13.5 Judicial Decision-Making and Implementation by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's decision-making process is a complex interplay of legal reasoning, precedent, and external influences. From case selection to opinion writing, justices navigate a delicate balance between interpreting the law and considering broader societal implications.

Checks and balances on the Court ensure it remains accountable within the broader system of government. While the executive and legislative branches have various tools to influence the Court, judicial independence remains a cornerstone of its ability to interpret the Constitution and protect individual rights.

Supreme Court Decision-Making Process

Process of Supreme Court cases

Top images from around the web for Process of Supreme Court cases

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Process of Supreme Court cases

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Case selection
  • Writs of certiorari
    • Parties file petitions asking the Supreme Court to review lower court decisions
    • Four justices must agree to hear a case for certiorari to be granted (Rule of Four)
  • Factors influencing case selection
    • Conflict between lower courts on important legal issues (circuit splits)
    • Importance of the legal issue to the nation as a whole
    • Solicitor General's recommendation to hear a case (represents the executive branch)
    • Amicus curiae briefs from interested parties providing additional perspectives on the case
• Deliberation
  • Oral arguments
    • Attorneys for each side present their case and answer justices' questions for 30 minutes each
    • Justices discuss the case and share initial opinions after oral arguments conclude
  • Conference
    • Justices meet privately to discuss the case and cast preliminary votes starting with the Chief Justice
    • Chief Justice assigns opinion writing if in the majority, otherwise the most senior justice in the majority assigns
• Opinion writing
  • Majority opinion
    • Authored by the assigned justice, explains the legal reasoning behind the decision
    • Establishes precedent and becomes binding law for lower courts to follow
  • Concurring opinions
    • Justices who agree with the majority decision but have different legal reasoning
    • Does not carry the same legal weight as the majority opinion
  • Dissenting opinions
    • Justices who disagree with the majority decision explain their reasons for dissent
    • Can influence future cases and signal to lower courts and litigants potential for change

Influences on Court decisions

• Legal precedent
  • Stare decisis
    • Principle of adhering to previous court decisions to provide stability and predictability in the law
    • Justices generally respect precedent to maintain the Court's legitimacy and consistency
  • Distinguishing or overturning precedent
    • Justices may distinguish a case from previous decisions if the facts or legal questions differ significantly
    • Rarely, the Court may overturn precedent if it is deemed incorrect or unworkable (Brown v. Board of Education)
• Public opinion
  • Court decisions can shape public opinion on controversial issues (Roe v. Wade and abortion rights)
  • Public opinion can indirectly influence the Court as justices are aware of public sentiment
    • Justices generally avoid making decisions that significantly deviate from public opinion to maintain legitimacy
    • Controversial decisions can lead to public backlash and calls for Court reform (court-packing plans)
• Political pressures
  • Appointment process
    • Presidents nominate justices who align with their political ideology to shape the Court's direction
    • Senate confirms or rejects nominees, considering their judicial philosophy and qualifications
  • Congressional checks
    • Congress can propose constitutional amendments to overturn Court decisions (11th Amendment and state sovereign immunity)
    • Congress can adjust the Court's jurisdiction or size, though this is rarely used due to separation of powers concerns

Judicial Philosophy and Interpretation

• Constitutional interpretation
  • Originalism: Interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning at the time of ratification
  • Living Constitution: Viewing the Constitution as a document that evolves with changing societal norms and values
• Judicial restraint
  • Approach emphasizing deference to elected branches and avoiding broad constitutional rulings
  • Advocates for narrow decisions and respecting precedent to maintain stability in the law
• Judicial activism
  • Approach involving more assertive use of judicial power to address social or political issues
  • Critics argue it oversteps the Court's role, while supporters see it as necessary for protecting rights
• Judicial review
  • Power of the Court to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive actions
  • Established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), central to the Court's role in the system of checks and balances

Checks and Balances on the Supreme Court

Checks on Court power

• Executive branch checks
  • Appointment power
    • President nominates Supreme Court justices to shape the Court's ideological composition over time
    • Nominations often reflect the president's political priorities and judicial philosophy (conservative or liberal)
  • Enforcement of Court decisions
    • Executive branch is responsible for enforcing Court rulings, giving the president some discretion
    • Presidents may resist or delay enforcement of controversial decisions (desegregation orders after Brown v. Board)
• Legislative branch checks
  • Confirmation power
    • Senate confirms or rejects Supreme Court nominees, influencing the Court's ideological balance
    • Senators consider a nominee's qualifications, judicial philosophy, and potential impact on key issues
  • Constitutional amendments
    • Congress can propose amendments to overturn Court decisions with a two-thirds vote in both houses
    • Amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, a high threshold (26th Amendment and voting age)
  • Jurisdiction stripping
    • Congress can remove certain cases from the Court's jurisdiction through legislation
    • Rarely used due to concerns about separation of powers and the Court's role in protecting rights
  • Impeachment
    • Congress can impeach and remove justices for serious misconduct, though this is extremely rare
    • Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict (Samuel Chase, 1804)
• Judicial independence
  • Life tenure for justices helps insulate the Court from political pressures and ensures long-term stability
  • Salary protection prevents Congress from reducing justices' compensation as a form of retaliation