You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States and the head of the federal judiciary, established by Article III of the Constitution. It is the only court the Constitution explicitly creates, and through its self-asserted power of judicial review it has grown into one of the most powerful institutions in American politics — an unelected body of nine justices whose interpretations of the Constitution can override the elected branches and reshape the lives of more than 330 million people. For Edexcel A-Level Politics Component 3, candidates must understand the Court's composition and constitutional basis, the power of judicial review, the intensely political appointment process, the great interpretive debate between originalism and the living constitution, the landmark cases that define modern American rights, the debate over whether the Court is too powerful, and the comparison with the far more constrained UK Supreme Court. Because this topic is dense with case names and dates, accuracy is paramount, and every case below is stated with its correct year.
Article III, Section 1 provides that "the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Article is strikingly brief, leaving Congress to fill in much of the federal judiciary's structure. The essential features of the Court are:
Life tenure is the foundation of the Court's independence and also the source of much controversy. Because justices serve for decades, the President who appoints them can shape constitutional law long after leaving office, and the timing of vacancies — often a matter of chance, illness or strategic retirement — can have outsized consequences for the nation's political direction.
Understanding the Court's procedures helps explain both its power and its limits. The Court does not seek out cases; it must wait for disputes to reach it, and it chooses which to hear. Each year it receives thousands of petitions but agrees to decide only a small fraction. The mechanism of selection is the writ of certiorari: by the informal "rule of four," the Court agrees to hear a case if four of the nine justices vote to do so. This discretionary control over its own docket is itself a significant power, because the Court can decline to disturb a lower-court ruling simply by refusing to take the case, and it can choose to engage a contentious issue at a moment of its own choosing.
When the Court does take a case, the parties submit written briefs and interested third parties may file amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs to bring additional arguments and evidence to the justices' attention — an important channel through which pressure groups seek to influence the law. The justices then hear oral argument, question the advocates, and meet in private conference to vote. One justice is assigned to write the majority opinion, which sets out the Court's reasoning and becomes binding precedent; justices who agree with the outcome but not the reasoning may write concurring opinions, and those who disagree may write dissenting opinions. Dissents carry no legal force, but they matter: a powerful dissent can shape future argument and occasionally becomes the basis for a later reversal, as the long campaign against earlier precedents shows. Because the Court's rulings depend on the executive branch to enforce them and on lower courts and officials to comply, the Court ultimately relies on its legitimacy and the cooperation of others rather than on any power of its own to compel obedience — a subtle but important limit on its authority.
The Court's defining power — judicial review, the authority to declare the acts of the other branches unconstitutional — is not expressly granted by the Constitution. The Court asserted it for itself in the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which Chief Justice John Marshall reasoned that since the Constitution is the supreme law, any statute repugnant to it must be void, and that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." From this single decision flows the Court's vast authority to:
Judicial review makes the Court the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution's meaning, and because the Constitution is so difficult to amend, a Supreme Court ruling on a constitutional question is effectively final unless the Court itself later reverses it or the near-impossible amendment route is travelled. This is what gives the Court its extraordinary power and what makes the philosophy of its justices a matter of such intense national concern, and it is the deepest reason why the appointment of a single justice can be among the most consequential decisions an American President ever makes.
Key Comparison: In the UK, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means the courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament. Under the Human Rights Act 1998 the UK Supreme Court may issue a declaration of incompatibility, signalling that a statute conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights, but Parliament is under no legal obligation to amend the law in response. The contrast is fundamental: the US Supreme Court can nullify legislation outright, whereas its UK counterpart can only advise, leaving the last word with the elected Parliament. This single difference makes the US Court far more powerful relative to its legislature than the UK Court is to Westminster.
When a vacancy arises through death, retirement or resignation, the President nominates a successor. This is one of the most consequential powers a President wields, precisely because justices serve for life and can entrench a President's constitutional outlook for a generation. Presidents therefore choose nominees whose judicial philosophy matches their own: conservative presidents tend to favour originalist judges who read the Constitution narrowly and are reluctant to recognise unenumerated rights, while liberal presidents tend to favour judges sympathetic to a living constitution approach that adapts the text to contemporary values.
The President's choice is only a nomination; the appointment is completed only if the Senate consents. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds public confirmation hearings at which the nominee is questioned — often gruellingly — on their record and views, before the full Senate votes. A simple majority now suffices for confirmation, because in 2017 the Senate deployed the "nuclear option" to remove the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations, lowering the threshold from the 60 votes once needed to a bare majority. This change has made it easier for a President whose party controls the Senate to confirm justices on a near party-line vote, and it has arguably deepened the politicisation of the process.
Modern confirmations have become major political battles, and several features illustrate the point. A Senate controlled by the opposite party can refuse even to hold hearings on a President's nominee, leaving a seat vacant in the hope that the next President will fill it. Nominees can face bitterly contested hearings that turn on ideology or character and end in confirmation by the narrowest of margins. And the timing of nominations relative to elections has itself become a partisan flashpoint. Each contested confirmation reinforces the impression that the Court is a political prize to be captured, which in turn fuels doubts about its legitimacy as a neutral interpreter of law.
The politicisation of appointments has significant consequences that are worth drawing out for evaluation. Because the stakes of each vacancy are so high, presidents increasingly nominate relatively young candidates who can be expected to serve for many decades, maximising the long-term influence of the appointment; the timing of retirements has itself become strategic, with justices conscious that resigning under a like-minded President secures a like-minded successor; and confirmation battles consume enormous political energy and deepen partisan division. Above all, the visibly partisan manner in which justices are appointed sits uneasily with the Court's claim to stand above politics as an impartial guardian of the Constitution. If a justice's likely votes can be predicted from the party of the President who appointed them, critics ask, how can the Court credibly present itself as a neutral legal body rather than a third political chamber? Defenders respond that justices not infrequently surprise the presidents who appointed them, that legal reasoning genuinely constrains outcomes, and that the appointment process, however bruising, confers democratic input on an otherwise unelected institution. This argument about the legitimacy of the Court — neutral arbiter or partisan actor? — is one of the richest available in any essay on the judiciary.
The deepest divide on the Court is philosophical, and understanding it is essential for explaining why the justices' votes are so predictable and why appointments matter so much.
Originalists hold that the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original public meaning at the time it was written or amended, and that judges should not read into it rights or principles that its text and history do not support. The late Antonin Scalia was the leading modern champion of originalism, and Justice Clarence Thomas is its most uncompromising current exponent. Originalism is often paired with judicial restraint, the view that unelected judges should defer to the elected branches and strike down their actions only where the Constitution clearly requires it, leaving contested moral and policy questions to the democratic process. The argument is one of legitimacy: changes to fundamental law, on this view, should come from the people through the amendment process, not from judges imposing their own values.
Living constitutionalists hold that the Constitution is a dynamic document whose broad principles must be applied to circumstances the Founders could not have foreseen, and that its meaning can legitimately evolve with society's changing standards. The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg exemplified this approach, as do Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. This outlook is often associated with judicial activism, a willingness to use judicial power assertively to protect individual rights and to strike down laws the justices find incompatible with constitutional principle, even where the text is not explicit. The argument is one of necessity and justice: a document written in the eighteenth century cannot govern a modern society unless its principles are read flexibly, and the courts must sometimes act to protect minorities whom the majoritarian branches will not.
It is important not to equate "activism" simply with one side of politics: a conservative Court that strikes down precedents and overturns the actions of elected bodies is, by the structural definition, also acting assertively rather than with restraint. The labels describe how boldly the Court uses its power, not merely the direction in which it rules.
These philosophical positions are closely related to two further pairs of terms candidates should command. Strict construction describes a narrow, literal reading of the constitutional text, typically associated with originalism and conservatism, while loose construction describes a broad, purposive reading that finds wider meaning in the text, typically associated with the living-constitution approach and liberalism. The distinction matters because it determines, for instance, how far the vague language of the Constitution — the "due process" clause, the Commerce Clause, the Eighth Amendment's bar on "cruel and unusual" punishment — is read to reach modern situations the Founders never contemplated. A strict constructionist will resist extending such phrases beyond their original understanding; a loose constructionist will read them as living principles capable of growth. Because so much of the Constitution is written in broad language, the choice between these interpretive stances is, in practice, a choice about the substantive content of American law, which is exactly why a President's nominations are scrutinised so closely for the philosophy they embody.
The Court's power is best understood through the cases in which it has reshaped American life. Each is stated below with its verified year; candidates should learn the principle, the year and the significance of each.
| Case | Year | Ruling and Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Brown v. Board of Education | 1954 | Held that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine and helping to catalyse the civil rights movement |
| Obergefell v. Hodges | 2015 | Held that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage, extending equal protection and due process to gay couples nationwide |
| Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard | 2023 | Held that race-conscious admissions in universities are unconstitutional, effectively ending affirmative action in college admissions |
| Case | Year | Ruling and Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | 1803 | Established judicial review — the foundation of the Court's entire authority |
| United States v. Nixon | 1974 | Held that executive privilege is not absolute and cannot shield evidence of wrongdoing, forcing release of the Watergate tapes and affirming that the President is not above the law |
| Case | Year | Ruling and Significance |
|---|---|---|
| McCulloch v. Maryland | 1819 | Established implied powers and national supremacy; states cannot tax federal institutions |
| United States v. Lopez | 1995 | Held that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause powers, reasserting limits on federal authority |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.