10.4 The Supreme Court and Public Policy

The Supreme Court's power of judicial review shapes public policy by interpreting the Constitution and striking down unconstitutional laws. This role, often called "legislating from the bench," has far-reaching consequences similar to legislation, guided by precedent and limited to cases brought before it.

Landmark decisions have significantly impacted American life, from civil rights to privacy and social issues. Cases like Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges have transformed society, showcasing the Court's influence on policy beyond the courtroom.

Supreme Court's Policy Influence

Judicial Review and Policy-Making

Top images from around the web for Judicial Review and Policy-Making

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caso Roe vs Wade - Bioeticawiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caso Roe vs Wade - Bioeticawiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Judicial Review and Policy-Making

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caso Roe vs Wade - Bioeticawiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Dual Court System – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caso Roe vs Wade - Bioeticawiki View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• The Supreme Court's power of judicial review allows it to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or executive actions deemed unconstitutional, shaping public policy
• This role in shaping policy is often described as "legislating from the bench" because its decisions can have far-reaching consequences similar to the effects of legislation
• The doctrine of stare decisis compels the Court to follow its own precedents, ensuring consistency and predictability in its policy-making role (e.g., following the precedent set by Roe v. Wade in subsequent abortion cases)
• The Court's policy-making power is limited by the cases and controversies requirement, meaning it can only decide cases brought before it and cannot proactively create policy

Landmark Decisions and Their Impact

• Landmark Supreme Court decisions have significantly impacted various aspects of American life, including civil rights (Brown v. Board of Education), privacy (Roe v. Wade), economic regulation (Citizens United v. FEC), and social issues (Obergefell v. Hodges)
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine, leading to the desegregation of public schools and paving the way for further civil rights advancements
• Roe v. Wade (1973) established a constitutional right to abortion based on the right to privacy, shaping reproductive rights policy for decades
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, marking a significant victory for LGBTQ+ rights and altering the legal definition of marriage

Impact of Supreme Court Decisions

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

• The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in advancing civil rights and civil liberties through its decisions
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) established the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants, transforming the criminal justice system and expanding access to legal representation
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966) required police to inform suspects of their rights before interrogation, protecting individuals against self-incrimination and ensuring due process
• Loving v. Virginia (1967) struck down state laws banning interracial marriage, advancing racial equality and the right to marry

Other Key Policy Areas

• The Supreme Court's decisions have also significantly impacted other policy areas, such as campaign finance, gun rights, and environmental regulation
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010) struck down campaign finance restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions, reshaping the landscape of campaign finance and political speech
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) affirmed an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defense, impacting gun control policies and Second Amendment interpretations
• Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, paving the way for increased federal action on climate change

Supreme Court vs Other Branches

Checks and Balances

• The Supreme Court acts as a check on the legislative and executive branches through its power of judicial review, ensuring that their actions comply with the Constitution
• The President nominates Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms them, allowing both branches to influence the Court's composition and, indirectly, its policy-making decisions
• Congress has the power to amend the Constitution and override Supreme Court decisions, although this is rare due to the difficulty of the amendment process (e.g., the 11th Amendment overriding Chisholm v. Georgia)

Interaction and Influence

• The Supreme Court's decisions can prompt legislative action, as Congress may pass laws to address issues raised by the Court or to clarify its intent in response to a Court ruling (e.g., the Voting Rights Act of 1965 following the Court's decision in Baker v. Carr)
• The executive branch is responsible for enforcing Supreme Court decisions, and presidents may use their discretion in how vigorously they implement the Court's rulings (e.g., President Eisenhower's reluctance to enforce Brown v. Board of Education)
• The Court's interpretation of laws can influence how the executive branch implements policies and regulations (e.g., the Court's interpretation of the Clean Air Act impacting EPA regulations)

Politicization of the Supreme Court

Partisan Nomination Process

• The nomination and confirmation process for Supreme Court justices has become increasingly partisan and contentious, with political ideology playing a significant role in the selection of nominees
• The rise of "litmus tests" for judicial nominees, such as their stance on abortion (Roe v. Wade) or gun rights (District of Columbia v. Heller), has contributed to the perception of the Court as a political institution
• Controversial confirmation hearings, such as those for Robert Bork (1987), Clarence Thomas (1991), and Brett Kavanaugh (2018), have highlighted the political nature of the process

Public Perception and Trust

• The Court's decisions in politically charged cases, such as Bush v. Gore (2000) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), have led to accusations of political bias and eroded public trust in the institution
• Public opinion polls have shown a decline in the Supreme Court's approval ratings and an increase in the perception that the Court is motivated by politics rather than objective legal reasoning
• Proposals for reform, such as implementing term limits for justices or changing the nomination process, have gained traction as a means of depoliticizing the Court and restoring public trust