The Court has only had its current composition, with conservatives dominating the bench, since 2022. But in that short time, it has created enormous change in the country, starting with the end of the constitutional right to abortion in June of that year.
The United States Supreme Court has always played a central role in American life, ruling on issues related to civil rights, the environment, guns, and religious freedom.
This role, however, has shown changes in recent times. The nine judges of the Court – who are not elected and can remain in office for life – have assumed a prominent position in the country’s politics.
The Court recently issued a ruling establishing that American presidents, including Donald Trump, are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for “official acts” performed while in office.
Even before a lower court ruled on whether the acts he is accused of were political in nature, Trump celebrated the court’s decision and called it a “major victory” for democracy.
President Joe Biden said the decision undermined the “rule of law” and was a “terrible disservice” to Americans.
Next, understand how the U.S. Supreme Court, a historically respected and considered sober body, has become a political battleground.
What does the court do?
In short, the Supreme Court is the guardian of the United States Constitution.
Judges decide whether laws created by Congress and whether government actions and laws actually follow the Constitution.
Lower courts are required to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court, under a legal principle used in the country known as set the decision (or legal precedent), which means “to stick to what has been decided”.
Most cases reach the Supreme Court by working their way up the appeals ladder through lower federal courts or state courts.
Although the Supreme Court receives more than 7,000 petitions a year, it hears only about 100 cases each year.
The justices follow the so-called “rule of four,” according to which they will hear a case if only four of them decide that it is a constitutional issue.
For comparison, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) makes 50,162 decisions per semester, of which 41,722 are monocratic (individual) and 8,440 collegial (several or all ministers).
By definition, the U.S. Supreme Court must be insulated from political change, and the justices must be insulated from political pressures when making their decisions.
Americans do not vote on who can serve on the court. As in Brazil, judges are appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.
They hold office for life or until voluntary retirement and can only be removed by impeachment. Congress has attempted impeachment only once, more than 200 years ago, and failed.
Who are the judges?
In practice, the structure of the court means that one of the most important decisions a president can make is the selection of a justice to the court.
Conservatives currently hold a strong majority, with six justices on the court chosen by Republican presidents.
Three of them – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed by Trump.
Republican Presidents George Bush and George W. Bush nominated John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas.
Two of the three Democratic-nominated justices — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — were nominated by Barack Obama. Ketanji Brown Jackson was Biden’s pick.
Politics have played a role in appointments “since the beginning of this country,” says Jonathan Entin, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who researches the Supreme Court.
The instability of today’s politics, however, has changed the dynamics in and around the court.
“Democratic presidents tended to nominate Democrats and Republican presidents tended to nominate Republicans,” he said. “What’s changed is that the parties themselves have become more polarized.”
“People in both parties have started to pay more attention to the progress of politicizing justice,” Entin adds. “So it’s a much more controversial thing than it used to be.”
Two years of monumental decisions
The Court has only had its current composition, with conservatives dominating the bench, since 2022. But in that short time, it has created enormous change in the country, starting with the end of the constitutional right to abortion in June of that year.
Just in the past few weeks, along with presidential immunity, the Supreme Court has ruled that federal prosecutors overreached when they used an obstruction law against those involved in the Jan. 6 coup attempt, struck down a ban on stockpiling guns, and also rejected a conservative effort to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
The court also curtailed and weakened the powers of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, overturning an earlier ruling that judges must defer to federal agencies when interpreting ambiguous parts of the law.
This decision, along with other recent decisions, will transfer many powers from federal agencies to the judiciary.
In 2023, the justices also rejected U.S. President Joe Biden’s proposal to forgive millions in student debt.
And they decided that race-based college admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina could no longer be used, overturning decades-old American policies called affirmative action.
What happens behind the scenes?
The Supreme Court goes to great lengths to protect its internal deliberations: Almost all of its work, such as reading briefs or drafting and releasing decisions, takes place behind closed doors.
Since his trial seems almost impenetrable, the country was shocked when the decision on his trial was made. Roe vs. Wadewhich dealt with abortion, was leaked to the press.
Likewise, face-to-face deliberations are conducted confidentially, without the presence of other employees.
The judges sit around a large table in order of seniority, each equipped with a book and a notebook.
In an interview with the BBC earlier this year, former Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer said that “there is real discussion” about the cases.
Starting with the chief justice, each of them gives their legal opinion on a case and explains why they are – or are not – persuaded by various arguments.
“No one speaks twice until everyone has spoken once,” he said. “If you try to argue by saying, ‘My argument is better than yours,’ it won’t get you anywhere.”
“But if you listen to what other people are saying and pay attention, then you will have a real discussion about the case,” he added.
Change requests
As the Court made important decisions and overturned decades-old rulings, it faced growing accusations of politicization and bias.
In September, according to Gallup, 58 percent of Americans disapproved of the way the Court was doing its job, the highest level in more than 20 years.
Protests over judicial ethics have recently grown louder after reporters investigated Justice Clarence Thomas for failing to declare gifts he received from businessmen and politicians and Justice Samuel Alito’s family for flying flags in their home that were seen as symbols of the Capitol invaders on January 6.
Last year, for the first time in its history, the Court published a code of conduct. But the code lacks any mechanism to enforce it, and many lawmakers are calling for stronger and more far-reaching reforms.
Suggestions have been made for a binding code of ethics, expanding the number of judges in lower courts, creating an independent ethics office, and – most notably – imposing terms of office.
Some have suggested adding more justices, though polls suggest that is widely unpopular among Americans.
Maggie Jo Buchanan, executive director of the reform advocacy group Demand Justice, told the BBC that 18-year term limits could, for example, “depoliticise” the court and make it more balanced and representative of the US population.
“That way, every president would have the same number of nominees,” he said. “That would ensure that the Supreme Court better reflects the will of the people.”
“Supreme Court nominations are politically a fluke right now, whether because of the timing of retirement or an unexpected death,” Buchanan added.
“In a Supreme Court that has so much power over our rules, a one-term president should not have more judicial appointments than a two-term president,” he added.
Other experts have warned that structural changes, many of which would require constitutional amendment, are unlikely to be possible or welcomed.
“It’s a stability issue,” said Clark Neily, senior vice president of legal studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian-leaning think tank based in Washington, D.C.
“There are many arguments for not changing the way a particular institution works, even if there are problems,” he adds.
Neily — who was co-counsel in a 2008 Supreme Court case in which a Washington, D.C. gun law was declared unconstitutional — said that an institution that “has the final say” on the Constitution is likely always going to generate controversy.
“There’s no way around it,” he says. “And I don’t think anyone has actually come forward with a proposal that seems clearly better than what we have now.”
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
