accused of crimes or in detention. For example, Chief Justice [[Warren Burger]] was an outspoken critic of the [[exclusionary rule]], and Justice [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] criticized the Court's decision in [[Boumediene v. Bush]] for being ''too protective'' of the rights of [[Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp|Guantanamo]] detainees, on the grounds that [[habeas corpus]] was "limited" to sovereign territory.<ref name=tws30oct05>{{cite news
| author = David G. Savage
| title = Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions
| quote = This suggests that the right of habeas corpus was not limited to English subjects ... protects people who are captured ... at Guantanamo ... Wrong, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent. He said English history showed that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to sovereign English territory
| publisher = Los Angeles Times
| date = July 13, 2008
| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/13/nation/na-scotus13
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref>
 
*'''Supreme Court has too much power'''. This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism. [[George Will]] wrote that the Court has an "increasingly central role in American governance."<ref name=tws22oct01>{{cite news
| author = George F. Will
| title = Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice
| publisher = Washington Post
| date = May 27, 2009
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> It was criticized for intervening in bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker [[Chrysler Corporation]] in 2009.<ref name=tws22oct04/> A reporter wrote that "Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg|Ruth Bader Ginsburg's]] intervention in the Chrysler bankruptcy" left open the "possibility of further judicial review" but argued overall that the intervention was a proper use of Supreme Court power to check the executive branch.<ref name=tws22oct04>{{cite news
| author = James Taranto
| title = Speaking Ruth to Power
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = June 9, 2009
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124456827959598503.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-22
}}</ref> [[Warren E. Burger]], before becoming [[Chief Justice of the United States|Chief Justice]], argued that since the Supreme Court has such "unreviewable power" it is likely to "self-indulge itself" and unlikely to "engage in dispassionate analysis".<ref name=twsvsfs32>{{cite book
| last = Woodward
| first = Bob
| coauthors = Scott Armstrong
| title = The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court
| quote = A court which is final and unreviewable needs more careful scrutiny than any other
| publisher = Simon & Schuster
| year = 1979
| location = United States of America
| page = 541
| url = http://books.google.com/?id=6JtJ23GmD3AC| isbn = 978-0-7432-7402-9}}</ref> [[Larry Sabato]] wrote "excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court."<ref name=tws23oct16>{{cite news
| author = Larry Sabato
| title = It's Time to Reshape the Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country
| publisher = Huffington Post
| date = September 26, 2007
| url = http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/its-time-to-reshape-the-c_b_66030.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref>
 
*'''Courts are poor check on executive power'''. British constitutional scholar [[Adam Tomkins]] sees flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; he argues that because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to wend their way through the system, their ability to restrain the other two branches is severely weakened.<ref name=tws23oct77>{{cite news
| author = Christopher Moore
| title = Our Canadian Republic -- Do we display too much deference to authority ... or not enough?
| publisher = Literary Review of Canada
| date = November 1, 2008
| url = http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2008/11/01/our-canadian-republic/
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref><ref name=tws2nov02>{{cite news
|title = In Defence of the Political Constitution
|first = Adam
|last = Tomkins
|publisher = 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 157
|location = United Kingdom
|year = 2002
|accessdate = 2009-10-06
|quote = Bush v. Gore
}}</ref>
 
*'''Not choosing enough cases to review'''. Senator [[Arlen Specter]] said the Court should "decide more cases."<ref name="tws22oct11"/> On the other hand, although Justice [[Antonin Scalia|Scalia]] acknowledged in a 2009 interview that the number of cases that the Court hears now is smaller today than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that he has not changed his standards for deciding whether to review a case, nor does he believe his colleagues have changed their standards. He attributed the high volume of cases in the late 1980s, at least in part, to an earlier flurry of new federal legislation that was making its way through the courts.<ref name="CSPAN SCW"/>
 
*'''Secret proceedings'''. The Court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.<ref name=tws23oct02>{{cite news
| author = James Vicini
| title = Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling
| quote = The nine-member Supreme Court conducts its deliberations in secret and the justices traditionally won't discuss pending cases in public
| publisher = Reuters
| date = April 24, 2008
| url = http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2443345820080424
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> Its inner workings are difficult for reporters to cover, like a closed "cartel", only revealing itself through "public events and printed releases, with nothing about its inner workings," according to a review of [[Jeffrey Toobin]]'s expose ''[[The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court]]''.<ref name=tws23oct12>{{cite news
| author = DAVID MARGOLICK (book reviewer)
| title = Meet the Supremes
| quote = book review of: THE NINE: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. By Jeffrey Toobin
| publisher = New York Times
| date = September 23, 2007
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Margolick-t.html?pagewanted=print
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> The reviewer writes: "few (reporters) dig deeply into court affairs. It all works very neatly; the only ones hurt are the American people, who know little about nine individuals with enormous power over their lives."<ref name=tws23oct12/> [[Larry Sabato]] complains about the Court's "insularity."<ref name="tws23oct16"/> A [[Fairleigh Dickinson University]] poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that [[Supreme Court of the United States, televised|televising Court hearings]] would "be good for democracy," and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://publicmind.fdu.edu/courttv/
|title=Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy
|work=PublicMind.fdu.edu
|date=2010-03-09
|accessdate=2010-12-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
|url=http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202445941834
|title = Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras at the High Court
|author=Mauro, Tony
|publisher=National Law Journal
|date=2010-03-09
|accessdate=2010-12-18}}</ref> In recent years, many justices have appeared on television, written books, and made public statements to journalists.<ref name="CSPAN SCW">{{cite web
| publisher = CSPAN
| title = C-SPAN Supreme Court Week
| date = 2009-10-04
| accessdate = 2009-10-25
| url = http://supremecourt.c-span.org
}}</ref><ref name=tws23oct03>{{cite news
| author = James Vicini
| title = Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling
| quote = Scalia was interviewed for the CBS News show "60 Minutes
| publisher = Reuters
| date = April 24, 2008
| url = http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2443345820080424
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> In a 2009 interview on C-SPAN, journalists [[Joan Biskupic]] (of [[USA Today]]) and [[Lyle Denniston]] (of [[SCOTUSblog]]) argued that the Court is a "very open" institution, with only the justices' private conferences being inaccessible to others.<ref name="CSPAN SCW"/>
 
*'''Creating a culture of legal intimidation'''. Critic [[Philip K. Howard]] in ''The Death of Common Sense'' and ''Life Without Lawyers'' criticized the Court for promoting a culture in which "law is wielded as a weapon of intimidation rather than as an instrument of protection."<ref name=tws23oct889>{{cite news
| author = Alex Altman (book reviewer)
| title = Life Without Lawyers: Liberating Americans From Too Much Law By Philip K. Howard
| publisher = Time Magazine
| date = Jan. 27, 2009
| url = http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1874370,00.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-23
}}</ref> It leads to "a nation paralyzed by fear, unwilling to assume responsibility, both overly reliant on authority and distrustful of it."<ref name=tws23oct889/> Howard deplores a legal culture in which the "rights" of "whoever might disagree" have trumped common sense.<ref name=tws28oct988>{{cite news
| author = Philip K. Howard
| title = How Modern Law Makes Us Powerless
| quote = The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree.
| publisher = Wall Street Journal
| date = January 26, 2009
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123293018734014067.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-28
}}</ref> Specifically, Howard criticized the [[Earl Warren]] court for too much "sympathy for the little man."<ref name=tws30oct12>{{cite news
| author = Peter Friedman
| title = Taking care of people and keeping standards high
| quote = Nor does Howard dig deep enough to explain the excesses of American tort law and the eagerness to seek vast damages for civil injuries. He blames the overreaching of Earl Warren’s Supreme Court in its sympathy for the little man, and the mood of antipathy to large institutions starting in the 1960s.
| publisher = Geniocity.com
| date = March 26, 2009
| url = http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/tag/philip-k-howard/
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref> He criticized the [[Conley v. Gibson]] decision for opening "the floodgates to abusive litigation."<ref name=tws30oct13>{{cite news
| title = Philip K. Howard, New York Sun
| quote = Common Good Chair Philip K. Howard discusses the Supreme Court's recent repudiation of Conley v. Gibson, a 1957 case which opened the floodgates to abusive litigation, and argues that the Court should take responsibility for a shift in judicial approach towards affirmative assertion of values of reasonableness
| publisher = Common Good
| date = June 4, 2007
| url = http://commongood.org/learn-reading-cgpubs-opeds.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-30
}}</ref>
 
*'''Lifetime tenure'''. Critic [[Larry Sabato]] wrote: "The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day."<ref name="tws23oct16"/> [[Sanford Levinson]] has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.<ref name=tws10oct12>{{cite news
| author = Linda Greenhouse
| title = New Focus on the Effects of Life Tenure
| publisher = New York Times
| date = September 10, 2007
| url = http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/washington/10scotus.html
| accessdate = 2009-10-10
}}</ref> [[James MacGregor Burns]] stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."<ref name=tws27oct304/> Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson<ref name=tws10octxx>{{cite news
| author = Sanford Levinson
| title = Supreme court prognosis -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms
| publisher = guardian.co.uk
| date = 9 February 2009
| url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg
| accessdate = 2009-10-10
| location=London
}}</ref> and Sabato<ref name="tws23oct16"/><ref>See also [[Arthur D. Hellman]], "Reining in the Supreme Court: Are Term Limits the Answer?", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., ''Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices'' (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 291.</ref> as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by [[Richard Allen Epstein|Richard Epstein]].<ref>[[Richard Allen Epstein|Richard Epstein]], "Mandatory Retirement for Supreme Court Justices", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., ''Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices'' (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 415.</ref> However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. [[Alexander Hamilton]] in ''[[Federalist 78]]'' wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."<ref name=tws28oct707>{{cite news
| author = Alexander Hamilton
| title = The Federalist No. 78
| quote = and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
| publisher = Independent Journal
| date = June 14, 1788
| url = http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm
| accessdate = 2009-10-28
}}</ref>
 
==See also==
{{Portal box|Government of the United States|Law}}
{{col-begin}}{{col-2}}
*[[Federal judicial appointment history]]
*[[List of United States Chief Justices by time in office]]
*[[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
**[[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition|by court composition]]
**[[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by education|by education]]
**[[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat|by seat]]
**[[List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by time in office|by time in office]]
*[[Lists of United States Supreme Court cases]]
*[[Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court Procedures]]
{{col-2}}
*[[List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States]]
*[[List of law schools by United States Supreme Court Justices trained]]
*[[Oyez.org]]
*[[Segal-Cover score]]
*[[Supreme Court Historical Society]]
*[[Supreme Court Litigation]]
*[[United States Reports]]
*[[Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States]]
{{col-end}}
 
==References==
===Notes===
{{No footnotes|date=April 2009}}
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
 
==Further reading=Bibliography===
*''Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States'', 5 vls. , Detroit [etc.] : Macmillan Reference USA, 2008
* {{Cite book | last=Heckethorn |first=Charles William |year=1886 |title= The Secret Societies of All Ages and Countries, Embracing the Mysteries of Ancient India, China, Japan, Egypt, Mexico, Peru, Greece, and Scandinavia, the Cabbalists, Early Christians, Heretics, Assassins, Thugs, Templars, the Vehm and Inquisition, Mystics, Rosicrucians, Illuminati, Freemasons, Skopzi, Camorristi, Carbonari, Nihilists, and Other Sects |publisher=Forgotten Books |edition=2nd |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wfyoQW1haRAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Secret+Societies+of+All+Ages+and+Countries&hl=en&ei=1ssDTbfRBMG78gari_3oAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false |isbn=9781440089992}}
*[http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/rulesofthecourt.pdf The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States] (2005 ed.) (pdf).
* {{Cite book
*[[Joan Biskupic|Biskupic, Joan]] and Elder Witt. (1997). ''[[Congressional Quarterly|Congressional Quarterly's]] Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court.'' Washington, D.C.: [[Congressional Quarterly]]. ISBN 1-56802-130-5
| last = Whalen
*{{cite book|editor-last=Hall |editor-first=Kermit L. |title=The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=1992 |location=New York |isbn=0195058356}}
| first = William Joseph
*[[Harvard Law Review|Harvard Law Review Assn.]], (2000). ''[[Bluebook|The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation]]'', 17th ed. [18th ed., 2005. 13-ISBN 978-600-01-4329-9]
| year = 1966
*[[Peter H. Irons|Irons]], Peter. (1999). ''A People's History of the Supreme Court''. New York: [[Viking Press]]. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
| title = Handbook of Secret Organizations
*[[William Rehnquist|Rehnquist]], William. (1987). ''The Supreme Court.'' New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]]. ISBN 0-375-40943-2.
| publisher = Bruce Pub. Co
*Skifos, Catherine Hetos. (1976).[http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c01_e.html "The Supreme Court Gets a Home"], ''Supreme Court Historical Society 1976 Yearbook.'' [in 1990, re-named ''The Journal of Supreme Court History'' (ISSN 1059-4329)]
| location = Milwaukee
*[[Charles Warren (U.S. author)|Warren]], Charles. (1924). ''The Supreme Court in United States History.'' (3 volumes). Boston: [[Little, Brown and Co.]]
| id = {{LCCN|66||026658}}
*[[Bob Woodward|Woodward, Bob]] and [[Scott Armstrong (journalist)|Armstrong, Scott]]. ''[[The Brethren (non-fiction)|The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court]]'' (1979). ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9.
}}
*{{cite web|url={{SCOTUS URL|about/courtbuilding.pdf}} |title=The Court Building|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-02-13|author=Supreme Court Historical Society}}
* {{Cite book
 
| last = Axelrod
===Further reading===
| first = Alan
*{{cite book |last=Abraham |first=Henry J. |title=Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court |edition=3rd |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |year=1992 |location=New York |isbn=0-19-506557-3}}
| year = 1997
*[[Charles A. Beard|Beard]], Charles A. (1912). ''The Supreme Court and the Constitution.'' New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted [[Dover Publications]], 2006. ISBN 0-486-44779-0.
| title = The International Encyclopedia of Secret Societies and Fraternal Orders
*Cushman, Barry. (1998). ''Rethinking the [[New Deal]] Court''. Oxford University Press.
| publisher = Facts on File
*{{cite book |last=Cushman |first=Clare |title=The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 |edition=2nd |publisher=(Supreme Court Historical Society, Congressional Quarterly Books) |year=2001 |isbn=9781568021263.}}
| location = New York
*{{cite book |last=Frank |first=John P. |editor-last=Friedman |editor-first=Leon |editor2-last=Israel |editor2-first=Fred L. |title=The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions |publisher=Chelsea House Publishers |year=1995 |isbn=9781568021263}}
| isbn = 0-8160-2307-7
*[[Bryan A. Garner|Garner, Bryan A.]] (2004). ''[[Black's Law Dictionary]].'' Deluxe 8th ed. [[Thomson West]]. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
}}
*[[Jan Crawford Greenburg|Greenburg, Jan Crawford]], Jan. (2007). ''Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control for the United States Supreme Court.'' New York: [[Penguin Press]]. ISBN 978-1-59420-101-1.
* {{Cite book |last=Hodapp |first=Christopher |last2=Von Kannon |first2=Alice |year=2008 |title=Conspiracy Theories and Secret Societies For Dummies |publisher=Wiley |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4htx62wIXIgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false |isbn=0-470-18408-6}}
*{{cite book |last=Martin |first=Fenton S. |coauthor=Goehlert, Robert U. |title=The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography |publisher=Congressional Quarterly Books |year=1990 |location=Washington, D.C. |isbn=0871875543}}
* {{Cite book
*McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). ''The American Supreme Court.'' 4th ed. Chicago: [[University of Chicago Press]]. ISBN 0-226-55682-4.
| last = Roberts
*{{cite book |last=O'Brien |first=David M. |title=Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics |edition=8th |publisher=W. W. Norton & Company |year=2008 |location=New York |isbn=0393932184}}
| first = J. M. (John Morris)
*[[Jeffrey Toobin|Toobin]], Jeffrey. ''The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court.'' [[Doubleday (publisher)|Doubleday]], 2007. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
| year = 1972
*Urofsky, Melvin and [[Paul Finkelman|Finkelman, Paul]]. (2001). ''A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States''. 2 vols. New York: [[Oxford University Press]]. ISBN 0-19-512637-8 & ISBN 0-19-512635-1.
| title = The Mythology of the Secret Societies
*{{cite book |last=Urofsky |first=Melvin I. |title=The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary |publisher=Garland Publishing |year=1994 |location=New York |page=590 |isbn=0815311761.}}
| publisher = Scribner
*{{cite web|url={{SCOTUS URL|about/courtbuilding.pdf}} |title=The Court Building|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-02-13|author=[[Supreme Court Historical Society]]}}
| location = New York
| isbn = 0-684-12904-3}}
* {{Cite book |last=Robbins |first=Alexandra |year=2004 |title=Pledged: The Secret Life of Sororities |publisher=Hyperion |location=New York |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1WHEwNOApAsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false |isbn=0-7868-8859-8}}
* {{Cite book |last=Stevens |first= Albert Clark |year=1899 |title=The Cyclopædia of Fraternities |publisher=Hamilton Printing & Publishing Company |location=New York |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=l-KEAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false}}
 
==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
<!-- All links to commercial sites will be deleted, please do not waste your time and ours. Thank you. -->
{{commons|Supreme Court of the United States}}
* [http://www.iisg.nl/collections/secretsocieties/index.php Secret Societies: a very short history] &mdash; Documents and illustrations of [[Freemasons]], [[Jesuits]], [[Illuminati]], [[Carbonari]], [[Burschenschaften]] and other putative secret societies and clandestine organizations
{{wikisource|Supreme Court of the United States}}
* Stevens, [http://books.google.com/books?id=H-K3AAAAIAAJ&dq=cyclopaedia+of+fraternities&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=YDZ1fyvFxd&sig=NkvWyzzeQJjZl6DcVDTzafxYuxg&hl=en&ei=8a15Ss2tBcW_tgftnM2WCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false The cyclopædia of fraternities (2nd ed.)]. A comprehensive, though dated, review of the subject.
{{Spoken Wikipedia|Supreme Court of the United States.ogg|2006-08-05}}
*[http://www.supremecourt.gov/ Supreme Court of the United States] ''official website''
*[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html Supreme Court Collection] from the [[Legal Information Institute]]
*[http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html Supreme Court Opinions] from [[FindLaw]]
*[http://www.justia.us U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (v. 1+)] from ''Justia, Oyez and U.S. Court Forms''
*[http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Supreme-Court.cfm Supreme Court Records and Briefs] from ''[[Cornell University Library|Cornell Law Library]]''
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History] from ''InfoPlease''
*[http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm Supreme Court Nominations, present-1789]
*[http://backstoryradio.org/the-supremes/ ''Scales of Justice: The History of Supreme Court Nominations''] - Radio program explores history of appointments and confirmations
*[http://www.supremecourthistory.org/ Supreme Court Historical Society]
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html U.S. Supreme Court] topic coverage from [[The New York Times]]
*[http://www.docstoc.com/collection/684/Supreme-Court-Of-The-United-States Complete/Searchable 1991-2004 Opinions and Orders]
*[http://scdb.wustl.edu/ The Supreme Court Database] ''A research database with information about cases from 1953-2008''
 
{{SCOTUS horizontal}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=December 2010}}
{{Navboxes
|title=Articles and topics related to Supreme Court of the United States
|state=collapsed
|list1=
{{North America topic|Supreme Court of|title=Supreme Courts of North America|countries_only=yes}}
{{Start U.S. Supreme Court composition |CJ=[[John G. Roberts|Roberts]]|}}
{{U.S. Supreme Court composition court lifespan |cj=J. Roberts |years=2005–present}}
{{U.S. Supreme Court composition 2010-present}}
{{End U.S. Supreme Court composition}}
{{USJudiciaries}}
{{USA-Mil-Judicial}}
{{Law_of_the_United_States}}
{{United States topics}}
}}
 
{{DEFAULTSORT:SecretSupreme SocietyCourt Of The United States}}
[[Category:Secret societies|Constitutional courts]]
[[Category:National supreme courts|United States, Supreme Court of the]]
[[Category:Supreme Court of the United States|*]]
[[Category:1789 establishments]]
 
[[ar:المحكمة العليا للولايات المتحدة]]
[[ar:تنظيم سري]]
[[bs:Vrhovni sud Sjedinjenih Američkih Država]]
[[bg:Тайно общество]]
[[bg:Върховен съд на САЩ]]
[[ca:Societat secreta]]
[[ca:Cort Suprema dels Estats Units]]
[[cs:Tajná společnost]]
[[cs:Nejvyšší soud Spojených států amerických]]
[[de:Geheimbund]]
[[etda:SalaühingHøjesteret (USA)]]
[[de:Oberster Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten]]
[[en:Secret society]]
[[en:Supreme Court of the United States]]
[[es:Sociedad secreta]]
[[es:Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos]]
[[eo:Sekreta societo]]
[[eo:Ĉefkortumo]]
[[fr:Société secrète]]
[[eu:Ameriketako Estatu Batuetako Gorte Gorena]]
[[ko:비밀결사]]
[[fa:دیوان عالی ایالات متحده آمریکا]]
[[it:Società segreta]]
[[fr:Cour suprême des États-Unis]]
[[he:אגודת סתרים]]
[[ga:Cúirt Uachtarach na Stát Aontaithe]]
[[mk:Тајни здруженија]]
[[gl:Tribunal Supremo dos Estados Unidos]]
[[nl:Geheim genootschap]]
[[ko:미국 연방 대법원]]
[[ja:秘密結社]]
[[hr:Vrhovni sud Sjedinjenih Američkih Država]]
[[pl:Tajny związek]]
[[id:Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat]]
[[pt:Sociedade secreta]]
[[is:Hæstiréttur Bandaríkjanna]]
[[ro:Societate secretă]]
[[it:Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti]]
[[ru:Тайные общества]]
[[he:בית המשפט העליון של ארצות הברית]]
[[sr:Тајно друштво]]
[[la:Iudicium Summum Civitatum Foederatarum]]
[[fi:Salaseura]]
[[lt:Jungtinių Valstijų Aukščiausiasis Teismas]]
[[sv:Ordenssällskap]]
[[mr:अमेरिकेचे सर्वोच्च न्यायालय]]
[[ta:இரகசிய சமூகம்]]
[[ms:Mahkamah Agung Amerika Syarikat]]
[[zh:秘密結社]]
[[nl:Hooggerechtshof (Verenigde Staten)]]
[[ja:合衆国最高裁判所]]
[[no:De forente staters høyesterett]]
[[pl:Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych]]
[[pt:Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos]]
[[ro:Curtea Supremă de Justiție a Statelor Unite ale Americii]]
[[ru:Верховный суд США]]
[[simple:Supreme Court of the United States]]
[[sk:Najvyšší súd Spojených štátov]]
[[sr:Врховни суд Сједињених Америчких Држава]]
[[sh:Vrhovni sud SAD]]
[[fi:Yhdysvaltain korkein oikeus]]
[[sv:USA:s högsta domstol]]
[[ta:ஐக்கிய அமெரிக்க உயர்நீதிமன்றம்]]
[[tr:ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi]]
[[uk:Верховний Суд США]]
[[vi:Tối cao Pháp viện Hoa Kỳ]]
[[zh-yue:美國最高法院]]
[[zh:美国最高法院]]
เข้าถึงจาก "https://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/รอยซ์"