Federal Institutions

12/22/21, 2:10 PM Federal government of the United States - Wikipedia
Federal government of the United States

The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal
U.S. federal government
government or U.S. government)[a] is the national government of
the United States, a federal republic in North America, composed of
50 states, a federal district (District of Columbia, where the
government is based), five major self-governing territories and
several island possessions. The federal government is composed of
three distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose
powers are vested by the U.S. Constitution in the Congress, the
president and the federal courts, respectively. The powers and duties
of these branches are further defined by acts of Congress, including
the creation of executive departments and courts inferior to the
Supreme Court. Coat of arms
Formation 1789
Founding United States
Contents document Constitution
Naming Jurisdiction United States of

America
History
Website www.usa.gov (http
Legislative branch
s://www.usa.gov/)
Makeup of Congress
House of Representatives Legislative branch
Senate Legislature Congress
Different powers Meeting Capitol
Impeachment of federal officers place
Congressional procedures Executive branch
Powers of Congress Leader President
Congressional oversight
Appointer Electoral College
Executive branch
Headquarters The White House
President
Executive powers and duties Main organ Cabinet
Election, succession, and term limits Departments 15
Veto power, impeachment, and other issues Judicial branch
Vice president Court Supreme Court
Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies
Seat Supreme Court
Judicial branch Building
Overview of the federal judiciary
Relationships between state and federal courts
Budget
Elections and voting
State, tribal, and local governments
See also
President
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States 1/14
Courts
Law
Agencies
States and territories
Works and websites
Notes
References
Further reading
External links
Naming
The full name of the republic is "United States of America". No
other name appears in the Constitution, and this is the name that
appears on money, in treaties, and in legal cases to which it is a
party (e.g. Charles T. Schenck v. United States). The terms
"Government of the United States of America" or "United States
Government" are often used in official documents to represent
the federal government as distinct from the states collectively. In
casual conversation or writing, the term "Federal Government"
is often used, and the term "National Government" is sometimes
used. The terms "Federal" and "National" in government agency Political system of the United States
or program names generally indicate affiliation with the federal
government (e.g. Federal Bureau of Investigation, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service). Because the seat of government is in
Washington, D.C., "Washington" is commonly used as a metonym for the federal government.
History
The United States government is based on the principles of federalism and republicanism, in which power is
shared between the federal government and state governments. The interpretation and execution of these
principles, including what powers the federal government should have and how those powers can be
exercised, have been debated ever since the adoption of the Constitution. Some make a case for expansive
federal powers while others argue for a more limited role for the central government in relation to
individuals, the states, or other recognized entities.
Since the American Civil War, the powers of the federal government have generally expanded greatly,
although there have been periods since that time of legislative branch dominance (e.g., the decades
immediately following the Civil War) or when states' rights proponents have succeeded in limiting federal
power through legislative action, executive prerogative or by a constitutional interpretation by the
courts.[2][3]
One of the theoretical pillars of the U.S. Constitution is the idea of "checks and balances" among the powers
and responsibilities of the three branches of American government: the executive, the legislative, and the
judiciary. For example, while the legislative branch (Congress) has the power to create law, the executive
branch under the president can veto any legislation—an act which, in turn, can be overridden by
Congress.[4] The president nominates judges to the nation's highest judiciary authority, the Supreme Court,
but those nominees must be approved by Congress. The Supreme Court, in turn, can invalidate
unconstitutional laws passed by the Congress. These and other examples are examined in more detail in the
text below.
Legislative branch
The United States Congress, under Article I of the Constitution, is the
legislative branch of the federal government. It is bicameral,
comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Makeup of Congress
House of Representatives
The House currently consists of 435 voting members, each of whom

represents a congressional district. The number of representatives
each state has in the House is based on each state's population as Seal of the U.S. Congress
determined in the most recent United States Census. All 435
representatives serve a two-year term. Each state receives a minimum
of one representative in the House. In order to be elected as a
representative, an individual must be at least 25 years of age, must
have been a U.S. citizen for at least seven years, and must live in the
state that they represent. There is no limit on the number of terms a
representative may serve. In addition to the 435 voting members,
there are 6 non-voting members, consisting of 5 delegates and one
resident commissioner. There is one delegate each from the District The 435 seats of the House
of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the grouped by state
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the resident
commissioner from Puerto Rico.[5]
Senate
In contrast, the Senate is made up of two senators from each state, regardless of population. There are
currently 100 senators (2 from each of the 50 states), who each serve six-year terms. Approximately one-
third of the Senate stands for election every two years.
Different powers
The House and Senate each have particular exclusive powers. For example, the Senate must approve (give
"advice and consent" to) many important presidential appointments, including cabinet officers, federal
judges (including nominees to the Supreme Court), department secretaries (heads of federal executive
branch departments), U.S. military and naval officers, and ambassadors to foreign countries. All legislative
bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The approval of both chambers is
required to pass all legislation, which then may only become law by being signed by the president (or, if the
president vetoes the bill, both houses of Congress then re-pass the bill, but by a two-thirds majority of each
chamber, in which case the bill becomes law without the president's signature). The powers of Congress are
limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
The Constitution also includes the "Necessary and Proper Clause", which grants Congress the power to
"make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers".
Members of the House and Senate are elected by first-past-the-post voting in every state except Louisiana
and Georgia, which have runoffs, and Maine and Alaska, which use ranked-choice voting.
Impeachment of federal officers
Congress has the power to remove the president, federal judges, and other federal officers from office. The
House of Representatives and Senate have separate roles in this process. The House must first vote to
"impeach" the official. Then, a trial is held in the Senate to decide whether the official should be removed
from office. As of 2019, three presidents have been impeached by the House of Representatives: Andrew
Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (twice). None of the three were removed from office following
trial in the Senate.[6]
Congressional procedures
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives each chamber the power to "determine the
rules of its proceedings". From this provision were created congressional committees, which do the work of
drafting legislation and conducting congressional investigations into national matters. The 108th Congress
(2003–2005) had 19 standing committees in the House and 17 in the Senate, plus 4 joint permanent
committees with members from both houses overseeing the Library of Congress, printing, taxation, and the
economy. In addition, each house may name special, or select, committees to study specific problems.
Today, much of the congressional workload is borne by the subcommittees, of which there are around 150.
Powers of Congress
The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. Enumerated

in Article I, Section 8, these include the powers to levy and collect
taxes; to coin money and regulate its value; provide for punishment
for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads, issue patents,
create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, combat piracies
and felonies, declare war, raise and support armies, provide and
maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval The United States Capitol is the
forces, provide for, arm and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive seat of government for Congress.
legislation in the District of Columbia, regulate interstate commerce,
and to make laws necessary to properly execute powers. Over the
two centuries since the United States was formed, many disputes have arisen over the limits on the powers
of the federal government. These disputes have often been the subject of lawsuits that have ultimately been
decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Congressional oversight
Congressional oversight is intended to prevent waste and fraud, protect civil liberties and individual rights,
ensure executive compliance with the law, gather information for making laws and educating the public, and
evaluate executive performance.[7]
It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency.
Congress's oversight function takes many forms:
Committee inquiries and hearings

Formal consultations with and reports from the president
Senate advice and consent for presidential nominations and for treaties
House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials
House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment if the president becomes disabled
or if the office of the vice president falls vacant
Informal meetings between legislators and executive officials
Congressional membership: each state is allocated a number of seats based on its
representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D.C.) in the House of
Representatives. Each state is allocated two senators regardless of its population. As of

January 2010, the District of Columbia elects a non-voting representative to the House of
Representatives along with American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and
the Northern Mariana Islands.
Executive branch
President
Executive powers and duties
The executive branch is established in Article Two of the United

States Constitution, which vests executive power in a president
of the United States.[8][9] The president is both the head of state
(performing ceremonial functions) and the head of government Joe Biden
Kamala Harris
(the chief executive).[10] The Constitution directs the president to 46th President 49th Vice President
[9]
"take care that the laws be faithfully executed" and requires the since January 20, 2021
president to swear or affirm to "preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States."[11] Legal scholars William P.
Marshall and Saikrishna B. Prakash write of the Clause: "the President may
neither breach federal law nor order his or her subordinates to do so, for
defiance cannot be considered faithful execution. The Constitution also
incorporates the English bars on dispensing or suspending the law, with
some supposing that the Clause itself prohibits both."[12] Many presidential
actions are undertaken via executive orders, presidential proclamations, and
presidential memoranda.[13]
The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.[9][14] Under

the Reception Clause, the president is empowered to "receive Ambassadors
Seal of the president of the
and other public Ministers"; the president has broad authority to conduct
United States
foreign relations, is generally considered to have the sole power of
diplomatic recognition,[9][15] and is the United States' chief diplomat,[15]
although the Congress also has an important role in legislating on foreign affairs,[9][15] and can, for example,
"institute a trade embargo, declare war upon a foreign government that the President had recognized, or
decline to appropriate funds for an embassy in that country."[15] The president may also negotiate and sign
treaties, but ratifying treaties requires the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.[16]
Article II's Appointments Clause provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice
and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the
supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States" while providing that "Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law,
or in the Heads of Departments."[17] These appointments delegate "by legal authority a portion of the
sovereign powers of the federal government."[18]
The Constitution grants the president the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the
United States, except in Cases of Impeachment"; this clemency power includes the power to issue absolute
or conditional pardons, and to issue commute sentences, to remit fines, and to issue general amnesties.[19]
The presidential clemency power extends only to federal crimes, and not to state crimes.[20]
The president has informal powers beyond his or her formal powers. For example, the president has major
agenda-setting powers to influence lawmaking and policymaking,[21] and typically has a major role as the
leader of his or her political party.[22]
Election, succession, and term limits
The president and vice president are normally elected as running mates by the Electoral College; each state
has a number of electoral votes equal to the size of its Congressional delegation (i.e., its number of
Representatives in the House plus its two Senators). (The District of Columbia has a number of electoral
votes "equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would
be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State").[8][23] A President may also
be seated by succession. As originally drafted, there was no limit to the time a President could serve,
however the Twenty-second Amendment, ratified in 1951, originally limits any president to serving two
four-year terms (8 years); the amendment specifically "caps the service of a president at 10 years" by
providing that "if a person succeeds to the office of president without election and serves less than two
years, he may run for two full terms; otherwise, a person succeeding to office of president can serve no more
than a single elected term."[24][25]
Veto power, impeachment, and other issues
Under the Presentment Clause of Article I, a bill that passes both chambers of Congress shall be presented to
the president, who may sign the bill into law or veto the bill by returning it to the chamber where it
originated.[26] If the president neither signs nor vetoes a bill "within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it
shall have been presented to him" it becomes a law without the president's signature, "unless the Congress
by their Adjournment prevent its Return in which Case it shall not be a Law" (called a pocket veto).[26] A
presidential veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress vote to override the
veto;[26] this occurs relatively infrequently.[27]
The president may be impeached by a majority in the House and

removed from office by a two-thirds majority in the Senate for
"treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".
The president may not dissolve Congress, but has the power to
adjourn Congress whenever the House and Senate cannot agree when
to adjourn; no president has ever used this power.[12] The president
also has the constitutional power to, "on extraordinary Occasions,
convene both Houses, or either of them"; this power has been used "
to consider nominations, war, and emergency legislation."[12] This
Section invests the President with the discretion to convene Congress
on “extraordinary occasions"; this special session power that has
been used to call the chambers to consider urgent matters.[12]
Vice president
Uncle Sam, a common
personification of the United States The vice president is the second-
Federal Government highest official in rank of the federal
government. The vice president's
duties and powers are established in
the legislative branch of the federal government under Article 1, Section 3,
Clauses 4 and 5 as the president of the Senate; this means that they are the
designated presiding officer of the Senate. In that capacity, the vice
president has the authority (ex officio, for they are not an elected member of
the Senate) to cast a tie-breaking vote. Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment,
the vice president presides over the joint session of Congress when it Seal of the vice president of
convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College. As first in the U.S. the United States
presidential line of succession, the vice president's duties and powers move
to the executive branch when becoming president upon the death,
resignation, or removal of the president, which has happened nine times in U.S. history. Lastly, in the case of
a Twenty-fifth Amendment succession event, the vice president would become acting president, assuming
all of the powers and duties of president, except being designated as president. Accordingly, by
circumstances, the Constitution designates the vice president as routinely in the legislative branch, or
succeeding to the executive branch as president, or possibly being in both as acting president pursuant to the
Twenty-fifth Amendment. Because of circumstances, the overlapping nature of the duties and powers
attributed to the office, the title of the office and other matters, such has generated a spirited scholarly
dispute regarding attaching an exclusive branch designation to the office of vice president.[28][29]
Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies
The daily enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of the various federal executive
departments, created by Congress to deal with specific areas of national and international affairs. The heads
of the 15 departments, chosen by the president and approved with the "advice and consent" of the U.S.
Senate, form a council of advisers generally known as the president's "Cabinet". Once confirmed, these
"cabinet officers" serve at the pleasure of the president. In addition to departments, a number of staff
organizations are grouped into the Executive Office of the President. These include the White House staff,
the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers,
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The employees in these United
States government agencies are called federal civil servants.
There are also independent agencies such as the United States Postal Service (USPS), the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In
addition, there are government-owned corporations such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
Judicial branch
The Judiciary, under Article III of the Constitution, explains and applies the laws. This branch does this by
hearing and eventually making decisions on various legal cases.
Overview of the federal judiciary
Article III section I of the Constitution establishes the Supreme Court of the
United States and authorizes the United States Congress to establish
inferior courts as their need shall arise. Section I also establishes a lifetime
tenure for all federal judges and states that their compensation may not be
diminished during their time in office. Article II section II establishes that
all federal judges are to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the
United States Senate.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 subdivided the nation jurisdictionally into

judicial districts and created federal courts for each district. The three tiered Seal of the U.S. Supreme
structure of this act established the basic structure of the national judiciary: Court
the Supreme Court, 13 courts of appeals, 94 district courts, and two courts
of special jurisdiction. Congress retains the power to re-organize or even
abolish federal courts lower than the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court decides "cases and controversies"—matters pertaining to the federal government,
disputes between states, and interpretation of the United States Constitution, and, in general, can declare
legislation or executive action made at any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law
and creating precedent for future law and decisions. The United States Constitution does not specifically
mention the power of judicial review (the power to declare a law unconstitutional). The power of judicial
review was asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark Supreme Court Case Marbury v. Madison
(1803). There have been instances in the past where such declarations have been ignored by the other two
branches. Below the U.S. Supreme Court are the United States Courts of Appeals, and below them in turn
are the United States District Courts, which are the general trial courts for federal law, and for certain
controversies between litigants who are not deemed citizens of the same state ("diversity jurisdiction").
There are three levels of federal courts with general jurisdiction, meaning that these courts handle criminal
cases and civil lawsuits between individuals. Other courts, such as the bankruptcy courts and the Tax Court,
are specialized courts handling only certain kinds of cases ("subject matter jurisdiction"). The Bankruptcy
Courts are "under" the supervision of the district courts, and, as such, are not considered part of the "Article
III" judiciary. Also as such, their judges do not have lifetime tenure, nor are they Constitutionally exempt
from diminution of their remuneration.[30] The Tax Court is not an Article III court (but is, instead an
"Article I Court").[31]
The district courts are the trial courts wherein cases that are considered under the Judicial Code (Title 28,
United States Code) consistent with the jurisdictional precepts of "federal question jurisdiction" and
"diversity jurisdiction" and "pendent jurisdiction" can be filed and decided. The district courts can also hear
cases under "removal jurisdiction", wherein a case brought in State court meets the requirements for
diversity jurisdiction, and one party litigant chooses to "remove" the case from state court to federal court.
The United States Courts of Appeals are appellate courts that hear appeals of cases decided by the district
courts, and some direct appeals from administrative agencies, and some interlocutory appeals. The U.S.
Supreme Court hears appeals from the decisions of the courts of appeals or state supreme courts, and in
addition has original jurisdiction over a few cases.
The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, an Act of Congress; a U.S. treaty; cases
affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls of foreign countries in the U.S.; cases and controversies to
which the federal government is a party; controversies between states (or their citizens) and foreign nations
(or their citizens or subjects); and bankruptcy cases (collectively "federal-question jurisdiction"). The
Eleventh Amendment removed from federal jurisdiction cases in which citizens of one state were the
plaintiffs and the government of another state was the defendant. It did not disturb federal jurisdiction in
cases in which a state government is a plaintiff and a citizen of another state the defendant.
The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal
cases arising under federal law. The interplay of the Supremacy Clause and Article III has resulted in a
complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Federal courts can sometimes hear cases
arising under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, state courts can decide certain matters involving
federal law, and a handful of federal claims are primarily reserved by federal statute to the state courts (for
example, those arising from the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Both court systems thus can
be said to have exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and concurrent jurisdiction in others.
The U.S. Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office
"during good behavior"; in practice, this usually means they serve until they die, retire, or resign. A judge
who commits an offense while in office may be impeached in the same way as the president or other
officials of the federal government. U.S. judges are appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by
the Senate. Another Constitutional provision prohibits Congress from reducing the pay of any Article III
judge (Congress is able to set a lower salary for all future judges that take office after the reduction, but may
not decrease the rate of pay for judges already in office).
Relationships between state and federal courts
Separate from, but not entirely independent of, this federal court system are the court systems of each state,
each dealing with, in addition to federal law when not deemed preempted, a state's own laws, and having its
own court rules and procedures. Although state governments and the federal government are legally dual
sovereigns, the Supreme Court of the United States is in many cases the appellate court from the State
Supreme Courts (e.g., absent the Court countenancing the applicability of the doctrine of adequate and
independent State grounds). The Supreme Courts of each state are by this doctrine the final authority on the
interpretation of the applicable state's laws and Constitution. Many state constitution provisions are equal in
breadth to those of the U.S. Constitution, but are considered "parallel" (thus, where, for example, the right to
privacy pursuant to a state constitution is broader than the federal right to privacy, and the asserted ground is
explicitly held to be "independent", the question can be finally decided in a State Supreme Court—the U.S.
Supreme Court will decline to take jurisdiction).
A State Supreme Court, other than of its own accord, is bound only by the U.S. Supreme Court's
interpretation of federal law, but is not bound by interpretation of federal law by the federal court of appeals
for the federal circuit in which the state is included, or even the federal district courts located in the state, a
result of the dual sovereigns concept. Conversely, a federal district court hearing a matter involving only a
question of state law (usually through diversity jurisdiction) must apply the substantive law of the state in
which the court sits, a result of the application of the Erie Doctrine; however, at the same time, the case is
heard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal
Rules of Evidence instead of state procedural rules (that is, the application of the Erie Doctrine only extends
to a requirement that a federal court asserting diversity jurisdiction apply substantive state law, but not
procedural state law, which may be different). Together, the laws of the federal and state governments form
U.S. law.
Budget
The budget document often begins with the
president's proposal to Congress
recommending funding levels for the next
fiscal year, beginning October 1 and ending
on September 30 of the year following. The
fiscal year refers to the year in which it ends.
For fiscal year (FY) 2018, the federal

government spent $4.11 trillion. Spending
equalled 20.3% of gross domestic product
(GDP), equal to the 50-year average.[32] The
deficit equalled $779 billion, 3.8 percent of
GDP. Tax revenue amounted to
$3.33 trillion, with receipt categories
including individual income taxes ($1,684B
or 51%), Social Security/Social Insurance
taxes ($1,171B or 35%), and corporate taxes ($205B or 6%).[32]
Elections and voting

Suffrage, known as the ability to vote, has changed significantly over time. In the early years of the United
States, voting was considered a matter for state governments, and was commonly restricted to white men
who owned land. Direct elections were mostly held only for the U.S. House of Representatives and state
legislatures, although what specific bodies were elected by the electorate varied from state to state. Under
this original system, both senators representing each state in the U.S. Senate were chosen by a majority vote
of the state legislature. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth

Amendment in 1913, members of both houses of Congress have been
directly elected. Today, U.S. citizens have almost universal suffrage
under equal protection of the laws[33] from the age of 18,[34]
regardless of race,[35] gender,[36] or wealth.[37] The only significant
exception to this is the disenfranchisement of convicted felons, and in
some states former felons as well.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the representation of U.S. territories and

the federal district of District of Columbia in Congress is limited:
Diagram of the Federal Government
while residents of the District of Columbia are subject to federal laws
and American Union, 1862
and federal taxes, their only congressional representative is a non-
voting delegate; however, they have participated in presidential
elections since March 29, 1961.[38]
Residents of Puerto Rico other than federal employees do not pay federal personal income taxes on income
that has its source in Puerto Rico,[39][40] and do not pay most federal excise taxes (for example, the federal
gasoline tax);[40] however, Puerto Ricans pay all other federal taxes, including the federal payroll taxes that
fund Social Security and Medicare; the FUTA tax; and business, gift, and estate taxes.[40][39] Puerto Rico is
represented in the Congress by a nonvoting Resident Commissioner, a nonvoting delegate.[41]
State, tribal, and local governments

State governments have the greatest influence over most Americans'
daily lives. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government
from exercising any power not delegated to it by the Constitution; as
a result, states handle the majority of issues most relevant to
individuals within their jurisdiction. Because state governments are
not authorized to print currency, they generally have to raise revenue
through either taxes or bonds. As a result, state governments tend to
impose severe budget cuts or raise taxes any time the economy is
The states of the United States as
faltering.[42]
divided into counties (or, in
Louisiana and Alaska, parishes and
Each state has its own written constitution, government and code of
boroughs, respectively). Alaska and
laws. The Constitution stipulates only that each state must have, "a
Hawaii are not to scale and the
Republican Government". Therefore, there are often great differences
Aleutian and uninhabited
in law and procedure between individual states, concerning issues
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands
such as property, crime, health and education, amongst others. The
have been omitted.
highest elected official of each state is the Governor, with below him
being the Lieutenant Governor. Each state also has an elected state
legislature (bicameralism is a feature of every state except Nebraska), whose members represent the voters
of the state. Each state maintains its own state court system. In some states, supreme and lower court justices
are elected by the people; in others, they are appointed, as they are in the federal system.
As a result of the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, American Indian tribes are considered
"domestic dependent nations" that operate as sovereign governments subject to federal authority but, in
some cases, outside of the jurisdiction of state governments. Hundreds of laws, executive orders and court
cases have modified the governmental status of tribes vis-à-vis individual states, but the two have continued
to be recognized as separate bodies. Tribal governments vary in robustness, from a simple council used to
manage all aspects of tribal affairs, to large and complex bureaucracies with several branches of
government. Tribes are currently encouraged to form their own governments, with power resting in elected
tribal councils, elected tribal chairpersons, or religiously appointed leaders (as is the case with pueblos).
Tribal citizenship and voting rights are typically restricted to individuals of native descent, but tribes are free
to set whatever citizenship requirements they wish.
The institutions that are responsible for local government within states are typically town, city, or county
boards, water management districts, fire management districts, library districts and other similar
governmental units which make laws that affect their particular area. These laws concern issues such as
traffic, the sale of alcohol and the keeping of animals. The highest elected official of a town or city is usually
the mayor. In New England, towns operate in a direct democratic fashion, and in some states, such as Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and some parts of Massachusetts, counties have little or no power, existing only as
geographic distinctions. In other areas, county governments have more power, such as to collect taxes and
maintain law enforcement agencies.
See also
President Law States and territories

Executive Office U.S. Code Political divisions
Line-item veto U.S. territory
Agencies
Courts Works and websites
Federal
District courts agencies Business.gov
Federal courts Copyright status of work by the U.S.
Federal judicial government
circuit USA.gov
Notes
a. The U.S. Government Publishing Office specifies the capitalization of Federal Government, in
regards to the national government of the United States, as a proper noun.[1]
References
1. "3" (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUA
L-2016.pdf) (PDF). U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual (2016 ed.). U.S.
Government Publishing Office. 2016. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-16-093601-2. Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20180729022842/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2
016/pdf/GPO-STYLEMANUAL-2016.pdf) (PDF) from the original on July 29, 2018. Retrieved
July 29, 2018.
2. Ford, Henry Jones (1908). "The Influence of State Politics in Expanding Federal Power".
Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. 5: 53–63. doi:10.2307/3038511 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.2307%2F3038511). JSTOR 3038511 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3038511).
3. Judge Rules Favorably in Pennsylvania BRAC Suit (Associated Press, August 26) (http://www.
ngaus.org/index.asp?downloadid=166)
4. 'The Legislative Branch' "The Legislative Branch" (https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/our-g
overnment/legislative-branch). whitehouse.gov. Retrieved January 20, 2013 – via National
Archives. Retrieved on January 20, 2013
5. U.S. House Official Website House.gov (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_Stat
e.shtml) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080828203008/http://www.house.gov/house/
MemberWWW_by_State.shtml) August 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved on
August 17, 2008
6. "Trump impeachment: A very simple guide" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-3994

5744). BBC News. December 19, 2019. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201912191249
26/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39945744) from the original on December 19,
2019. Retrieved December 20, 2019.
7. Kaiser, Frederick M. (January 3, 2006). "Congressional Oversight" (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mis
c/97-936.pdf) (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Retrieved July 30, 2008.
8. Article II, Constitution of the United States of America
9. "Nature and Scope of Presidential Power" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/articl
e-2/section-1/clause-1). U.S. Constitution Annotated. Congressional Research Service – via
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute.
10. Daniel W. Drezner (August 4, 2019). "America's head of state, M.I.A." (https://www.washington
post.com/outlook/2019/08/04/americas-head-state-mia/) Washington Post.
11. "Article 2, Section I, Clause 8: Oath of Office" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/a
rticle-2/section-1/clause-8). U.S. Constitution Annotated. Congressional Research Service –
via Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute.
12. William P. Marshall & Saikrishna B. Prakash, Article II, Section 3: Common Interpretation (http
s://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/348), National
Constitution Center (2021).
13. "Executive Order, Proclamation, or Executive Memorandum?" (https://guides.loc.gov/executive
-orders/order-proclamation-memorandum). Executive Orders: A Beginner's Guide. Library of
Congress Research Guide. 2020.
14. "ArtII.S2.C1.1.2 Commander in Chief Power: Doctrine and Practice" (https://constitution.congre
ss.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C1-1-2/ALDE_00001128/). Constitution of the United States of
America: Analysis and Interpretation. Congressional Research Service.
15. Wilfred E. Binkley (1959). The Man in the White House: His Powers and Duties (paperback
2009 ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 247–57.
16. "ArtII.S2.C2.1 The Treaty Making Power" (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-
S2-C2-1/ALDE_00001135/). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and
Interpretation. Congressional Research Service.
17. "ArtII.S2.C2.2.1.1 Appointing Ambassadors, Ministers, and Consuls" (https://constitution.congr
ess.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-2-1-1/ALDE_00001136/). Constitution of the United States
of America: Analysis and Interpretation. Congressional Research Service.
18. Steven G. Bradbury (April 16, 2007). Offices of the United States Within the Meaning of the
Appointments Clause (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/201
5/05/29/op-olc-v031-p0083.pdf) (PDF). United States Department of Justice Office of Legal
Counsel.
19. "ArtII.S2.C1.3.1.1 Scope of the Pardon Power" (https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essa
y/artII-S2-C1-3-1-1/ALDE_00001132/). Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis
and Interpretation. Congressional Research Service.
20. Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Hernandez Stroud & Josh Bell (January 9, 2021). "Explainer:
Presidential Pardon Power Explained" (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-repo
rts/presidential-pardon-power-explained). Brennan Center for Justice.
21. Paul E. Rutledge & Heather A. Larsen (August 2014). "The President as Agenda Setter‐in‐
Chief: The Dynamics of Congressional and Presidential Agenda Setting" (https://onlinelibrary.w
iley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12068). Policy Studies Journal. 42 (3): 443–464.
doi:10.1111/psj.12068 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fpsj.12068).
22. James W. Davis (1992). The President as Party Leader. Praeger.
23. Amendment XXIII to the United States Constitution
24. Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution
25. Michael Levy, Twenty-second Amendment: United States Constitution (https://www.britannica.c
om/topic/Twenty-second-Amendment), Encyclopedia Britannica (2010).
26. "U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clauses 1–3: The Legislative Process" (https://www.law.
cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-7/clause-1-3). Legal Information Institute.
27. "Presidential Vetoes: Washington to Biden" (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/pr
esidential-vetoes). American Presidency Project. University of California, Santa Barbara.
January 8, 2021.
28. Goldstein, Joel K. (1995). "The New Constitutional Vice Presidency". Wake Forest Law
Review. 30 (505).
29. Reynolds, Glenn Harlan (2007). "Is Dick Cheney Unconstitutional?". Northwestern University
Law Review Colloquy. 102 (110).
30. Federal tribunals in the United States
31. United States Tax Court
32. CBO Monthly Budget Review-November 2018 (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54647)
33. Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
34. Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
35. Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
36. Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
37. Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
38. Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution
39. Alexia Fernández Campbell, Puerto Rico pays taxes. The US is obligated to help it just as
much as Texas and Florida. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16385658/puer
to-rico-taxes-hurricane), Vox (October 4, 2017).
40. David L. Brumbaugh, U.S. Federal Taxes in Puerto Rico (https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20001030_RS20718_4a32936564b243cc9d9a36eb089a3b9db598cee0.pdf), Congressional
Research Service (October 30, 2000).
41. Christopher M. Davis, Parliamentary Rights of the Delegates and Resident Commissioner from
Puerto Rico (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40170.pdf), Congressional Research Service
(October 16, 2019).
42. "A brief overview of state fiscal conditions and the effects of federal policies on state budgets"
(http://www.cbpp.org/10-22-03sfp4.pdf) (PDF). Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. May 12,
2004. Retrieved July 30, 2008.
Further reading
Greenstein, Fred I. et al. Evolution of the modern presidency : a bibliographical survey (1977)
bibliography and annotation of 2500 scholarly books and articles. online (https://archive.org/det
ails/evolutionofmoder0000gree)4
Wood, Gordon S. (1998). The creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787. Gordon S.
Wood, Institute of Early American History and Culture (Williamsburg, Va.). p. 653. ISBN 978-0-
8078-2422-1.
External links
USA.gov (https://www.usa.gov/), the official U.S. Government portal.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Federal_government_of_the_United_States&oldid=1058701957"
This page was last edited on 5 December 2021, at 03:03 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
12/22/21, 2:10 PM Internet Engineering Task Force - Wikipedia
Internet Engineering Task Force

The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is an open standards
organization, which develops and promotes voluntary Internet Internet Engineering Task
standards, in particular the technical standards that comprise the Force
Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP).[3] It has no formal membership
roster or membership requirements. All participants and managers
are volunteers, though their work is usually funded by their
employers or sponsors.
The IETF started out as an activity supported by the federal

government of the United States, but since 1993 it has operated as a
Abbreviation IETF[1]
standards-development function under the auspices of the Internet
Society, an international membership-based non-profit organization. Formation January 14, 1986[2]
Type Non-profit
Standards
Contents organization
Organization Purpose Creating voluntary

Steering group standards to
Early leadership and administrative history maintain and
improve the
Meetings
usability and
Operations interoperability of
Chairs the Internet.
Topics of interest Parent Internet Society
Automated network management organization
Internet of things Website ietf.org (https://ietf.o
New transport technology rg/)
IETF areas
Token Binding Protocol
See also
References
External links
Organization
The IETF is organized into a large number of working groups and birds of a feather informal discussion
groups, each dealing with a specific topic. The IETF operates in a bottom-up task creation mode, largely
driven by these working groups.[2] Each working group has an appointed chairperson (or sometimes several
co-chairs); a charter that describes its focus; and what it is expected to produce, and when. It is open to all
who want to participate and holds discussions on an open mailing list or at IETF meetings, where the entry
fee in July 2014 was US$650 per person.[4] As of mid-2018 the fees are: early bird $700, late payment $875,
student $150 and a one-day pass for $375.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Engineering_Task_Force 1/8
Rough consensus is the primary basis for decision making. There are no formal voting procedures. Because
the majority of the IETF's work is done via mailing lists, meeting attendance is not required for contributors.
Each working group is intended to complete work on its topic and then disband. In some cases, the working
group will instead have its charter updated to take on new tasks as appropriate.[2]
The working groups are organized into areas by subject matter. Current areas are Applications, General,
Internet, Operations and Management, Real-time Applications and Infrastructure, Routing, Security, and
Transport.[5] Each area is overseen by an area director (AD), with most areas having two co-ADs. The ADs
are responsible for appointing working group chairs. The area directors, together with the IETF Chair, form
the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), which is responsible for the overall operation of the IETF.
The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) oversees the IETF's external relationships and relations with the RFC
Editor.[6] The IAB provides long-range technical direction for Internet development. The IAB is also jointly
responsible for the IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC), which oversees the IETF
Administrative Support Activity (IASA), which provides logistical, etc. support for the IETF. The IAB also
manages the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), with which the IETF has a number of cross-group
relations.
A Nominating Committee (NomCom) of ten randomly chosen volunteers who participate regularly at
meetings is vested with the power to appoint, reappoint, and remove members of the IESG, IAB, IASA, and
the IAOC.[7] To date, no one has been removed by a NomCom, although several people have resigned their
positions, requiring replacements.
In 1993 the IETF changed from an activity supported by the US Federal Government to an independent,
international activity associated with the Internet Society, an international membership-based non-profit
organization.[8] Because the IETF itself does not have members, nor is it an organization per se, the Internet
Society provides the financial and legal framework for the activities of the IETF and its sister bodies (IAB,
IRTF). IETF activities are funded by meeting fees, meeting sponsors and by the Internet Society via its
organizational membership and the proceeds of the Public Interest Registry.[9]
In December 2005 the IETF Trust was established to manage the copyrighted materials produced by the
IETF.[10]
Steering group
The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is a body composed of the Internet Engineering Task
Force (IETF) chair and area directors.
It provides the final technical review of Internet standards and is
responsible for day-to-day management of the IETF. It receives appeals of the decisions of the working
groups, and the IESG makes the decision to progress documents in the standards track.[11]
The chair of the IESG is the director of the General Area, who also serves as the overall IETF Chair.
Members of the IESG include the two directors of each of the following areas:[12]
Applications Area (app)

Internet Area (int)
Operations & Network Management Area (ops)
Routing Area (rtg)
Real-time Applications and Infrastructure Area (rai)
Security Area (sec)
Transport and Services Area (tsv) – frequently also referred to as the "Transport Area"
Liaison and ex officio members include:
IETF Executive Director

Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Chair
Appointed Liaison from the IAB
Liaison from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
Liaison from the Request for Comments (RFC) Editor
Early leadership and administrative history

The Gateway Algorithms and Data Structures (GADS) Task Force was the precursor to the IETF. Its
chairman was David L. Mills of the University of Delaware.[13]
In January of 1986, the Internet Activities Board (IAB; now called the Internet Architecture Board) decided
to divide GADS into two entities: an Internet Architecture (INARC) Task Force chaired by Miller to pursue
research goals, and the IETF to handle nearer-term engineering and technology transfer issues.[13] The first
IETF chair was Mike Corrigan, who was then the technical program manager for the Defense Data Network
(DDN).[13] Also in 1986, after leaving DARPA, Robert E. Kahn founded the Corporation for National
Research Initiatives (CNRI), which began providing administrative support to the IETF.
In 1987, Corrigan was succeeded as IETF chair by Phill Gross.[14]
Effective March 1, 1989, but providing support dating back to late 1988, CNRI and NSF entered into a
Cooperative Agreement No. NCR-8820945, wherein CNRI agreed to create and provide a "secretariat" for
the "overall coordination, management and support of the work of the IAB, its various task forces and,
particularly, the IETF."[15]
In 1992, CNRI supported the formation and early funding of the Internet Society, which took on the IETF as
a fiscally sponsored project, along with the IAB, the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and the
organization of annual INET meetings. Phill Gross continued to serve as IETF chair throughout this
transition. Cerf, Kahn, and Lyman Chapin announced the formation of ISOC as "a professional society to
facilitate, support, and promote the evolution and growth of the Internet as a global research
communications infrastructure".[16] At the first board meeting of the Internet Society, Vint Cerf,
representing CNRI, offered, "In the event a deficit occurs, CNRI has agreed to contribute up to USD102000
to offset it."[17] In 1993, Cerf continued to support the formation of ISOC while working for CNRI,[18] and
the role of ISOC in "the official procedures for creating and documenting Internet Standards" was codified
in the IETF's RFC 1602 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1602).[19]
In 1995, IETF's RFC 2031 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2031) describes ISOC's role in the IETF

as being purely administrative, and ISOC as having "no influence whatsoever on the Internet Standards
process, the Internet Standards or their technical content".[20]
In 1998, CNRI established Foretec Seminars, Inc. (Foretec), a for-profit subsidiary to take over providing
Secretariat services to the IETF.[15] Foretec provided these services until at least 2004.[15] By 2013, Foretec
was dissolved.[21]
In 2003, IETF's RFC 3677 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3677) described IETFs role in appointing

3 board members to the ISOC's Board of Directors.[22]
In 2018, ISOC established The IETF Administration LLC, a separate LLC to handle the administration of
the IETF.[23] In 2019, the LLC issued a call for proposals to provide secretariat services to the IETF.[24]
Meetings
The first IETF meeting was attended by 21 US Federal Government-funded researchers on 16 January 1986.
It was a continuation of the work of the earlier GADS Task Force. Representatives from non-governmental
entities (such as gateway vendors[25]) were invited to attend starting with the fourth IETF meeting in
October 1986. Since that time all IETF meetings have been open to the public.[2]
Initially, the IETF met quarterly, but from 1991, it has been meeting three times a year. The initial meetings
were very small, with fewer than 35 people in attendance at each of the first five meetings. The maximum
attendance during the first 13 meetings was only 120 attendees. This occurred at the 12th meeting held
during January 1989. These meetings have grown in both participation and scope a great deal since the early
1990s; it had a maximum attendance of 2,810 at the December 2000 IETF held in San Diego, California.
Attendance declined with industry restructuring during the early 2000s, and is currently around 1,200.[26][2]
The location for IETF meetings vary greatly. A list of past and future meeting locations can be found on the
IETF meetings page.[27] The IETF strives to hold its meetings near where most of the IETF volunteers are
located. For many years, the goal was three meetings a year, with two in North America and one in either
Europe or Asia, alternating between them every other year. The current goal is to hold three meetings in
North America, two in Europe and one in Asia during a two-year period. However, corporate sponsorship of
the meetings is also an important factor and the schedule has been modified from time to time in order to
decrease operational costs.
The IETF also organizes hackathons during the IETF meetings. The focus is on implementing code that will
improve standards in terms of quality and interoperability.[28]
Operations
The details of IETF operations have changed considerably as the organization has grown, but the basic
mechanism remains publication of proposed specifications, development based on the proposals, review and
independent testing by participants, and republication as a revised proposal, a draft proposal, or eventually
as an Internet Standard. IETF standards are developed in an open, all-inclusive process in which any
interested individual can participate. All IETF documents are freely available over the Internet and can be
reproduced at will. Multiple, working, useful, interoperable implementations are the chief requirement
before an IETF proposed specification can become a standard.[2] Most specifications are focused on single
protocols rather than tightly interlocked systems. This has allowed the protocols to be used in many different
systems, and its standards are routinely re-used by bodies which create full-fledged architectures (e.g. 3GPP
IMS).
Because it relies on volunteers and uses "rough consensus and running code" as its touchstone, results can
be slow whenever the number of volunteers is either too small to make progress, or so large as to make
consensus difficult, or when volunteers lack the necessary expertise. For protocols like SMTP, which is used
to transport e-mail for a user community in the many hundreds of millions, there is also considerable
resistance to any change that is not fully backward compatible, except for IPv6. Work within the IETF on
ways to improve the speed of the standards-making process is ongoing but, because the number of
volunteers with opinions on it is very great, consensus on improvements has been slow to develop.
The IETF cooperates with the W3C, ISO/IEC, ITU, and other standards bodies.[8]
Statistics are available that show who the top contributors by RFC publication are.[29] While the IETF only
allows for participation by individuals, and not by corporations or governments, sponsorship information is
available from these statistics.
Chairs
The IETF Chairperson is selected by the Nominating Committee (NomCom) process for a 2-year renewable
term.[30] Before 1993, the IETF Chair was selected by the IAB.[31]
A list of the past and current Chairs of the IETF follows:
Mike Corrigan (1986)

Phill Gross (1986–1994)
Paul Mockapetris (1994–1996)
Fred Baker (1996–2001)
Harald Tveit Alvestrand (2001–2005)
Brian Carpenter (2005–2007)
Russ Housley (2007–2013)
Jari Arkko (2013–2017)
Alissa Cooper[32] (2017–2021)
Lars Eggert (2021- )
Topics of interest
The IETF works on a broad range of networking technologies which provide foundation for the Internet's
growth and evolution.[33]
Automated network management
It aims to improve the efficiency in management of networks as they grow in size and complexity. The IETF
is also standardizing protocols for autonomic networking that enables networks to be self managing.[34]
Internet of things
It is a network of physical objects or things that are embedded with electronics, sensors, software and also
enables objects to exchange data with operator, manufacturer and other connected devices. Several IETF
working groups are developing protocols that are directly relevant to IoT.[35]
New transport technology
Its development provides the ability of internet applications to send data over the Internet. There are some
well-established transport protocols such as TCP (Transmission Control Protocol) and UDP (User Datagram
Protocol) which are continuously getting extended and refined to meet the needs of the global Internet.[36]
IETF areas
It divides its work into a number of areas that have Working groups that have a relation to an area's focus.
Area Directors handle the primary task of area management. Area Directors may be advised by one or more
Directorates. The area structure is defined by the Internet Engineering Steering Group. The Nominations
Committee can be used to add new members.[37]
Token Binding Protocol
In October 2018, Microsoft and Google engineers introduced a plan to create the Token Binding Protocol in
order to stop replay attacks on OAuth tokens.[38]
See also
Internet Architecture Board (IAB) Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)
Internet governance
References
1. Jacobsen, O.; Lynch, D. (March 1991). A Glossary of Networking Terms (https://datatracker.iet
f.org/doc/html/rfc1208#page-7). IETF. p. 7. doi:10.17487/RFC1208 (https://doi.org/10.17487%
2FRFC1208). ISSN 2070-1721 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/2070-1721). RFC 1208 (https://d
atatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1208).
2. "Internet Engineering Task Force" (http://oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/ietf.html),
Scott Bradner, Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, O'Reilly, 1st Edition,
January 1999, ISBN 1-56592-582-3. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
3. "Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)" (https://www.ripe.net/participate/internet-governance/i
nternet-technical-community/ietf). RIPE Network Coordination Centre. August 10, 2012.
Retrieved August 22, 2018.
4. "Register for the Next IETF Meeting" (https://www.ietf.org/meeting/register.html). IETF.
Retrieved July 21, 2014.
5. "Active IETF Working Groups" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/). IETF. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
6. "Charter of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB)", RFC 2850, B. Carpenter, May 2000.
Retrieved 21 July 2014.
7. "IETF NomCom" (https://www.ietf.org/nomcom/), IETF. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
8. "IETF and the Internet Society" (http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-int
ernet/ietf-and-internet-society), Vint Cerf, Internet Society, 18 July 1995. Retrieved 21 July
2014.
9. "History" (http://pir.org/about-us/history/), Your Public Internet Registry. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
10. "IETF Trust" (https://trustee.ietf.org/), IETF. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
11. "About" (https://www.ietf.org/standards/process/role-iesg-standards-process/). IETF. Retrieved
June 3, 2021.
12. "About" (https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/members/). IETF. Retrieved June 3, 2021.
13. John S. Quarterman (1990). Matrix: Computer Networks and Conferencing Systems
Worldwide (https://archive.org/details/matrixcomputerne0000quar/page/185) (2 ed.). Digital
Press. pp. 185–186 (https://archive.org/details/matrixcomputerne0000quar/page/185). ISBN 1-
55558-033-5.
14. "Phill Gross recognized with the Internet Society's Postel Award" (https://www.internetsociety.o
rg/news/press-releases/2004/phill-gross-recognized-internet-societys-postel-award/). Internet
Society. Retrieved June 11, 2021.
15. "IETF: Proposed Organizational Changes" (https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-lyons-proposed-change
s-statement-01.txt/). IETF. Retrieved June 11, 2021.
16. Vint Cerf, Bob Kahn, Lyman Chapin (1992). "Announcing the Internet Society" (https://www.int
ernetsociety.org/internet/history-of-the-internet/announcing-internet-society/). Retrieved
December 15, 2019.
17. "Board Meeting No. 1 – Minutes | Internet Society" (http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/
board-trustees/meetings/1/minutes). www.internetsociety.org. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20170204171433/http://www.internetsociety.org/who-we-are/board-trustees/meetings/1/
minutes) from the original on February 4, 2017. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
18. dave. "Footnotes to History" (http://netpolicynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=a

rticle&id=764:footnotes-to-history&catid=88:sp&Itemid=435). netpolicynews.com. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20170204172302/http://netpolicynews.com/index.php?option=com_c
ontent&view=article&id=764%3Afootnotes-to-history&catid=88%3Asp&Itemid=435) from the
original on February 4, 2017. Retrieved February 4, 2017.
19. Internet Engineering Steering Group; Internet Architecture Board (March 1994). "The Internet
Standards Process -- Revision 2" (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1602.html). tools.ietf.org.
Retrieved October 4, 2020.
20. Huizer, Erik (October 1996). "RFC 2031 – IETF-ISOC relationship" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/
doc/rfc2031/). datatracker.ietf.org.
21. "FORETEC SEMINARS INC. :: Virginia (US) :: OpenCorporates" (https://opencorporates.com/
companies/us_va/F1308081). opencorporates.com.
22. Daigle, Leslie (December 2003). "RFC 3677 – IETF ISOC Board of Trustee Appointment
Procedures" (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3677/). datatracker.ietf.org.
23. "Limited Liability Company Agreement of IETF Administration LLC" (https://www.ietf.org/media/
documents/IETF-LLC-Agreement.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved August 14, 2020.
24. https://www.ietf.org/media/documents/IETF-FINAL-Secretariat-RFP-2019_June_24_2019.pdf
25. John S. Quarterman (1990). www.google.com : Computer Networks and Conferencing
Systems Worldwide (2 ed.). Digital Press. pp. 185–186. ISBN 9781555580339.
26. "Past Meetings" (https://www.ietf.org/meeting/past.html). IETF. Retrieved July 21, 2014.
27. "IETF Meetings" (https://www.ietf.org/meeting/). IETF. Retrieved January 17, 2012.
28. "IETF Hackathon" (https://www.ietf.org/hackathon/). www.ietf.org. Retrieved October 23, 2017.
29. "IETF document statistics (all documents)" (http://www.arkko.com/tools/allstats/), Jari Arkko.
Retrieved 21 July 2014.
30. "IAB and IESG Selection, Confirmation, and Recall Process: Operation of the Nominating and
Recall Committees", RFC 3777, J. Galvin (Ed.), June 2004. Retrieved 21 July 2014.
31. "Past IESG Members and IETF Chairs" (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html). IETF.
Retrieved July 21, 2014.
32. "IETF Profile: Alissa Cooper" (https://www.ietf.org/blog/2017/03/profile-alissa-cooper/). IETF.
Retrieved May 30, 2017.
33. "Topics of interest" (https://www.ietf.org/topics/). IETF. Retrieved January 16, 2018.
34. "Automated network management" (https://www.ietf.org/topics/netmgmt/). IETF. Retrieved
January 16, 2018.
35. "The Internet of Things" (https://www.ietf.org/topics/iot/). IETF. Retrieved January 16, 2018.
36. "New transport technology" (https://www.ietf.org/topics/transport/). IETF. Retrieved January 16,
2018.
37. "IETF Areas" (https://www.ietf.org/topics/areas/). IETF. Retrieved January 16, 2018.
38. Chirgwin, Richard. "Google and Microsoft boffins playing nicely together to stop replay attacks
in their tracks" (https://www.theregister.com/2018/10/10/token_binding_protocol_rfc/).
www.theregister.com.
External links
Official website (https://www.ietf.org/)
Steering group (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/)
IETF Online Proceedings (https://www.ietf.org/old/2009/proceedings_directory.html)
Early IETF Proceedings (https://www.ietf.org/old/2009/proceedings/directory2.html) (note:
large pdf files, one for each volume)
Past Meetings of the IETF (https://www.ietf.org/meeting/past.html)
Past IESG Members and IETF Chairs (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html)

The Tao of the IETF (https://tools.ietf.org/rfcmarkup?doc=fyi17): details on how IETF is
organized
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Engineering_Task_Force&oldid=1061171338"

12/22/21, 2:10 PM Request for Comments - Wikipedia
Request for Comments

A Request for Comments (RFC) is a publication in a series, from the principal technical development and
standards-setting bodies for the Internet, most prominently the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). An
RFC is authored by individuals or groups of engineers and computer scientists in the form of a
memorandum describing methods, behaviors, research, or innovations applicable to the working of the
Internet and Internet-connected systems. It is submitted either for peer review or to convey new concepts,
information, or, occasionally, engineering humor.[1]
The IETF adopts some of the proposals published as RFCs as Internet Standards. However, many RFCs are
informational or experimental in nature and are not standards.[2] The RFC system was invented by Steve
Crocker in 1969 to help record unofficial notes on the development of ARPANET. RFCs have since become
official documents of Internet specifications, communications protocols, procedures, and events.[3]
According to Crocker, the documents "shape the Internet's inner workings and have played a significant role
in its success", but are not widely known outside the community.[4]
Outside of the Internet community, other documents also called requests for comments have been published
in U.S. Federal government work, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.[5]
Contents
History
Production and versioning
Sub-series
Streams
Obtaining RFCs
Status
Standards Track
Informational
Experimental
Best Current Practice
Historic
Unknown
Copyright
See also
References
External links
History
The inception of the RFC format occurred in 1969 as part of the seminal ARPANET project.[4] Today, it is
the official publication channel for the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture
Board (IAB), and – to some extent – the global community of computer network researchers in general.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments 1/7
The authors of the first RFCs typewrote their work and circulated hard copies among the ARPA researchers.
Unlike the modern RFCs, many of the early RFCs were actual Requests for Comments and were titled as
such to avoid sounding too declarative and to encourage discussion.[6][7] The RFC leaves questions open
and is written in a less formal style. This less formal style is now typical of Internet Draft documents, the
precursor step before being approved as an RFC.
In December 1969, researchers began distributing new RFCs via the newly operational ARPANET. RFC 1,
titled "Host Software", was written by Steve Crocker of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA),
and published on April 7, 1969.[8] Although written by Steve Crocker, the RFC had emerged from an early
working group discussion between Steve Crocker, Steve Carr, and Jeff Rulifson.
In RFC 3, which first defined the RFC series, Crocker started attributing the RFC series to the Network
Working Group. Rather than being a formal committee, it was a loose association of researchers interested
in the ARPANET project. In effect, it included anyone who wanted to join the meetings and discussions
about the project.
Many of the subsequent RFCs of the 1970s also came from UCLA, because UCLA is one of the first of
what were Interface Message Processors (IMPs) on ARPANET. The Augmentation Research Center (ARC)
at Stanford Research Institute, directed by Douglas Engelbart, is another of the four first of what were
ARPANET nodes and the source of early RFCs. The ARC became the first network information center
(InterNIC), which was managed by Elizabeth J. Feinler to distribute the RFCs along with other network
information.[9] From 1969 until 1998, Jon Postel served as the RFC editor. On his death in 1998, his
obituary was published as RFC 2468.
Following the expiration of the original ARPANET contract with the U.S. federal government, the Internet
Society, acting on behalf of the IETF, contracted with the Networking Division of the University of
Southern California (USC) Information Sciences Institute (ISI) to assume the editorship and publishing
responsibilities under the direction of the IAB. Sandy Ginoza joined USC/ISI in 1999 to work on RFC
editing, and Alice Hagens in 2005.[10]
Bob Braden took over the role of RFC project lead, while Joyce K.
Reynolds continued to be part of the team until October 13, 2006.
In July 2007, streams of RFCs were defined, so that the editing duties could be divided. IETF documents
came from IETF working groups or submissions sponsored by an IETF area director from the Internet
Engineering Steering Group. The IAB can publish its own documents. A research stream of documents
comes from the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF), and an independent stream from other outside
sources.[11] A new model was proposed in 2008, refined, and published in August 2009, splitting the task
into several roles,[12] including the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG). The model was updated in
2012.[13] The streams were also refined in December 2009, with standards defined for their style.[14] In
January 2010 the RFC Editor function was moved to a contractor, Association Management Solutions, with
Glenn Kowack serving as interim series editor.[15] In late 2011, Heather Flanagan was hired as the
permanent RFC Series Editor. Also at that time, an RFC Series Oversight Committee (RSOC) was
created.[16]
Requests for Comments were originally produced in non-reflowable text format. In August 2019 the format
was changed so that new documents can be viewed optimally in devices with varying display sizes.[17]
Production and versioning

The RFC Editor assigns each RFC a serial number. Once assigned a number and published, an RFC is never
rescinded or modified; if the document requires amendments, the authors publish a revised document.
Therefore, some RFCs supersede others; the superseded RFCs are said to be deprecated, obsolete, or
obsoleted by the superseding RFC. Together, the serialized RFCs compose a continuous historical record of
the evolution of Internet standards and practices. The RFC process is documented in RFC 2026 (The
Internet Standards Process, Revision 3).[18]
The RFC production process differs from the standardization process of formal standards organizations such
as International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Internet technology experts may submit an Internet
Draft without support from an external institution. Standards-track RFCs are published with approval from
the IETF, and are usually produced by experts participating in IETF Working Groups, which first publish an
Internet Draft. This approach facilitates initial rounds of peer review before documents mature into RFCs.
The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by

individuals or small working groups can have important advantages over the more formal, committee-driven
process typical of ISO and national standards bodies.
Most RFCs use a common set of terms such as "MUST" and "NOT RECOMMENDED" (as defined by RFC
2119 and RFC 8174), augmented Backus–Naur form (ABNF) (RFC 5234) as a meta-language, and simple
text-based formatting, in order to keep the RFCs consistent and easy to understand.[18]
Sub-series
The RFC series contains three sub-series for IETF RFCs: BCP, FYI, and STD. Best Current Practice (BCP)
is a sub-series of mandatory IETF RFCs not on standards track. For Your Information (FYI) is a sub-series
of informational RFCs promoted by the IETF as specified in RFC 1150 (FYI 1). In 2011, RFC 6360
obsoleted FYI 1 and concluded this sub-series. Standard (STD) used to be the third and highest maturity
level of the IETF standards track specified in RFC 2026 (BCP 9). In 2011 RFC 6410 (a new part of BCP 9)
reduced the standards track to two maturity levels.
Streams
There are four streams of RFCs: IETF, IRTF, IAB, and independent submission.[19] Only the IETF creates
BCPs and RFCs on the standards track. An independent submission is checked by the IESG for conflicts
with IETF work; the quality is assessed by an independent submission editorial board. In other words, IRTF
and independent RFCs are supposed to contain relevant info or experiments for the Internet at large not in
conflict with IETF work; compare RFC 4846, RFC 5742, and RFC 5744.
Obtaining RFCs
The official source for RFCs
RFC 2046 Media Types November 1996
on the World Wide Web is
the RFC Editor (https://ww
A. Collected Grammar .................................... 43
w.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html).
Almost any published RFC 1. Introduction
can be retrieved via a URL The first document in this set, RFC 2045, defines a number of header
of the form http://www.rfc- fields, including Content-Type. The Content-Type field is used to
specify the nature of the data in the body of a MIME entity, by
editor.org/rfc/rfc5000.txt, giving media type and subtype identifiers, and by providing auxiliary
shown for RFC 5000. information that may be required for certain media types. After the
Every RFC is submitted as RFC 2046 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2046), which defines the

plain ASCII text and is text/plain MIME type, is itself a plain text.
published in that form, but
may also be available in other formats.
For easy access to the metadata of an RFC, including abstract, keywords, author(s), publication date, errata,
status, and especially later updates, the RFC Editor site offers a search form with many features. A
redirection sets some efficient parameters, example: rfc:5000.
The official International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) of the RFC series is 2070–1721.[14]
Status
Not all RFCs are standards.[20][21] Each RFC is assigned a designation with regard to status within the
Internet standardization process. This status is one of the following: Informational, Experimental, Best
Current Practice, Standards Track, or Historic.
Each RFC is static; if the document is changed, it is submitted again and assigned a new RFC number.
Standards Track
Standards-track documents are further divided into Proposed Standard and Internet Standard documents.[22]
Only the IETF, represented by the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG), can approve standards-track
RFCs.
If an RFC becomes an Internet Standard (STD), it is assigned an STD number but retains its RFC number.
The definitive list of Internet Standards is the Official Internet Protocol Standards. Previously STD 1 used to
maintain a snapshot of the list.[23]
When an Internet Standard is updated, its STD number stays the same, now referring to a new RFC or set of
RFCs. A given Internet Standard, STD n, may be RFCs x and y at a given time, but later the same standard
may be updated to be RFC z instead. For example, in 2007 RFC 3700 was an Internet Standard—STD 1—
and in May 2008 it was replaced with RFC 5000, so RFC 3700 changed to Historic, RFC 5000 became an
Internet Standard, and as of May 2008 STD 1 is RFC 5000. as of December 2013 RFC 5000 is replaced by
RFC 7100, updating RFC 2026 to no longer use STD 1.
(Best Current Practices work in a similar fashion; BCP n refers to a certain RFC or set of RFCs, but which
RFC or RFCs may change over time).
Informational
An informational RFC can be nearly anything from April 1 jokes to widely recognized essential RFCs like
Domain Name System Structure and Delegation (RFC 1591). Some informational RFCs formed the FYI
sub-series.
Experimental
An experimental RFC can be an IETF document or an individual submission to the RFC Editor. A draft is
designated experimental if it is unclear the proposal will work as intended or unclear if the proposal will be
widely adopted. An experimental RFC may be promoted to standards track if it becomes popular and works
well.[24]
The Best Current Practice subseries collects administrative documents and other texts which are considered
as official rules and not only informational, but which do not affect over the wire data. The border between
standards track and BCP is often unclear. If a document only affects the Internet Standards Process, like
BCP 9,[25] or IETF administration, it is clearly a BCP. If it only defines rules and regulations for Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) registries it is less clear; most of these documents are BCPs, but some
are on the standards track.
The BCP series also covers technical recommendations for how to practice Internet standards; for instance,
the recommendation to use source filtering to make DoS attacks more difficult (RFC 2827: "Network
Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks which employ IP Source Address Spoofing") is BCP
38 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp38).
Historic
A historic RFC is one that the technology defined by the RFC is no longer recommended for use, which
differs from "Obsoletes" header in a replacement RFC. For example, RFC 821 (SMTP) itself is obsoleted by
various newer RFCs, but SMTP itself is still "current technology", so it is not in "Historic" status.[26]
However, since BGP version 4 has entirely superseded earlier BGP versions, the RFCs describing those
earlier versions, such as RFC 1267, have been designated historic.
Unknown
Status unknown is used for some very old RFCs, where it is unclear which status the document would get if
it were published today. Some of these RFCs would not be published at all today; an early RFC was often
just that: a simple Request for Comments, not intended to specify a protocol, administrative procedure, or
anything else for which the RFC series is used today.
Copyright
The general rule is that original authors (or their employers, if their employment conditions so stipulate)
retain copyright unless they make an explicit transfer of their rights.[27]
An independent body, the IETF Trust, holds the copyright for some RFCs and for all others it is granted a
license by the authors that allows it to reproduce RFCs.[28] The Internet Society is referenced on many RFCs
prior to RFC4714 as the copyright owner, but it transferred its rights to the IETF Trust.[29]
See also
April Fools' Day RFC
Internet Experiment Note
List of RFCs
References
1. Waitzman, David (April 1, 1990). A Standard for the Transmission of IP Datagrams on Avian
Carriers (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC1149 (https://do
i.org/10.17487%2FRFC1149). RFC 1149 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1149).
Retrieved March 29, 2017.
2. Huitema, Christian; Postel, Jon; Crocker, Steve (April 1995). Not All RFCs are Standards (http
s://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1796). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC1796 (https://doi.org/10.1748
7%2FRFC1796). RFC 1796 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1796). Retrieved May 15,
2018.
3. "RFC's, Internet Request For Comments" (http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ia_rfc.htm).

Livinginternet.com. Retrieved April 3, 2012.
4. "Stephen D. Crocker, How the Internet Got Its Rules, The New York Times, 6 April 2009" (http
s://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07crocker.html?_r=1&em). Nytimes.com. April 7,
2009. Retrieved April 3, 2012.
5. Notice and Request for Comments (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/01/16/20
18-00519/notice-and-request-for-comments), in Federal Register (January 16, 2018).
6. Hafner, Katie; Lyon, Matthew (1996). Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet.
7. Metz, Cade (May 18, 2012). "Meet the man who invented the instructions for the Internet" (http
s://www.wired.com/2012/05/steve-crocker/). Wired. Retrieved December 18, 2018.
8. Crocker, Steve (April 7, 1969). "RFC 1" (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1).
9. Elizabeth J. Feinler (July–September 2010). "The Network Information Center and its
Archives". Annals of the History of Computing. 32 (3): 83–89. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2010.54 (http
s://doi.org/10.1109%2FMAHC.2010.54). S2CID 206443021 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Co
rpusID:206443021).
10. Leslie Daigle (March 2010). "RFC Editor in Transition: Past, Present, and Future" (http://www.c
isco.com/web/about/ac123/ac147/archived_issues/ipj_13-1/131_rfc.html). The Internet
Protocol Journal. 13 (1). Cisco Systems. Retrieved August 17, 2011.
11. Daigle, Leslie (July 2007). The RFC Series and RFC Editor (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/htm
l/rfc4844). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC4844 (https://doi.org/10.17487%2FRFC4844). RFC 4844 (h
ttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4844).
12. Kolkman, Olaf (August 2009). RFC Editor Model (Version 1) (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/ht
ml/rfc5620). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC5620 (https://doi.org/10.17487%2FRFC5620). RFC 5620
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5620).
13. Kolkman, Olaf; Halpern, Joel (June 2012). RFC Editor Model (Version 2) (https://datatracker.iet
f.org/doc/html/rfc6635). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC6635 (https://doi.org/10.17487%2FRFC6635).
RFC 6635 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6635).
14. Daigle, Leslie; Kolkman, Olaf (December 2009). RFC Streams, Headers, and Boilerplates (http
7%2FRFC5741). RFC 5741 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5741).
15. Glenn Kowack (January 7, 2010). "RFC Editor Transition Announcement" (https://web.archive.
org/web/20110629132754/https://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid=0&k1=934&k2=732
4&tid=1263251951). Archived from the original (http://www.ietf.org/ibin/c5i?mid=6&rid=49&gid
=0&k1=934&k2=7324&tid=1263251951) on June 29, 2011.
16. RFC Editor. "The RFC Series Editor and the Series Reorganization" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/
rse/). Retrieved April 5, 2013.
17. RFC Format Change FAQ (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rse/format-faq/)
18. "RFC Index" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html). RFC Editor. May 25, 2008. Retrieved
May 26, 2008.
19. "Independent Submissions" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/about/independent/). RFC Editor.
Retrieved January 5, 2018.
20. "Are all RFCs Internet standards documents?" (https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/#allstds). RFC
Editor. Retrieved March 16, 2018.
21. Huitema, Christian; Postel, Jon; Crocker, Steve (April 1995). Not All RFCs are Standards (http
7%2FRFC1796). RFC 1796 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1796). "... each RFC has a
status…: Informational, Experimental, or Standards Track (Proposed Standard, Draft
Standard, Internet Standard), or Historic."
22. Housley, Russell; Crocker, Dave; Burger, Eric (October 2011). Reducing the Standards Track
to Two Maturity Levels (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6410). IETF.
doi:10.17487/RFC6410 (https://doi.org/10.17487%2FRFC6410). RFC 6410 (https://datatracke
r.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6410).
23. RFC 7100 Retirement of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" Summary Document
24. "7.5. Informational and Experimental RFCs" (https://www.ietf.org/tao.html#rfc.section.6.5), The
Tao of IETF (https://www.ietf.org/tao.html), retrieved November 26, 2017
25. Bradner, Scott O. (October 1996). The Internet Standards Process – Revision 3 (https://datatra
cker.ietf.org/doc/html/bcp9). IETF. BCP 9. Retrieved October 25, 2017.
26. "IESG Statement on Designating RFCs as Historic" (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/design
ating-rfcs-as-historic.html). IETF. July 20, 2014. Retrieved April 14, 2016.
27. "Reproducing RFCs" (https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#reproducing-rfcs). IETF Trust.
Retrieved August 12, 2021.
28. Bradner, Scott; Contreras, Jorge (November 2008). Rights Contributors Provide to the IETF
Trust (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5378). IETF. doi:10.17487/RFC5378 (https://doi.or
g/10.17487%2FRFC5378). RFC 5378 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5378).
29. "Reproducing RFCs" (https://trustee.ietf.org/about/faq/#copyright). IETF Trust. Retrieved
August 13, 2021.
External links
RFC Editor (https://www.rfc-editor.org/)
RFC Database (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html)
RFC Errata (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php)
RFC Frequently Asked Questions (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfcfaq.html)
RFC Index (https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index2.html) (text)
Official Internet Protocol Standards (https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/standards.php)
IETF's RFC page (https://www.ietf.org/rfc.html)
RFC Index (https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/) (HTML) With the text of each RFC, also mentions what
other RFCs this one "updates" or is "updated by".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Request_for_Comments&oldid=1057242405"
This page was last edited on 26 November 2021, at 11:04 (UTC).

12/22/21, 2:10 PM Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia
Coordinates: 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W
Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the
Supreme Court of the United States
United States of America. It has ultimate and largely discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all federal
and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of
cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party."[2] The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a
statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives
for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.[3] However, it may act only within the context of a
case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political
overtones but has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.
Established by Article Three of the United States Constitution, the composition and procedures of the
Supreme Court were initially established by the 1st Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789. As
later set by the Judiciary Act of 1869, the Court consists of the chief justice of the United States and Established March 4, 1789[1]
eight associate justices. Each justice has lifetime tenure, meaning they remain on the Court until they Location Washington, D.C.
resign, retire, die, or are removed from office.[4] When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice Coordinates 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W
and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice. Each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases
argued before the Court. When in majority, the chief justice decides who writes the opinion of the court; Composition Presidential nomination with
otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the task of writing the opinion. method Senate confirmation
Authorized Constitution of the United
The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Its law enforcement arm is the by States
Supreme Court Police.
Judge term Life tenure
length
Contents Number of 9 (by statute)

positions
History Website supremecourt.gov (http://supre
Earliest beginnings through Marshall
mecourt.gov)
From Taney to Taft
Chief Justice of the United States
New Deal era
Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Currently John Roberts
Since September 29, 2005
Composition
Nomination, confirmation, and appointment
Recess appointments
Tenure
Size of the court
Membership
Current justices
Length of tenure
Court demographics
Retired justices
Seniority and seating
Salary
Judicial leanings
Facilities
Jurisdiction
Justices as circuit justices
Process
Case selection
Oral argument
Supreme Court bar
Decision
Published opinions
Citations to published opinions
Institutional powers
Constraints
Law clerks
Politicization of the Court
Criticism and controversies
Judicial activism
Individual rights
Power excess
Courts are a poor check on executive power
Federal versus state power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States 1/33
Secretive proceedings
Judicial interference in political disputes
Not choosing enough cases to review
Lifetime tenure
Accepting gifts and outside income
See also
Selected landmark Supreme Court decisions
References
Bibliography
Further reading
External links
History
It was while debating the separation of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the
1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary. Creating a "third branch" of
government was a novel idea; in the English tradition, judicial matters had been treated as an aspect of royal
(executive) authority. Early on, the delegates who were opposed to having a strong central government argued that
national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national
judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature. It was also proposed that the
judiciary should have a role in checking the executive's power to veto or revise laws. In the end, the framers
compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."[5][6] They delineated
neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the judicial branch as a whole.
The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of
1789. The Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nation's Capital and would initially
be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices. The act also divided the country into judicial districts, which
were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold circuit court twice a year in their
assigned judicial district.[7]
The Court lacked its own
building until 1935; from 1791 to Immediately after signing the act into law, President George Washington nominated the following people to serve on
1801, it met in Philadelphia's City the court: John Jay for chief justice and John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, and John
Hall. Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789; however, Harrison
declined to serve, and Washington later nominated James Iredell in his place.[8]
The Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in
New York City, then the U.S. capital.[9] A second session was held there in August 1790.[10] The earliest sessions of
the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791.[7] When the nation's
capital was moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well. After initially meeting at Independence
Hall, the Court established its chambers at City Hall.[11]
Earliest beginnings through Marshall

The Royal Exchange, New York
City, the first meeting place of
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few
the Supreme Court
cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving procedure.[12] As
the Court initially had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was
also made by two-thirds (voting four to two).[13] However, Congress has always allowed less than the court's full
membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four justices in 1789.[14] The court lacked a home of its own and
had little prestige,[15] a situation not helped by the era's highest-profile case, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which was
reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment.[16]
The court's power and prestige grew substantially during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[17] Under Marshall, the court
established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress,[18] including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of
the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[19][20] and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and
substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states, notably Martin v. Hunter's Lessee,
McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden.[21][22][23][24]
Chief Justice Marshall
The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[25] a remnant of British (1801–1835)
tradition,[26] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[25] Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the Court's
control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase from 1804–1805 helped cement the principle of judicial
independence.[27][28]
From Taney to Taft
The 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.[29]
Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[30] which helped precipitate the American Civil War.[31] In the
Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[24] and developed the
doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[32] Adair v. United States).[33]
Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of Rights
against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[34] grappled with the new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States), upheld the
constitutionality of military conscription (Selective Draft Law Cases),[35] and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v.
Children's Hospital).[36]
New Deal era
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the Court gained its own accommodation in 1935[37]
and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government
to facilitate President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish,
Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby, and United States v. Butler).[38][39][40] During World War II, the Court
continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States)
and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon
repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-
government trend.
The Hughes Court in 1937,
The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[41] It held that photographed by Erich Salomon.
segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Brown v. Board Members include Chief Justice
Charles Evans Hughes (center),
of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, and Green v. County School Bd.)[42] and that legislative districts must be roughly
Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N.
equal in population (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[43] limited
Cardozo, Harlan Stone, Owen
the role of religion in public school, most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v.
Roberts, and the "Four Horsemen"
Schempp,[44][45] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states, prominently Mapp v. Ohio Pierce Butler, James Clark
(the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[46][47] and required that criminal McReynolds, George Sutherland,
suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona).[48] At the same time, the Court limited and Willis Van Devanter, who
defamation suits by public figures (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken opposed New Deal policies.
run of antitrust victories.[49]
Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts
The Burger Court (1969–1986) marked a conservative shift.[50] It also expanded Griswold's right to privacy to
strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade)[51] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke)[52] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo).[53] It also wavered on the death
penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[54] but later that the death penalty
itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[54][55][56]
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[57] emphasizing
the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions Justices of the Supreme Court with
on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[58][59][60][61][62] It struck down single-sex President George W. Bush (center),
state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of October 2005
substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas)[63] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York) but upheld school
vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v.
Casey).[64] The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the 2000 United States presidential election, was especially
controversial.[65][66]
The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[67][68][69][70] Some of its major rulings have concerned
federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Twombly-Iqbal), voting rights and federal preclearence (Shelby County-Brnovich), abortion
(Gonzales v. Carhart),[71] climate change (Massachusetts v. EPA), same-sex marriage (United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges), and the Bill of
Rights, notably in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (First Amendment),[72] Heller–
McDonald (Second Amendment),[73] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment).[74][75]
Composition
Nomination, confirmation, and appointment
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the
confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one
example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses
the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, thus a president may nominate anyone
to serve, and the Senate may not set any qualifications or otherwise limit who the president can choose.[76]
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to
reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on
whether the nomination should go to the full 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, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[77] Once the committee reports out the
nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most
recently Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.
Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, prior to 2017 a nomination could be blocked by
filibuster once debate had begun in the full Senate. President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl
Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It included both Republican and Democratic senators
concerned with Fortas's ethics. President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia's death was the second.
Unlike the Fortas filibuster, only Democratic Senators voted against cloture on the Gorsuch nomination, citing his perceived conservative judicial
philosophy, and the Republican majority's prior refusal to take up President Barack Obama's nomination of
Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.[78] This led the Republican majority to change the rules and eliminate the
filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.[79]
Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. A president may withdraw a
nomination before an actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the
nominee; this occurred most recently with President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005. The
Senate may also fail to act on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. President Dwight
Eisenhower's first nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in November 1954 was not acted on by the Senate;
Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan in January 1955, and Harlan was confirmed two months later. Most recently, the
Senate failed to act on the March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, as the nomination expired in January
2017, and the vacancy was filled by Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Trump.[80]
Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of
the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[81] The seniority of an associate
Flowchart showing process of justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[82] The importance of
appointment of United States commissioning is underscored by the case of Edwin M. Stanton. Although appointed to the court on December
Supreme Court justices. 19, 1869, by President Ulysses S. Grant and confirmed by the Senate a few days later, Stanton died on December
24, prior to receiving his commission. He is not, therefore, considered to have been an actual member of the
court.
Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within
one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, the process has taken much longer and some believe this is because Congress sees justices as
playing a more political role than in the past.[83] According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final
Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (2.3 months).[84][85]
Recess appointments
When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next
Senate session (less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and eleven associate
justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.[86]
No U.S. president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in
lower federal courts.[87] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess
appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances";[88] such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of
Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.[88][89]
The Supreme Court's 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning limited the ability of the President to make recess appointments
(including appointments to the Supreme Court); the Court ruled that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session or in recess. Writing for the Court,
Justice Breyer stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its
own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."[90] This ruling allows the Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of pro-
forma sessions.[91]
Tenure
The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a
Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their
lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire.[92] Only one justice has been
impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate
(March 1805).[93] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O.
Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings
were being organized in 1969), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a
The interior of the United States
justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.[94] Supreme Court
Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in
quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William 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 to succeed Harry Blackmun and the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 to fill the
seat of Sandra Day O'Connor (though Roberts' nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for the role of chief justice after Rehnquist died).
Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office,
although his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Likewise, Zachary Taylor died 16 months after taking office, but
his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Andrew Johnson, who became president after the
assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a reduction in the size of the court. Jimmy Carter is the only person
elected president to have left office after at least one full term without having the opportunity to appoint a justice. Presidents James Monroe, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, and George W. Bush each served a full term without an opportunity to appoint a justice, but made appointments during their subsequent terms
in office. No president who has served more than one full term has gone without at least one opportunity to make an appointment.
Size of the court
Article III of the Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it (though the existence of the office of the chief
justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Instead, these powers have typically been entrusted to Congress, which initially
established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The size of the Court
was first altered by the Midnight Judges Act of 1801 which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, but the
Judiciary Act of 1802 promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's
boundaries grew across the continent and as Supreme Court justices in those days had to ride the circuit, an arduous process requiring long travel on
horseback or carriage over harsh terrain that resulted in months-long extended stays away from home, Congress added justices to correspond with the
growth: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.[95][96]
At the behest of Chief Justice Chase and in an attempt by the Republican Congress to limit the power of Democrat Andrew Johnson, Congress passed
Judicial Circuits Act of 1866, providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by
attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. Soon after Johnson left office, the new President Ulysses S. Grant,[97] a
Republican, signed into law the Judiciary Act of 1869. This returned the number of justices to nine,[98] (where it has since remained) and allowed Grant to
immediately appoint two more judges.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned the appointment of one additional justice for each
incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly
to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would
support Roosevelt's New Deal.[99] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in Congress after members of Roosevelt's own Democratic
Party believed it to be unconstitutional, it was defeated 70-20 in the United States Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee reported that it was
"essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy" that the proposal "be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented
to the free representatives of the free people of America.”[100][101][102][103] It remains unclear whether it would be at all constitutional or not to expand the
size of the Supreme Court in ways understood to be designed to "pack" it with justices that would rule more favorably on a President's agenda or to simply
change the ideological composition of the court.[104][105]
Membership
Current justices
There are currently nine justices on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts and eight associate justices. Among the current members of the Court,
Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving justice, with a tenure of 11,017 days (30 years, 59 days) as of December 21, 2021; the most recent justice to join
the court is Amy Coney Barrett, whose tenure began on October 27, 2020.[106]
Current justices of the Supreme Court[107]

Previous
Age at position or
Justice /
Appointed Start date /
Legal office
SCV Succeeded
birthdate and place by length of service education (most recent prior
Start Present to joining the
Court)
Judge of the
(Chief)
United States
Harvard
John Roberts
September 29, 2005
Court of Appeals
G. W. Bush 78–22 50 66 University Rehnquist
January 27, 1955 16 years, 83 days for the District of
(JD)
Buffalo, New York Columbia Circuit
(2003–2005)
Judge of the
Clarence United States
Yale
Thomas
G. H. W. October 23, 1991
Court of Appeals
52–48 43 73 University Marshall
June 23, 1948
Bush 30 years, 59 days for the District of
(JD)
Pin Point, Georgia Columbia Circuit
(1990–1991)
Chief Judge of
Stephen Breyer
the United States
Harvard
August 15, 1938
August 3, 1994
Court of Appeals
Clinton 87–9 55 83 University Blackmun
San Francisco, 27 years, 140 days for the First
(LLB)
California Circuit (1990–
1994)
Judge of the
Samuel Alito
United States
Yale
April 1, 1950
January 31, 2006 Court of Appeals
G. W. Bush 58–42 55 71 University O'Connor
Trenton, New 15 years, 324 days for the Third
(JD)
Jersey Circuit (1990–
2006)
Judge of the
Sonia
United States
Sotomayor
Yale
August 8, 2009
Court of Appeals
June 25, 1954
Obama 68–31 55 67 University Souter
12 years, 135 days for the Second
The Bronx, New (JD)
Circuit (1998–
York
2009)
Elena Kagan
Solicitor General
Harvard
April 28, 1960
August 7, 2010
of the United
Obama 63–37 50 61 University Stevens
Manhattan, New 11 years, 136 days States (2009–
(JD)
York 2010)
Judge of the
United States
Neil Gorsuch
Harvard
April 10, 2017
Court of Appeals
August 29, 1967
Trump 54–45 49 54 University Scalia
4 years, 255 days for the Tenth
Denver, Colorado (JD)
Circuit (2006–
2017)
Judge of the
United States
Brett Kavanaugh
Yale
October 6, 2018
Court of Appeals
February 12, 1965
Trump 50–48 53 56 University Kennedy
3 years, 76 days for the District of
Washington, D.C. (JD)
Columbia Circuit
(2006–2018)
Judge of the
Amy Coney
United States
Barrett
University of
October 27, 2020
Court of Appeals
January 28, 1972 Trump 52–48 48 49 Notre Dame Ginsburg
1 year, 55 days for the Seventh
New Orleans, (JD)
Circuit (2017–
Louisiana
2020)
Length of tenure
This graphical timeline depicts the length of each current Supreme Court justice's tenure (not seniority, as the chief justice has seniority over all associate
justices regardless of tenure) on the Court:
Court demographics
The Court currently has six male and three female justices. Among the nine justices, there is one African-American justice (Justice Thomas) and one
Hispanic justice (Justice Sotomayor). One of the justices was born to at least one immigrant parent: Justice Alito's father was born in Italy.[108][109]
At least six justices are Roman Catholics and two are Jewish. It is unclear whether Neil Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian.[110]
Historically, most justices have been Protestants, including 36 Episcopalians, 19 Presbyterians, 10 Unitarians, 5 Methodists, and 3 Baptists.[111][112] The
first Catholic justice was Roger Taney in 1836,[113] and 1916 saw the appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis.[114] In recent years the
historical situation has reversed, as most recent justices have been either Catholic or Jewish.
All current justices, except for Amy Coney Barrett, have Ivy League backgrounds as either undergraduates or law students. Barrett received her bachelor's
degree at Rhodes College and her law degree at the University of Notre Dame.[115] Three justices are from the state of New York, and one each is from
California, New Jersey, Georgia, Colorado, Louisiana and Washington, D.C.[116][117]
For much of the Court's history, every justice was a man of Northwestern European descent, and almost always
Protestant. Diversity concerns focused on geography, to represent all regions of the country, rather than religious,
ethnic, or gender diversity.[118] Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the Court increased in the late 20th century.
Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice in 1967.[114] Sandra Day O'Connor became the first
female justice in 1981.[114] In 1986, Antonin Scalia became the first Italian-American justice. Marshall was
succeeded by African-American Clarence Thomas in 1991.[119] O'Connor was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in
1993.[120] After O'Connor's retirement Ginsburg was joined in 2009 by Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and
Latina justice,[114] and in 2010 by Elena Kagan.[120] After Ginsburg's death on September 18, 2020, Amy Coney
Barrett was confirmed as the fifth woman in the Court's history on October 26, 2020. The first four female justices:
O'Connor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg,
There have been six foreign-born justices in the Court's history: James Wilson (1789–1798), born in Caskardy, and Kagan.
Scotland; James Iredell (1790–1799), born in Lewes, England; William Paterson (1793–1806), born in County
Antrim, Ireland; David Brewer (1889–1910), born to American missionaries in Smyrna, Ottoman Empire (now
Izmir, Turkey); George Sutherland (1922–1939), born in Buckinghamshire, England; and Felix Frankfurter (1939–1962), born in Vienna, Austria-
Hungary (now in Austria).[114]
Retired justices
There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. As
retired justices, they no longer participate in the work of the Supreme Court, but may be designated for temporary assignments to sit on lower federal
courts, usually the United States Courts of Appeals. Such assignments are formally made by the chief justice, on request of the chief judge of the lower
court and with the consent of the retired justice. In recent years, Justice O'Connor has sat with several Courts of Appeals around the country, and Justice
Souter has frequently sat on the First Circuit, the court of which he was briefly a member before joining the Supreme Court. The status of a retired justice
is analogous to that of a circuit or district court judge who has taken senior status, and eligibility of a Supreme Court justice to assume retired status (rather
than simply resign from the bench) is governed by the same age and service criteria.
In recent times, justices tend to strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench with personal, institutional, ideological, partisan and sometimes even
political factors playing a role.[121][122] 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, especially in recent decades, many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a philosophically compatible president
holding office, to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed.[123][124]
Retired justices of the Supreme Court[107]
Justice
Appointed Retired Age at Tenure
Birthdate and place by under Start Retirement Present Start date End date Length
Sandra Day
O'Connor
G. W. 24 years,
Reagan 51 75 91 September 25, 1981 January 31, 2006
March 26, 1930
Bush 128 days
El Paso, Texas
Anthony Kennedy
July 23, 1936

30 years,
Reagan Trump 51 82 85 February 18, 1988 July 31, 2018
Sacramento, 163 days
California
David Souter
September 17, 1939

G. H. W. 18 years,
Obama 51 69 82 October 9, 1990 June 29, 2009
Melrose, Bush 263 days
Massachusetts
Seniority and seating
For the most part, the day-to-day activities of the justices are governed by rules of protocol based upon the
seniority of justices. The chief justice always ranks first in the order of precedence—regardless of the length of
their service. The associate justices are then ranked by the length of their service. The chief justice sits in the
center on the bench, or at the head of the table during conferences. The other justices are seated in order of
seniority. The senior-most associate justice sits immediately to the chief justice's right; the second most senior
sits immediately to their left. The seats alternate right to left in order of seniority, with the most junior justice
occupying the last seat. Therefore, starting in the middle of the October 2020 term, the court will sit as follows
from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the Court: Kavanaugh, Kagan, Alito, Thomas (most
senior associate justice), Roberts (chief justice), Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Likewise, when the The current Roberts Court justices
members of the Court gather for official group photographs, justices are arranged in order of seniority, with the (since October 2020):
five most senior members seated in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions, and Front row (left to right): Samuel Alito,
the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John
sessions. Roberts, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia
Sotomayor. Back row (left to right):
In the justices' private conferences, current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority, beginning Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil
with the chief justice first and ending with the most junior associate justice. By custom, the most junior Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
associate justice in these conferences is charged with any menial tasks the justices may require as they convene
alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving beverages and transmitting orders of the
court to the clerk.[125] Justice Joseph Story served the longest as junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days.
Justice Stephen Breyer follows very closely behind serving from August 3, 1994, to January 31, 2006, for a total of 4,199 days.[126] Justice Elena Kagan
comes in at a distant third serving from August 6, 2010, to April 10, 2017, for a total of 2,439 days.
Salary
As of 2021, associate justices receive a yearly salary of $268,300 and the chief justice is paid $280,500 per year.[127] Article III, Section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once a justice meets age and service requirements, the justice may retire.
Judicial pensions are based on the same formula used for federal employees, but a justice's pension, as with other federal courts judges, can never be less
than their salary at the time of retirement.
Judicial leanings
Although justices are nominated by the president in power, and receive confirmation by the U.S. Senate, 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 conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such leanings generally refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative
one. The nominations of justices are endorsed by individual politicians in the legislative branch who vote their approval or disapproval of the nominated
justice. The ideologies of jurists can be measured and compared with several metrics, including the Segal–Cover score, Martin-Quinn score, and Judicial
Common Space score.[128][129]
Following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, the Court currently consists of six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three
appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and associate justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and
Barrett, appointed by Republican presidents, compose the Court's conservative wing, and that Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, appointed by
Democratic presidents, compose the Court's liberal wing. Gorsuch had a track record as a reliably conservative judge in the 10th circuit.[130] Kavanaugh
was considered one of the more conservative judges in the DC Circuit prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.[131][132] Likewise, Barrett's brief
track record on the Seventh Circuit is conservative.[133]
Prior to Justice Ginsburg's death, Chief Justice Roberts was considered the Court's median justice
(in the middle of the ideological spectrum, with four justices more liberal and four more conservative than him), making him the ideological center of the
Court.[134][135] Since Ginsburg's death and Barrett's confirmation, Kavanaugh is the Court's median justice, based on the criterion that he has been in the
majority more than any other justice.[136]
Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, 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."[137] He pointed out that in the 2009
term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were 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 pointed to several cases that defied the popular
conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[138]
Goldstein further argued that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals
(usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) were
an illustration that the conservative justices had not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated 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 lacked 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.
According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms from 2000 to 2011, an
average of 19 of the opinions on major issues (22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average
of 70% of those split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally perceived
ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over that period, the conservative bloc has
been in the majority about 62% of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines,
which represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.[139]
In the October 2010 term, the Court decided 86 cases, including 75 signed opinions and 5
summary reversals (where the Court reverses a lower court without arguments and without issuing
an opinion on the case).[140][141] Four were decided with unsigned opinions, two cases affirmed
by an equally divided Court, and two cases were dismissed as improvidently granted. Justice
Kagan recused herself from 26 of the cases due to her prior role as United States Solicitor
General. Of the 80 cases, 38 (about 48%, the highest percentage since the October 2005 term)
were decided unanimously (9–0 or 8–0), and 16 decisions were made by a 5–4 vote (about 20%,
compared to 18% in the October 2009 term, and 29% in the October 2008 term).[142] However, in Percentage of cases decided unanimously and by a
fourteen of the sixteen 5–4 decisions, the Court divided along the traditional ideological lines one-vote margin from 1971–2016
(with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the liberal side, and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas,
and Alito on the conservative, and Kennedy providing the "swing vote"). This represents 87% of
those 16 cases, the highest rate in the past 10 years. The conservative bloc, joined by Kennedy, formed the majority in 63% of the 5–4 decisions, the
highest cohesion rate of that bloc in the Roberts Court.[140][143]
The October 2017 term had a low rate of unanimous rulings, with only 39% of the cases decided by unanimous rulings, the lowest percentage since the
October 2008 term when 30% of rulings were unanimous.[144] Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority most often (68 out of 73 cases, or 93.2%), with
retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy in second (67 out of 73 cases, or 91.8%); this was typical of the Roberts Court, in which Roberts and Kennedy have
been in the majority most frequently in all terms except for the 2013 and 2014 terms (though Kennedy was in the top on both those terms).[145] Justice
Sotomayor was the justice least likely to be in the majority (in 50 out of 73 cases, or 68.5%). The highest agreement between justices was between
Ginsburg and Sotomayor, who agreed on 95.8% of the cases, followed by Thomas and Alito agreeing on 93% of cases. There were 19 cases that were
decided by a 5–4 vote (26% of the total cases); 74% of those cases (14 out of 19) broke along ideological lines, and for the first time in the Roberts Court,
all of those resulted in a conservative majority, with Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch on the majority.[145]
The October 2018 term, which saw the replacement of Anthony Kennedy by Brett Kavanaugh, once again saw a low rate of unanimity: only 28 of 71
decided cases were decided by a unanimous court, about 39% of the cases.[146][147] Of these, only 19 cases had the Justices in total agreement. Chief
Justice Roberts was once again the justice most often in the majority (61 out of 72 cases, or 85% of the time). Although Kavanaugh had a higher
percentage of times in the majority, he did not participate in all cases, voting in the majority 58 out of 64 times, or 91% of the cases in which he
participated. Of the justices who participated in all 72 cases, Kagan and Alito tied in second place, voting in the majority 59 out of 72 times (or 82% of the
time). Looking only at cases that were not decided unanimously, Roberts and Kavanaugh were the most frequently in the majority (33 cases, with Roberts
being in the majority in 75% of the divided cases, and Kavanaugh in 85% of the divided cases he participated in). Of 20 cases that were decided by a vote
of 5–4, eight featured the conservative justices in the majority (Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh), and eight had the liberal justices
(Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) joined by a conservative: Gorsuch was the most frequent, joining them four times, and the remaining
conservative justices joining the liberals once each. The remaining 4 cases were decided by different coalitions.[147] The highest agreement between
justices was between Roberts and Kavanaugh, who agreed at least in judgement 94% of the time; the second highest agreement was again between
Ginsburg and Sotomayor, who agreed 93% of the time. The highest rate of full agreement was between Ginsburg and Kagan (82% of the time), closely
followed by Roberts and Alito, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, and Breyer and Kagan (81% of the time). The largest rate of disagreement was between Thomas
and both Ginsburg and Sotomayor; Thomas disagreed with each of them 50% of the time.[147]
Facilities
The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants' Exchange Building in New York City. When
Philadelphia became the capital, the Court met briefly in Independence Hall before settling in Old City Hall from
1791 until 1800. After the government moved to Washington, D.C., the Court occupied various spaces in the
Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home. The four-story building was designed
by Cass Gilbert in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol and Library of
Congress, and is clad in marble. The building includes the courtroom, justices' chambers, an extensive law library,
various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services including a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the The present U.S. Supreme Court
ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force separate from the Capitol Police.[148] building as viewed from the front
Located across First Street from the United States Capitol at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue,[149][150]
the building is open to the public from 9 am to 4:30 pm weekdays but closed on weekends and holidays.[149] Visitors may not tour the actual courtroom
unaccompanied. There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.[148] When the Court is not in session, lectures about the
courtroom are held hourly from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm and reservations are not necessary.[148] When the Court is in session the public may attend oral
arguments, which are held twice each morning (and sometimes afternoons) 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.[151] The number of open seats varies from case to case;
for important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. From mid-May until the end of
June, the court releases orders and opinions beginning at 10 am, and these 15 to 30-minute sessions are open to the
public on a similar basis.[148] Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.[149]
Jurisdiction
From the 1860s until the 1930s, the
Congress is authorized by Article III of the federal Constitution to regulate the Supreme Court's appellate
[152] court sat in the Old Senate
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over cases between two or more states
Chamber of the U.S. Capitol.
but may decline to hear such cases.[153] It also possesses original but not exclusive jurisdiction to hear "all actions
or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
all controversies between the United States and a State; and all actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against
aliens."[154]
In 1906, the Court asserted its original jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for contempt of court in United States v. Shipp.[155] The resulting proceeding
remains the only contempt proceeding and only criminal trial in the Court's history.[156][157] The contempt proceeding arose from the lynching of Ed
Johnson in Chattanooga, Tennessee the evening after Justice John Marshall Harlan granted Johnson a stay of execution to allow his lawyers to file an
appeal. Johnson was removed from his jail cell by a lynch mob, aided by the local sheriff who left the prison virtually unguarded, and hanged from a
bridge, after which a deputy sheriff pinned a note on Johnson's body reading: "To Justice Harlan. Come get your nigger now."[156] The local sheriff, John
Shipp, cited the Supreme Court's intervention as the rationale for the lynching. The Court appointed its deputy clerk as special master to preside over the
trial in Chattanooga with closing arguments made in Washington before the Supreme Court justices, who found nine individuals guilty of contempt,
sentencing three to 90 days in jail and the rest to 60 days in jail.[156][157][158] In all other cases, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction, including the
ability to issue writs of mandamus and writs of prohibition to lower courts. 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.
The Court's appellate jurisdiction consists of appeals from federal courts of appeal (through certiorari, certiorari before judgment, and certified
questions),[159] the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (through certiorari),[160] the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (through
certiorari),[161] the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands (through certiorari),[162] the District of Columbia Court of Appeals (through certiorari),[163] and
"final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had" (through certiorari).[163] In the last case, an appeal
may be made to the Supreme Court from a lower state court if the state's highest court declined to hear an appeal or lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
For example, a decision rendered by one of the Florida District Courts of Appeal can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if (a) the Supreme Court of
Florida declined to grant certiorari, e.g. Florida Star v. B. J. F., or (b) the district court of appeal issued a per curiam decision simply affirming the lower
court's decision without discussing the merits of the case, since the Supreme Court of Florida lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of such decisions.[164] 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. It has to be noted that this "collateral review" often only applies to individuals on death row and not through the regular judicial system.[165]
Since Article Three of the United States Constitution stipulates that federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies", the Supreme Court
cannot decide cases that are moot and it does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in DeFunis v.
Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/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. However, the Court recognizes some circumstances where it is appropriate to hear a case that is
seemingly moot. If an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review", the Court would address it even though the party before the Court would not
themselves be made whole by a favorable result. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/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. Another mootness exception is voluntary
cessation of unlawful conduct, in which the Court considers the probability of recurrence and plaintiff's need for relief.[166]
Justices as circuit justices
The United States is divided into thirteen 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, there was a potential for a conflict of interest on the Court if a justice had
previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding ended in 1901, when the Circuit Court of Appeals Act was passed, and circuit riding
was officially abolished by Congress in 1911.[167]
The circuit justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court's rules, may be addressed by a single
justice. These include applications for emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act
arising from cases within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, circuit justices also sometimes ruled
on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal. Ordinarily, a justice will
resolve such an application by simply endorsing it "granted" or "denied" or entering a standard form of order; however, the justice may elect to write an
opinion, referred to as an in-chambers opinion, in such matters if they wish.
A circuit justice may sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals of that circuit, but over the past hundred years, this has rarely occurred. A circuit justice sitting
with the Court of Appeals has seniority over the chief judge of the circuit. The chief justice has traditionally been assigned to the District of Columbia
Circuit, the Fourth Circuit (which includes Maryland and Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia), and since it was established, the
Federal Circuit. Each associate justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.
As of November 20, 2020, the allotment of the justices among the circuits is as follows:[168]
Circuit Justice
District of Columbia Circuit Chief Justice Roberts
First Circuit Justice Breyer
Second Circuit Justice Sotomayor
Third Circuit Justice Alito
Fourth Circuit Chief Justice Roberts
Fifth Circuit Justice Alito
Sixth Circuit Justice Kavanaugh
Seventh Circuit Justice Barrett
Eighth Circuit Justice Kavanaugh
Ninth Circuit Justice Kagan
Tenth Circuit Justice Gorsuch
Eleventh Circuit Justice Thomas
Federal Circuit Chief Justice Roberts
Six of the current justices are assigned to circuits on which they previously sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Breyer (First
Circuit), Justice Sotomayor (Second Circuit), Justice Alito (Third Circuit), Justice Barrett (Seventh Circuit), and Justice Gorsuch (Tenth Circuit).
Process
A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term
consists of alternating periods of around two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses"; justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings, and discuss
cases and write opinions during recesses.
Case selection
Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs of 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."[169] 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.[170] The party that appealed to the Court is the petitioner and the non-mover 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,[171] parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction may request that a jury determine issues of fact.[172] Georgia v. Brailsford remains the only case in which the court has empaneled a
jury, in this case a special jury.[173] Two other original jurisdiction cases involve colonial era borders and rights under navigable waters in New Jersey v.
Delaware, and water rights between riparian states upstream of navigable waters in Kansas v. Colorado.
A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called conference. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves; the public and
the Justices' clerks are excluded. The rule of four permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. If it is granted, 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 case's final ruling. 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 Justices Alito and Gorsuch participate in the cert pool.[174][175][176][177]
Oral argument
When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. Both parties will file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from the reasons
they may have argued for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, 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 (the Court may choose to give more time, although this is rare),[178] 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.
Supreme Court bar
In order to plead before the court, an attorney must first be admitted to the court's bar. Approximately 4,000
lawyers join the bar each year. The bar contains an estimated 230,000 members. In reality, pleading is limited
to several hundred attorneys. The rest join for a one-time fee of $200, earning the court about $750,000
annually. Attorneys can be admitted as either individuals or as groups. The group admission is held before Seth P. Waxman at oral argument presents
the current justices of the Supreme Court, wherein the chief justice approves a motion to admit the new his case and answers questions from the
attorneys.[179] Lawyers commonly apply for the cosmetic value of a certificate to display in their office or on justices.
their resume. They also receive access to better seating if they wish to attend an oral argument.[180] Members
of the Supreme Court Bar are also granted access to the collections of the Supreme Court Library.[181]
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, the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any
set time after oral argument. After the oral argument is concluded, usually in the same week as the case was submitted, the Justices retire to another
conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied and the Court sees which side has prevailed. One of the Justices in the majority is then assigned to
write the Court's opinion, also known as the "majority opinion", an assignment made by the most senior Justice in the majority, with the Chief Justice
always being considered the most senior. Drafts of the Court's opinion circulate among the Justices until the Court is prepared to announce the judgment in
a particular case.[182]
Justices are free to change their votes on a case up until the decision is finalized and published. In any given case, a Justice is free to choose whether or not
to author an opinion or else simply join the majority or another Justice's opinion. There are several primary types of opinions:
Opinion of the Court: this is the binding decision of the Supreme Court. An opinion that more than half of the Justices join (usually at
least five Justices, since there are nine Justices in total; but in cases where some Justices do not participate it could be fewer) is known
as "majority opinion" and creates binding precedent in American law. Whereas an opinion that fewer than half of the Justices join is
known as a "plurality opinion" and is only partially binding precedent.
Concurring: when a Justice "concurs", he or she agrees with and joins the majority opinion but authors a separate concurrence to give
additional explanations, rationales, or commentary. Concurrences do not create binding precedent.
Concurring in the judgment: when a justice "concurs in the judgment", he or she agrees with the outcome the Court reached but
disagrees with its reasons for doing so. A justice in this situation does not join the majority opinion. Like regular concurrences, these do
not create binding precedent.
Dissent: a dissenting Justice disagrees with the outcome the Court reached and its reasoning. Justices who dissent from a decision
may author their own dissenting opinions or, if there are multiple dissenting Justices in a decision, may join another Justice's dissent.
Dissents do not create binding precedent. A justice may also join only part(s) of a particular decision, and may even agree with some
parts of the outcome and disagree with others.
Since recording devices are banned inside the courtroom of the Supreme Court Building, the delivery of the decision to the media is done via paper copies
and is known as the "Running of the Interns";[183] 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.[184] 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 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.[185] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945).[186]
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 and lists of the court's orders 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 by the Reporter of Decisions. 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 but containing parallel citations) to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs to find
the cases quickly and easily. As of January 2019, there are:
Final bound volumes of U.S. Reports: 569 volumes, covering cases through June 13, 2013 (part of the October 2012 term).[187][188]
Slip opinions: 21 volumes (565–585 for 2011–2017 terms, three two-part volumes each), plus part 1 of volume 586 (2018 term).[189]
As of March 2012, the U.S. Reports have published a total of 30,161 Supreme Court opinions, covering the decisions handed down from February 1790 to
March 2012. This figure does not reflect the number of cases the Court has taken up, as several cases can be addressed by a single opinion (see, for
example, Parents v. Seattle, where Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was also decided in the same opinion; by a similar logic, Miranda v.
Arizona actually decided not only Miranda but also three other cases: Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart). A more
unusual example is The Telephone Cases, which are a single set of interlinked opinions that take up the entire 126th volume of the U.S. Reports.
Opinions are also collected and published in two unofficial, parallel reporters: Supreme Court Reporter, published by West (now a part of Thomson
Reuters), and United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers' Edition (simply known as Lawyers' Edition), published by LexisNexis. In court documents,
legal periodicals and other legal media, case citations generally contain cites from each of the three reporters; for example, citation to Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission is presented as Citizens United v. Federal Election Com'n, 585 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010), with "S.
Ct." representing the Supreme Court Reporter, and "L. Ed." representing the Lawyers' Edition.[190][191]
Citations to published opinions
Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form "vol U.S. page, pin (year)", where vol is the volume number, page is the page number on
which the opinion begins, and year is the year in which the case was decided. Optionally, pin is used to "pinpoint" to a specific page number within the
opinion. For instance, the citation for Roe v. Wade is 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which means the case was decided in 1973 and appears on page 113 of volume
410 of U.S. Reports. For opinions or orders that have not yet been published in the preliminary print, the volume and page numbers may be replaced with
___
Institutional powers
The federal court system and the judicial authority to interpret the Constitution received little attention in the
debates over the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The power of judicial review, in fact, is nowhere
mentioned in it. Over the ensuing years, the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended by
the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack of evidence bearing on the question either
way.[192] Nevertheless, the power of judiciary to overturn laws and executive actions it determines are 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
Inscription on the wall of the
judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any
Supreme Court Building from
particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between
Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief
the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the
Justice John Marshall outlined the
Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute."
concept of judicial review
The Supreme Court firmly established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803),
consummating the American system of checks and balances. In explaining the power of judicial review, Chief
Justice John Marshall stated that the authority to interpret the law was the particular province of the courts, part of the duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is. His contention was not that the Court had privileged insight into constitutional requirements, but that it was the constitutional duty of
the judiciary, as well as the other branches of government, to read and obey the dictates of the Constitution.[192]
Since the founding of the republic, there has been a tension between the practice of judicial review and the democratic ideals of egalitarianism, self-
government, self-determination and freedom of conscience. At one pole are those who view the federal judiciary and especially the Supreme Court as
being "the most separated and least checked of all branches of government."[193] Indeed, federal judges and justices on the Supreme Court 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 (Section 1 of
Article Three). Although subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been
removed from office. At the other pole are those who view the judiciary as the least dangerous branch, with little ability to resist the exhortations of the
other branches of government.[192]
Constraints
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 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!";[194] however, this alleged quotation has been disputed. Some state governments 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 Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United
States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes.[195] Nixon ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.
Supreme Court decisions can be purposefully overturned by constitutional amendment, something that has happened on six occasions:
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) – overturned by the Eleventh Amendment (1795)

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) – overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment (1865) and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868)
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895) – overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment (1913)
Minor v. Happersett (1875) – overturned by the Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) – overturned by the Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)
Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) – overturned by the Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)
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, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional consideration: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist
doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.[196]
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 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 case ex parte McCardle (1869), although 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), which effectively gave the presidency the power to terminate ratified treaties without the
consent of Congress. The Court's decisions can also impose limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in Humphrey's Executor v. United States
(1935), the Steel Seizure Case (1952), and United States v. Nixon (1974).
Law clerks
Each Supreme Court justice hires several law Clerks to review petitions for writ of certiorari, research them, prepare bench memorandums, and draft
opinions. Associate justices are allowed four clerks. The chief justice is allowed five clerks, but Chief Justice Rehnquist hired only three per year, and
Chief Justice Roberts usually hires only four.[197] Generally, law clerks serve a term of one to two years.
The first law clerk was hired by Associate Justice Horace Gray in 1882.[197][198] Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Louis Brandeis were the first Supreme
Court justices to use recent law school graduates as clerks, rather than hiring "a stenographer-secretary."[199] Most law clerks are recent law school
graduates.
The first female clerk was Lucile Lomen, hired in 1944 by Justice William O. Douglas.[197] The first African-American, William T. Coleman Jr., was
hired in 1948 by Justice Felix Frankfurter.[197] A disproportionately large number of law clerks have obtained law degrees from elite law schools,
especially Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago, Columbia, and Stanford. From 1882 to 1940, 62% of law clerks were graduates of Harvard Law
School.[197] Those chosen to be Supreme Court law clerks usually have graduated in the top of their law school class and were often an editor of the law
review or a member of the moot court board. By the mid-1970s, clerking previously for a judge in a federal court of appeals had also become a
prerequisite to clerking for a Supreme Court justice.[200]
Nine Supreme Court justices previously clerked for other justices: Byron White for Frederick M. Vinson, John Paul Stevens for Wiley Rutledge, William
Rehnquist for Robert H. Jackson, Stephen Breyer for Arthur Goldberg, John Roberts for William Rehnquist, Elena Kagan for Thurgood Marshall, Neil
Gorsuch for both Byron White and Anthony Kennedy, Brett Kavanaugh also for Kennedy, and Amy Coney Barrett for Antonin Scalia. Justices Gorsuch
and Kavanaugh served under Kennedy during the same term. Gorsuch is the first justice to clerk for and subsequently serve alongside the same justice,
serving alongside Kennedy from April 2017 through Kennedy's retirement in 2018. With the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, for the first time a
majority of the Supreme Court was composed of former Supreme Court law clerks (Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, now joined by
Barrett).
Several current Supreme Court justices have also clerked in the federal courts of appeals: John Roberts for Judge Henry Friendly of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Justice Samuel Alito for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Elena Kagan for Judge Abner J. Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Neil Gorsuch for Judge David B.
Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Brett Kavanaugh for Judge Walter Stapleton of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit and Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and Amy Coney Barrett for Judge
Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
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.[201][202] "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.[201] David J. Garrow,
professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a
composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be like the House of Representatives," Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only
ideological purists."[201]
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."[201] A poll conducted in June 2012
by The New York Times and CBS News showed just 44% of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing. Three-quarters said justices'
decisions are sometimes influenced by their political or personal views.[203] One study, using four-year panel data, found that public opinion of the
Supreme Court was highly stable over time.[204]
Criticism and controversies

The Supreme Court has been the object of criticisms and controversies on a range of issues. Among them:
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.[205] An often cited example of 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,[205][206] and which was reversed in the 1930s.[207][208][209]
An often cited example of liberal judicial activism is Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion on the basis of the "right to privacy" inferred from the
Fourteenth Amendment, a reasoning that some critics argued was circuitous.[205] Legal scholars,[210][211] justices,[212] and presidential candidates[213]
have criticized the Roe decision. The progressive Brown v. Board of Education decision banning racial segregation in public schools has been criticized by
conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan,[214] former Associate Justice nominee and Solicitor General Robert Bork[215] and former presidential contender
Barry Goldwater.[216]
More recently, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was criticized for expanding upon the precedent in First National Bank of Boston v.
Bellotti (1978) that the First Amendment applies to corporations, including campaign spending.[217] President Abraham Lincoln warned, referring to the
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."[218] Former justice Thurgood Marshall justified judicial activism with these words: "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up."[219]
During different historical periods, the Court has leaned in different directions.[220][221] Critics from both sides complain that activist judges abandon the
Constitution and substitute their own views instead.[222][223][224] Critics include writers such as Andrew Napolitano,[225] Phyllis Schlafly,[226] Mark R.
Levin,[227] Mark I. Sutherland,[228] and James MacGregor Burns.[229][230] Past presidents from both parties have attacked judicial activism, including
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.[231][232] 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."[233] Brian Leiter wrote that "Given the complexity of the law and the complexity
involved in saying what really happened in a given dispute, all judges, and especially those on the Supreme Court, often have to exercise a quasi-
legislative power," and "Supreme Court nominations are controversial because the court is a super-legislature, and because its moral and political
judgments are controversial."[234]
Individual rights
Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery;[235] Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal;[236] Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including
New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as undermining property rights.[237][238] 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.[239] Senator Al Franken criticized the Court for "eroding individual rights."[240]
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 Scalia criticized the Court's decision in Boumediene v.
Bush for being too protective of the rights of Guantanamo detainees, on the grounds that habeas corpus was "limited" to sovereign territory.[241]
Power excess
This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism. George Will wrote that the Court has an "increasingly central role in American
governance."[242] It was criticized for intervening in bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker Chrysler Corporation in 2009.[243] A reporter
wrote that "Justice 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.[243] Warren E. Burger, before becoming 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."[244] Larry Sabato wrote "excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court."[245]
Courts are a 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 navigate their way through the system,
their ability to restrain other branches is severely weakened.[246][247] In contrast, various other countries have a dedicated constitutional court that has
original jurisdiction on constitutional claims brought by persons or political institutions; for example, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, which
can declare a law unconstitutional when challenged.
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[248] and
Alexander Hamilton[249] argued in The Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state
governments,[250][251][252][253] others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers' wishes.[254] The Tenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution explicitly grants "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Court has been criticized for giving the 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 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species
of insect near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme Court let that
ruling stand without comment in 2005.[255] 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."[256] Justice Alito said congressional
authority under the Commerce Clause is "quite broad";[257] modern-day theorist Robert B. Reich suggests debate over the Commerce Clause continues
today.[256]
Advocates of states' rights such as constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman have also criticized the Court, saying it has misused the Fourteenth Amendment
to undermine state authority. Justice Brandeis, in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that states should be
laboratories of democracy.[258] One critic wrote "the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law."[259]
Others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that extends "protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level."[260] More recently, the
issue of federal power is central in the prosecution of Gamble v. United States, which is examining the doctrine of "separate sovereigns", whereby a
criminal defendant can be prosecuted by a state court and then by a federal court.[261][262]
Secretive proceedings
The Court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.[263] According to a review of Jeffrey Toobin's 2007 expose The Nine:
Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court; "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.'"[264] 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."[264] Larry
Sabato complains about the Court's "insularity";[245] a Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed
that televising Court hearings would "be good for democracy", and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were
televised.[265][266] More recently, several justices have appeared on television, written books and made public statements to journalists.[267][268] 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 inaccessible to others.[267] In October 2010, the Court began the practice of posting on its website recordings and
transcripts of oral arguments on the Friday after they occur.
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.[264][269][270][271][272][273] Another example are Court decisions on
apportionment and re-districting: in Baker v. Carr, the court decided it could rule on apportionment questions; Justice Frankfurter in a "scathing dissent"
argued against the court wading into so-called political questions.[274]
Not choosing enough cases to review
Senator Arlen Specter said the Court should "decide more cases";[240] on the other hand, although Justice Scalia acknowledged in a 2009 interview that
the number of cases that the Court heard then was smaller than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that he had not changed his
standards for deciding whether to review a case, nor did he believe his colleagues had 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.[267]
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."[245] Sanford Levinson has been critical of
justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.[275] James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has "produced a critical
time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times."[229] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as
proposed by Levinson[276] and Sabato[245][277] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein,[278] among others.[279] 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."[280]
Accepting gifts and outside income
The 21st century has seen increased scrutiny of justices accepting expensive gifts and travel. All of the members of the Roberts Court have accepted travel
or gifts.[281] In 2012, Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $1.9 million in advances from her publisher Knopf Doubleday.[282] Justice Scalia and others took
dozens of expensive trips to exotic locations paid for by private donors.[283] Private events sponsored by partisan groups that are attended by both the
justices and those who have an interest in their decisions have raised concerns about access and inappropriate communications.[284] Stephen Spaulding,
the legal director at Common Cause, said: "There are fair questions raised by some of these trips about their commitment to being impartial."[283]
See also
Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts
List of presidents of the United States by judicial appointments
List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court justices
Lists of United States Supreme Court cases
List of pending United States Supreme Court cases
Oyez Project
Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States
Selected landmark Supreme Court decisions

Marbury v. Madison (1803, judicial review)
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819, implied powers)
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824, interstate commerce)
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857, slavery)
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896, separate but equal treatment of races)
Wickard v. Filburn (1942, federal regulation of economic activity)
Brown v. Board of Education (1954, school segregation of races)
Engel v. Vitale (1962, state-sponsored prayers in public schools)
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963, Bible readings and recitation of the Lord's prayer in U.S. public schools)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963, right to an attorney)
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965, contraception)
Miranda v. Arizona (1966, rights of those detained by police)
In re Gault (1967, rights of juvenile suspects)
Loving v. Virginia (1967, interracial marriage)
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971, religious activities in public schools)
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971, freedom of the press)
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972, privacy for unmarried people)
Roe v. Wade (1973, abortion)
Miller v. California (1973, obscenity)
United States v. Nixon (1974, executive privilege)
Buckley v. Valeo (1976, campaign finance)
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986, sodomy)
Bush v. Gore (2000, presidential election)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003, sodomy)
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008, gun rights)
Citizens United v. FEC (2010, campaign finance)
United States v. Windsor (2013, same-sex marriage)
Shelby County v. Holder (2013, voting rights)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015, same-sex marriage)
Bostock v. Clayton County (2020, discrimination on LGBT workers)
References
1. Lawson, Gary; Seidman, Guy (2001). "When Did the Constitution 11. "Building History" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildingh
Become Law?" (http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol77/iss1/1/). istory.aspx). Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United
Notre Dame Law Review. 77: 1–37. Archived (https://web.archiv States. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201205095102/
e.org/web/20201026010025/https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/v https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/buildinghistory.aspx) from
ol77/iss1/1/) from the original on October 26, 2020. Retrieved the original on December 5, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
October 23, 2017. 12. Ashmore, Anne (August 2006). "Dates of Supreme Court
2. U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2. This was narrowed by the decisions and arguments, United States Reports volumes 2–107
Eleventh Amendment to exclude suits against states that are (1791–82)" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecis
brought by persons who are not citizens of that state. ions.pdf) (PDF). Library, Supreme Court of the United States.
3. "About the Supreme Court" (http://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110723204125/https://w
al-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activ ww.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf) (PDF) from
ity-resources/about). Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved April 26, 2009.
the United States Courts. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/ 13. Shugerman, Jed. "A Six-Three Rule: Reviving Consensus and
20201215113446/https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/ Deference on the Supreme Court". Georgia Law Review. 37:
educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resour 893.
ces/about) from the original on December 15, 2020. Retrieved 14. Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court, p. 101
September 3, 2018. (Penguin 2006).
4. Turley, Jonathan. "Essays on Article III: Good Behavior Clause" 15. Scott Douglas Gerber, ed. (1998). "Seriatim: The Supreme Court
(https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/104/go Before John Marshall" (https://books.google.com/books?id=0tEk
od-behavior-clause). Heritage Guide to the Constitution. U5LiYsQC&pg=PA1). New York University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-
Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation. Archived (https://arc 8147-3114-7. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2011051111
hive.today/20200822232208/https://www.heritage.org/constitutio 2038/http://books.google.com/books?id=0tEkU5LiYsQC&pg=PA
n/%23!/amendments/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishmen 1) from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 31,
t#!/articles/3/essays/104/good-behavior-clause) from the original 2009. "Finally many scholars cite the absence of a separate
on August 22, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2018. Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked
5. Pushaw Jr., Robert J. "Essays on Article III: Judicial Vesting prestige."
Clause" (https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essay 16. Manning, John F. (2004). "The Eleventh Amendment and the
s/102/judicial-vesting-clause). Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Reading of Precise Constitutional Texts" (https://digitalcommons.l
Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation. Archived (https://arc aw.yale.edu/ylj/vol113/iss8/1). Yale Law Journal. 113 (8): 1663–
hive.today/20200822232208/https://www.heritage.org/constitutio 1750. doi:10.2307/4135780 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F413578
n/%23!/amendments/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishmen 0). JSTOR 4135780 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/4135780).
t#!/articles/3/essays/102/judicial-vesting-clause) from the original Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190716011024/https://di
on August 22, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2018. gitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol113/iss8/1/) from the original on
6. Watson, Bradley C. S. "Essays on Article III: Supreme Court" (htt July 16, 2019. Retrieved July 16, 2019.
ps://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/3/essays/103/supre 17. Epps, Garrett (October 24, 2004). "Don't Do It, Justices" (https://
me-court). Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Washington, D.C.: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56446-2004Oct23.ht
The Heritage Foundation. Archived (https://archive.today/202008 ml). The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
22232208/https://www.heritage.org/constitution/%23!/amendmen b/20201126212512/https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/arti
ts/8/essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishment#!/articles/3/essay cles/A56446-2004Oct23.html) from the original on November 26,
s/103/supreme-court) from the original on August 22, 2020. 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The court's prestige has
Retrieved September 3, 2018. been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall
7. "The Court as an Institution" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/abo made the court respected"
ut/institution.aspx). Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the 18. The Supreme Court had first used the power of judicial review in
United States. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202012071 the case Ware v. Hylton, (1796), wherein it overturned a state
45700/https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/institution.aspx) from law that conflicted with a treaty between the United States and
the original on December 7, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2018. Great Britain.
8. "Supreme Court Nominations: present–1789" (https://www.senat 19. Rosen, Jeffrey (July 5, 2009). "Black Robe Politics" (https://www.
e.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm). washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR20090
Washington, D.C.: Office of the Secretary, United States Senate. 70202033.html) (book review of Packing the Court by James
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201209085119/https://w MacGregor Burns). The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.
ww.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.ht archive.org/web/20200814121507/https://www.washingtonpost.c
m) from the original on December 9, 2020. Retrieved om/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070202033.html)
September 3, 2018. from the original on August 14, 2020. Retrieved October 31,
9. Hodak, George (February 1, 2011). "February 2, 1790: Supreme 2009. "From the beginning, Burns continues, the Court has
Court Holds Inaugural Session" (http://www.abajournal.com/mag established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress
azine/article/february_2_1790_supreme_court_holds_inaugural_ because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup"
session/). abajournal.com. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar in Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down
Association. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201203002 unconstitutional laws."
353/https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/february_2_17
90_supreme_court_holds_inaugural_session) from the original
on December 3, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
10. Pigott, Robert (2014). New York's Legal Landmarks: A Guide to
Legal Edifices, Institutions, Lore, History, and Curiosities on the
City's Streets. New York: Attorney Street Editions. p. 7.
ISBN 978-0-61599-283-9.
20. "The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America – 26. Slater, Dan (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens on the Death
Marbury v. Madison (1803)" (https://web.archive.org/web/200309 Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled" (https://blogs.wsj.co
20031130/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/ m/law/2008/04/18/justice-stevens-on-the-death-penalty-a-promis
document_page19.htm). U.S. News & World Report. 2003. e-of-fairness-unfulfilled/). The Wall Street Journal. Archived (http
Archived from the original (https://www.usnews.com/usnews/doc s://web.archive.org/web/20200814121458/https://blogs.wsj.com/l
uments/docpages/document_page19.htm) on September 20, aw/2008/04/18/justice-stevens-on-the-death-penalty-a-promise-o
2003. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "With his decision in Marbury f-fairness-unfulfilled/) from the original on August 14, 2020.
v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The first Chief Justice, John
of judicial review, an important addition to the system of 'checks Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice
and balances' created to prevent any one branch of the Federal originating in England in which each appellate judge writes an
Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant to opinion in ruling on a single case. (You may have read old tort
the Constitution is void." cases in law school with such opinions). Marshall sought to do
21. Sloan, Cliff; McKean, David (February 21, 2009). "Why Marbury away with this practice to help build the Court into a coequal
V. Madison Still Matters" (http://www.newsweek.com/id/185803). branch."
Newsweek. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090802063 27. Suddath, Claire (December 19, 2008). "A Brief History of
642/http://www.newsweek.com/id/185803) from the original on Impeachment" (https://web.archive.org/web/20081219174136/htt
August 2, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "More than 200 p://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1867783,00.html).
years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark Time. Archived from the original (http://www.time.com/time/politic
case continues to resonate." s/article/0,8599,1867783,00.html) on December 19, 2008.
22. "The Constitution in Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Congress tried the process again
Supreme Court" (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachin in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice
e/1893/02/27/106861891.pdf) (PDF). The New York Times. Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase
February 27, 1893. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201 was overzealous and notoriously unfair … But Chase never
217003220/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/189 committed a crime—he was just incredibly bad at his job. The
3/02/27/106861891.pdf) (PDF) from the original on December Senate acquitted him on every count."
17, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The decision … in Martin 28. Greenhouse, Linda (April 10, 1996). "Rehnquist Joins Fray on
vs. Hunter's Lessee is the authority on which lawyers and Judges Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence" (https://www.nytimes.
have rested the doctrine that where there is in question, in the com/1996/04/10/us/rehnquist-joins-fray-on-rulings-defending-judi
highest court of a State, and decided adversely to the validity of cial-independence.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://
a State statute... such claim is reviewable by the Supreme Court web.archive.org/web/20110511111352/http://www.nytimes.com/1
..." 996/04/10/us/rehnquist-joins-fray-on-rulings-defending-judicial-in
23. Ginsburg, Ruth Bader; Stevens, John P.; Souter, David; Breyer, dependence.html) from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved
Stephen (December 13, 2000). "Dissenting opinions in Bush v. October 31, 2009. "the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel
Gore" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100525001613/https://ww Chase, who had been impeached by the House of
w.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres246.htm). USA Today. Representatives … This decision by the Senate was enormously
Archived from the original (https://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2 important in securing the kind of judicial independence
000/pres246.htm) on May 25, 2010. Retrieved December 8, contemplated by Article III" of the Constitution, Chief Justice
2019. "Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of Rehnquist said"
state law by a state high court … The Virginia court refused to 29. Edward Keynes; Randall K. Miller (1989). "The Court vs.
obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion" (https://books.google.co
for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to m/books?id=_Ebb2wsxkF4C&pg=PA115). Duke University
the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Press. ISBN 0822309688. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
Wheat. 304 (1816)." 20110511112043/http://books.google.com/books?id=_Ebb2wsxk
24. "Decisions of the Supreme Court – Historic Decrees Issued in F4C&pg=PA115) from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved
One Hundred an Eleven Years" (https://timesmachine.nytimes.co October 31, 2009. "(page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress
m/timesmachine/1901/02/03/105757962.pdf) (PDF). The New has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction."
York Times. February 3, 1901. Archived (https://web.archive.org/ 30. Ifill, Sherrilyn A. (May 27, 2009). "Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind
web/20201205132522/https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesm Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense" (https://www.usne
achine/1901/02/03/105757962.pdf) (PDF) from the original on ws.com/articles/opinion/2009/05/27/sotomayors-great-legal-mind
December 5, 2020. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Very important -long-ago-defeated-race-gender-nonsense.html). U.S. News &
also was the decision in Martin vs. Hunter's lessee, in which the World Report. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "But his decision in
court asserted its authority to overrule, within certain limits, the Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and
decisions of the highest State courts." freedmen to a stateless existence within the United States until
25. "The Supreme Quiz" (https://web.archive.org/web/201104290543 the passage of the 14th Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-
03/http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=articl fulfilling statement in Dred Scott, that blacks had "no rights which
e&contentId=A58066-2000Oct2&notFound=true). The the white man [was] bound to respect," has ensured his place in
Washington Post. October 2, 2000. Archived from the original (htt history—not as a brilliant jurist, but as among the most
ps://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&c insensitive"
ontentId=A58066-2000Oct2&notFound=true) on April 29, 2011. 31. Irons, Peter (2006). A People's History of the Supreme Court:
Retrieved October 31, 2009. "According to the Oxford The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have
Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Shaped Our Constitution (https://archive.org/details/peopleshisto
Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade the other ryof00iron_0/page/176). United States: Penguin Books. pp. 176–
justices to stop seriatim opinions—each issuing one—so that the 177 (https://archive.org/details/peopleshistoryof00iron_0/page/17
court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s, 6). ISBN 978-0-14-303738-5. "The rhetorical battle that followed
however, there's been a significant increase in individual the Dred Scott decision, as we know, later erupted into the
'concurring' and 'dissenting' opinions." 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)"
32. "Liberty of Contract?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20091122031 39. Lipsky, Seth (October 22, 2009). "All the News That's Fit to
228/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/liberty Subsidize" (https://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424052
ofk.htm). Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. October 31, 2009. 748704597704574486242417039358). The Wall Street Journal.
Archived from the original (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20131219035657/http://onl
cts/ftrials/conlaw/libertyofk.htm) on November 22, 2009. ine.wsj.com/news/articles/SB2000142405274870459770457448
Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The term 'substantive due process' 6242417039358) from the original on December 19, 2013.
is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner—the Retrieved October 31, 2009. "He was a farmer in Ohio ... during
finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in for farmers. With
Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one could grow
Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court —even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case,
repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm."
became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right 40. Cohen, Adam (December 14, 2004). "What's New in the Legal
of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships." World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal" (https://ww
33. "Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161" (https://www.law.cornell.ed w.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html). The New York
u/supremecourt/text/208/161). Cornell University Law School. Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130307222715/h
1908. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120424064132/ht ttp://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/14/opinion/14tue4.html) from the
tp://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/208/161) from the original on March 7, 2013. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Some
original on April 24, 2012. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "No. 293 prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to
Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 – Decided: January 27, 1908" overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an
34. Bodenhamer, David J.; James W. Ely (1993). The Bill of Rights in expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public
modern America (https://books.google.com/books?id=L-_9mFCe interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed
BSIC&pg=PA245). Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Wickard ... for paving the way for strong federal action..."
Press. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-253-35159-3. Archived (https://web.ar 41. "Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years" (https://ww
chive.org/web/20201118001054/https://books.google.com/book w.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0227.html). The
s?id=L-_9mFCeBSIC&pg=PA245) from the original on November New York Times. United Press International (UPI). September
18, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2020. "… of what eventually 25, 1971. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2009101505065
became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill 5/http://nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0227.html)
of Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth from the original on October 15, 2009. Retrieved October 31,
Amendment due process or equal protection." 2009. "Justice Black developed his controversial theory, first
35. White, Edward Douglass. "Opinion for the Court, Arver v. U.S. stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due
245 U.S. 366" (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of
ourt=us&vol=245&invol=366). Archived (https://web.archive.org/ Rights to the states."
web/20110501075034/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getca 42. "100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of
se.pl?court=us&vol=245&invol=366) from the original on May 1, Education (1954)" (https://web.archive.org/web/2009110603510
2011. Retrieved March 30, 2011. "Finally, as we are unable to 1/http://www.usnews.com/usnews/documents/docpages/docume
conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the nt_page87.htm). U.S. News & World Report. May 17, 1954.
citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of Archived from the original (https://www.usnews.com/usnews/doc
contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, uments/docpages/document_page87.htm) on November 6,
as the result of a war declared by the great representative body 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "On May 17, 1954, U.S.
of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous
servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of
Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of
contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement." public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was
36. Siegan, Bernard H. (1987). The Supreme Court's Constitution (ht therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end
tps://books.google.com/books?id=XABdIe1foccC&pg=PA146). of the "separate but equal" … and served as a catalyst for the
Transaction Publishers. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-88738-671-8. expanding civil rights movement..."
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210220161141/https://b 43. "Essay: In defense of privacy" (https://web.archive.org/web/2009
ooks.google.com/books?id=XABdIe1foccC&pg=PA146) from the 1013120125/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8
original on February 20, 2021. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "In 36012-3,00.html). Time. July 15, 1966. Archived from the original
the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,836012-3,00.
invalidated a classification based on gender as inconsistent with html) on October 13, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The
the substantive due process requirements of the fifth biggest legal milestone in this field was last year's Supreme
amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overthrew the
the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District state's law against the use of contraceptives as an invasion of
of Columbia. (p. 146)" marital privacy, and for the first time declared the "right of
37. Biskupic, Joan (March 29, 2005). "Supreme Court gets privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself."
makeover" (https://www.usatoday.com/travel/destinations/2005-0 44. Gibbs, Nancy (December 9, 1991). "America's Holy War" (https://
3-28-high-court-makeover_x.htm). USA Today. Archived (https:// web.archive.org/web/20071102070141/http://www.time.com/time/
web.archive.org/web/20090605082031/http://www.usatoday.com/ magazine/article/0,9171,974430,00.html). Time. Archived from
travel/destinations/2005-03-28-high-court-makeover_x.htm) from the original (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,9
the original on June 5, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The 74430,00.html) on November 2, 2007. Retrieved October 31,
building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 2009. "In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court
1935." threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state
38. Justice Roberts (September 21, 2005). "Responses of Judge officials that was recommended for use in New York State
John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph schools. 'It is no part of the business of government,' ruled the
R. Biden" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/docum court, 'to compose official prayers for any group of the American
ents/roberts/biden_responses.pdf) (PDF). The Washington Post. people to recite.'"
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150930002412/http://w
ww.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/roberts/biden_
responses.pdf) (PDF) from the original on September 30, 2015.
Retrieved October 31, 2009. "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."
45. Mattox, William R., Jr; Trinko, Katrina (August 17, 2009). "Teach 53. "Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo" (https://www.nytimes.com/199
the Bible? Of course" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090820030 8/11/12/opinion/time-to-rethink-buckley-v-valeo.html). The New
545/http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-teach-the-bi York Times. November 12, 1998. Archived (https://web.archive.or
ble-of-course-.html). USA Today. Archived from the original (htt g/web/20110511111407/http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/opini
p://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/column-teach-the-bible-of- on/time-to-rethink-buckley-v-valeo.html) from the original on May
course-.html) on August 20, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. 11, 2011. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "...Buckley v. Valeo. The
"Public schools need not proselytize—indeed, must not—in nation's political system has suffered ever since from that
teaching students about the Good Book … In Abington School decision, which held that mandatory limits on campaign spending
District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated unconstitutionally limit free speech. The decision did much to
that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively promote the explosive growth of campaign contributions from
as part of a secular program of education," was permissible special interests and to enhance the advantage incumbents
under the First Amendment." enjoy over underfunded challengers."
46. "The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle" (https://web.archive.org/web/ 54. Staff writer (June 29, 1972). "Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's
20080423044435/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9 Key Decisions" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/r
171,898882,00.html). Time. June 18, 1965. Archived from the ehnquist/rehnquist_key_decisions.html). The Washington Post.
original (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8988 Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100525065231/http://w
82,00.html) on April 23, 2008. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Last ww.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/rehnquist/rehnquist_key_
week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court refused for the first time to decisions.html) from the original on May 25, 2010. Retrieved
give retroactive effect to a great Bill of Rights decision—Mapp v. October 31, 2009. "Furman v. Georgia … Rehnquist dissents
Ohio (1961)." from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on
47. "The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment" (http capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore
s://web.archive.org/web/20100528172220/http://www.time.com/ti unconstitutional."
me/magazine/article/0,9171,841844,00.html). Time. April 16, 55. History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek
1965. Archived from the original (http://www.time.com/time/maga (eds.) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the
zine/article/0,9171,841844,00.html) on May 28, 2010. Retrieved United States. Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-
October 31, 2009. "Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Gideon 505835-6
v. Wainwright in 1963). … the court said flatly in 1904: 'The Sixth 56. "A Supreme Revelation" (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120856
Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal 145124627875?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks). The
courts.' But in the light of Gideon … ruled Black, statements Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2008. Archived (https://web.archive.
'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to org/web/20170824133310/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB12085
states can no longer be regarded as law.'" 6145124627875?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks) from
48. "Guilt and Mr. Meese" (https://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/opin the original on August 24, 2017. Retrieved October 31, 2009.
ion/guilt-and-mr-meese.html). The New York Times. January 31, "Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the
1987. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111536/htt majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the Supreme Court.
p://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/31/opinion/guilt-and-mr-meese.ht Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v. Georgia, which
ml) from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 31, had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only four years
2009. "1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's the famous earlier."
decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence unless 57. Greenhouse, Linda (January 8, 2009). "The Chief Justice on the
an accused person has been warned by police of the right to Spot" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09greenhou
silence and to a lawyer, and waived it." se.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
49. Graglia, Lino A. (October 2008). "The Antitrust Revolution" (http web/20110512173851/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinio
s://web.archive.org/web/20170621023852/http://www.fed-soc.or n/09greenhouse.html) from the original on May 12, 2011.
g/doclib/20090107_GragliaEngage93.pdf) (PDF). Engage. 9 (3). Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The federalism issue at the core of
Archived from the original (http://www.fed-soc.org/doclib/200901 the new case grows out of a series of cases from 1997 to 2003 in
07_GragliaEngage93.pdf) (PDF) on June 21, 2017. Retrieved which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of scrutiny to
February 6, 2016. Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the
50. Earl M. Maltz, The Coming of the Nixon Court: The 1972 Term Reconstruction amendments."
and the Transformation of Constitutional Law (University Press of 58. Greenhouse, Linda (September 4, 2005). "William H. Rehnquist,
Kansas; 2016) Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80" (https://www.nyti
51. O'Connor, Karen (January 22, 2009). "Roe v. Wade: On mes.com/2005/09/04/politics/william-h-rehnquist-chief-justice-of-s
Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight" (https://www.usnew upreme-court-is-dead-at-80.html). The New York Times.
s.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/22/roe-v-wade-on-anniversary-ab Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150402053850/http://w
ortion-is-out-of-the-spotlight.html). U.S. News & World Report. ww.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/politics/04rehnquist.html) from the
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090326104927/http://w original on April 2, 2015. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "United
ww.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/01/22/roe-v-wade-on-anni States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the stakes in the debate over
versary-abortion-is-out-of-the-spotlight.html) from the original on federal authority even higher. The decision declared
March 26, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The shocker, unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of
however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet
relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law of a school."
prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, 59. Greenhouse, Linda (June 12, 2005). "The Rehnquist Court and
invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy" (https://www.nytimes.com/20
to privacy..." 05/06/12/weekinreview/12green.html). The New York Times.
52. "Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose" (https://web.archive.org/web/201010 Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110505214022/http://ww
14122411/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946 w.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12green.html) from the
798,00.html). Time. July 10, 1978. Archived from the original (htt original on May 5, 2011. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Intrastate
p://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,946798,00.html) activity that was not essentially economic was beyond
on October 14, 2010. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Split almost Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice
exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in United States v.
Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on Morrison."
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'…"
60. Greenhouse, Linda (March 22, 2005). "Inmates Who Follow 67. Babington, Charles; Baker, Peter (September 30, 2005).
Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally" (https://www.nytimes.co "Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice" (https://www.washingt
m/2005/03/22/politics/inmates-who-follow-satanism-and-wicca-fin onpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR200509290085
d-unlikely-ally.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web. 9.html). The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
archive.org/web/20140326222133/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/ web/20100116015122/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/c
03/22/politics/22religion.html?pagewanted=print&position=) from ontent/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900859.html) from the
the original on March 26, 2014. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "His original on January 16, 2010. Retrieved November 1, 2009.
(Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision, City of "John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th
Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the predecessor to chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put
the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as
exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member
applied to the states." court."
61. Amar, Vikram David (July 27, 2005). "Casing John Roberts" (http 68. Greenhouse, Linda (July 1, 2007). "In Steps Big and Small,
s://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html). The New Supreme Court Moved Right" (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/
York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081014000 01/washington/01scotus.html). The New York Times. Archived (h
329/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/27/opinion/27amar.html) ttps://web.archive.org/web/20090417081610/http://www.nytimes.
from the original on October 14, 2008. Retrieved October 31, com/2007/07/01/washington/01scotus.html) from the original on
2009. "Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996) In this seemingly April 17, 2009. Retrieved November 1, 2009. "It was the
technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that
sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to liberals feared … This was a more conservative court,
override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its
though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result." majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the
62. Greenhouse, Linda (April 1, 1999). "Justices Seem Ready to Tilt outcome in cases big and small."
More Toward States in Federalism" (https://www.nytimes.com/19 69. Liptak, Adam (July 24, 2010). "Court Under Roberts Is Most
99/04/01/us/justices-seem-ready-to-tilt-more-toward-states-in-fed Conservative in Decades" (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/
eralism.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archiv us/25roberts.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.a
e.org/web/20110511111138/http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/01/ rchive.org/web/20210824164125/https://www.nytimes.com/2010/
us/justices-seem-ready-to-tilt-more-toward-states-in-federalism.ht 07/25/us/25roberts.html) from the original on August 24, 2021.
ml) from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 31, Retrieved February 1, 2019. "When Chief Justice John G.
2009. "The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436, Roberts Jr. and his colleagues on the Supreme Court left for their
proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface … summer break at the end of June, they marked a milestone: the
On a deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Roberts court had just completed its fifth term. In those five
Court's struggle over an even more basic issue: the years, the court not only moved to the right but also became the
Government's substantive authority over the states." most conservative one in living memory, based on an analysis of
63. Lindenberger, Michael A. "The Court's Gay Rights Legacy" (http four sets of political science data."
s://web.archive.org/web/20080629115005/http://www.time.com/ti 70. Caplan, Lincoln (October 10, 2016). "A new era for the Supreme
me/nation/article/0,8599,1818504,00.html). Time. Archived from Court: the transformative potential of a shift in even one seat" (htt
the original (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1818 ps://prospect.org/article/new-era-supreme-court). The American
504,00.html) on June 29, 2008. Retrieved October 31, 2009. Prospect. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2019020221211
"The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned 9/https://prospect.org/article/new-era-supreme-court) from the
convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested original on February 2, 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2019. "The
after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. Court has gotten increasingly more conservative with each of the
And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and Republican-appointed chief justices—Warren E. Burger (1969–
women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were 1986), William H. Rehnquist (1986–2005), and John G. Roberts
free to be gay without being criminals." Jr. (2005–present). All told, Republican presidents have
64. Justice Sotomayor (July 16, 2009). "Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' – appointed 12 of the 16 most recent justices, including the chiefs.
The 'Roe' recital" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090822073852/ During Roberts's first decade as chief, the Court was the most
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/retire-the-ginsburg-rule-. conservative in more than a half-century and likely the most
html). USA Today. Archived from the original (http://blogs.usatod conservative since the 1930s."
ay.com/oped/2009/07/retire-the-ginsburg-rule-.html) on August 71. Savage, Charlie (July 14, 2009). "Respecting Precedent, or
22, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2009. "The court's decision in Settled Law, Unless It's Not Settled" (https://www.nytimes.com/20
Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of 09/07/15/us/politics/15abortion.html). The New York Times.
Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111502/http://ww
the holding of the court." w.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/politics/15abortion.html) from the
65. Kamiya, Gary (July 4, 2001). "Against the Law" (http://www.salo original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved November 1, 2009.
n.com/2001/07/05/dershowitz_2/). Salon. Archived (https://web.a "Gonzales v. Carhart—in which the Supreme Court narrowly
rchive.org/web/20121013045632/http://www.salon.com/2001/07/ upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure
05/dershowitz_2/) from the original on October 13, 2012. opponents call "partial birth abortion"—to be settled law."
Retrieved November 21, 2012. "...the remedy was far more 72. "A Bad Day for Democracy" (http://www.csmonitor.com/Comment
harmful than the problem. By stopping the recount, the high court ary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supreme-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-
clearly denied many thousands of voters who cast legal votes, as day-for-democracy). The Christian Science Monitor. January 22,
defined by established Florida law, their constitutional right to 2010. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100125052239/ht
have their votes counted. … It cannot be a legitimate use of law tp://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0122/Supre
to disenfranchise legal voters when recourse is available. …" me-Court-s-campaign-ruling-a-bad-day-for-democracy) from the
66. Krauthammer, Charles (December 18, 2000). "The Winner in original on January 25, 2010. Retrieved January 22, 2010.
Bush v. Gore?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101122083955/htt 73. Barnes, Robert (October 1, 2009). "Justices to Decide if State
p://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998788,00.html). Gun Laws Violate Rights" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d
Time. Archived from the original (http://www.time.com/time/maga yn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html). The
zine/article/0,9171,998788,00.html) on November 22, 2010. Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201804
Retrieved October 31, 2009. "Re-enter the Rehnquist court. Amid 23220110/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/articl
the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. … the Supreme Court e/2009/09/30/AR2009093001723.html) from the original on April
eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida 23, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2009. "The landmark 2008
Supreme Court in its tracks—and stayed its willfulness. By, mind decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on
you, …" 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..."
74. Greenhouse, Linda (April 18, 2008). "Justice Stevens Renounces 84. "The Stakes of the 2016 Election Just Got Much, Much Higher"
Capital Punishment" (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/washi (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-supreme-court_us_56
ngton/18memo.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://we bfaee3e4b0c3c55051ad0c). The Huffington Post. Archived (http
b.archive.org/web/20081211222154/http://www.nytimes.com/200 s://web.archive.org/web/20160214021343/http://www.huffingtonp
8/04/18/washington/18memo.html) from the original on ost.com/entry/2016-supreme-court_us_56bfaee3e4b0c3c55051a
December 11, 2008. Retrieved November 1, 2009. "His d0c) from the original on February 14, 2016. Retrieved
renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, February 14, 2016.
Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic." 85. McMillion, Barry J. (October 19, 2015). "Supreme Court
75. Greenhouse, Linda (June 26, 2008). "Supreme Court Rejects Appointment Process: Senate Debate and Confirmation Vote" (ht
Death Penalty for Child Rape" (https://www.nytimes.com/2008/0 tps://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44234.pdf) (PDF).
6/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html). The New York Times. Congressional Research Service. Archived (https://web.archive.o
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190913065721/https://w rg/web/20151228195628/http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R4423
ww.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html) from 4.pdf) (PDF) from the original on December 28, 2015. Retrieved
the original on September 13, 2019. Retrieved November 1, February 14, 2016.
2009. "The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for 86. Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). "Appendix Two" (https://archive.org/de
the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled tails/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/965). Oxford Companion to
Wednesday … The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press.
laws in Louisiana and five other states." pp. 965–971 (https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/
76. McGinnis, John O. "Essays on Article II: Appointments Clause" page/965). ISBN 978-0-19-505835-2.
(https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/91/app 87. See Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), which
ointments-clause). The Heritage Guide To The Constitution. concerned the recess appointment of William H. Pryor Jr.
Heritage Foundation. Archived (https://archive.today/202008222 Concurring in denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens observed that
32208/https://www.heritage.org/constitution/%23!/amendments/8/ the case involved "the first such appointment of an Article III
essays/161/cruel-and-unusual-punishment#!/articles/2/essays/9 judge in nearly a half century." 544 U.S. 942 (2005), Stevens, J.,
1/appointments-clause) from the original on August 22, 2020. concurring in denial of certiorari.
Retrieved June 19, 2019. 88. Fisher, Louis (September 5, 2001). "Recess Appointments of
77. "United States Senate. "Nominations" " (https://www.senate.gov/ Federal Judges" (https://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pd
artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm). f/RL31112.pdf) (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Congressional
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190407112442/https://w Research Service. RL31112: 16. Archived (https://web.archive.or
ww.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nomination g/web/20200417150206/https://www.senate.gov/reference/resou
s.htm) from the original on April 7, 2019. Retrieved February 16, rces/pdf/RL31112.pdf) (PDF) from the original on April 17, 2020.
2018. Retrieved August 6, 2010. "Resolved, That it is the sense of the
78. Brunner, Jim (March 24, 2017). "Sen. Patty Murray will oppose Senate that the making of recess appointments to the Supreme
Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court" (http://www.seattletimes.com/s Court of the United States may not be wholly consistent with the
eattle-news/politics/sen-patty-murray-will-oppose-neil-gorsuch-for best interests of the Supreme Court, the nominee who may be
-supreme-court/). The Seattle Times. Archived (https://web.archiv involved, the litigants before the Court, nor indeed the people of
e.org/web/20170410133132/http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle- the United States, and that such appointments, therefore, should
news/politics/sen-patty-murray-will-oppose-neil-gorsuch-for-supr not be made except under unusual circumstances and for the
eme-court/) from the original on April 10, 2017. Retrieved April 9, purpose of preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in
2017. "In a statement Friday morning, Murray cited Republicans' the administration of the Court's business."
refusal to confirm or even seriously consider President Obama's 89. The resolution passed by a vote of 48 to 37, mainly along party
nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, a similarly well-qualified lines; Democrats supported the resolution 48–4, and
jurist – and went on to lambaste President Trump's conduct in his Republicans opposed it 33–0.
first few months in office. [...] And Murray added she's 'deeply
90. "National Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al" (https://www.sup
troubled' by Gorsuch's 'extreme conservative perspective on remecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf) (PDF). pp. 34,
women's health', citing his 'inability' to state a clear position on 35. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201212030517/http
Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion-legalization decision, and
s://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf)
his comments about the 'Hobby Lobby' decision allowing (PDF) from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved
employers to refuse to provide birth-control coverage." June 27, 2017. The Court continued, "In our view, however, the
79. Flegenheimer, Matt (April 6, 2017). "Senate Republicans Deploy pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess.
'Nuclear Option' to Clear Path for Gorsuch" (https://www.nytimes. We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause,
com/2017/04/06/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.ht the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its
ml). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/ own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.
20181002075315/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/politic The Senate met that standard here." Later, the opinion states:
s/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-senate.html) from the original on "For these reasons, we conclude that we must give great weight
October 2, 2018. Retrieved April 7, 2017. "After Democrats held to the Senate's own determination of when it is and when it is not
together Thursday morning and filibustered President Trump's in session. But our deference to the Senate cannot be absolute.
nominee, Republicans voted to lower the threshold for advancing When the Senate is without the capacity to act, under its own
Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to a simple majority." rules, it is not in session even if it so declares."
80. "U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations, Present-1789" (http 91. "Obama Won't Appoint Scalia Replacement While Senate Is Out
s://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominatio This Week" (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/02/1
ns.htm). United States Senate. Archived (https://web.archive.org/ 5/466849025/white-house-seems-to-rule-out-recess-appointment
web/20201209085119/https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/refere -to-replace-scalia). NPR. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
nce/nominations/Nominations.htm) from the original on 0201203102745/https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/0
December 9, 2020. Retrieved April 8, 2017. 2/15/466849025/white-house-seems-to-rule-out-recess-appointm
81. See 5 U.S.C. § 2902 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2 ent-to-replace-scalia) from the original on December 3, 2020.
902). Retrieved January 25, 2017.
82. 28 U.S.C. § 4 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4). If 92. "How the Federal Courts Are Organized: Can a federal judge be
two justices are commissioned on the same date, then the oldest fired?" (https://web.archive.org/web/20120915143136/http://www.
one has precedence. fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&p
83. Balkin, Jack M. "The passionate intensity of the confirmation age=%2Ffederal%2Fcourts.nsf%2Fpage%2FA783011AF949B6B
process" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071218235804/http://juri F85256B35004AD214%3Fopendocument). Federal Judicial
st.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/balkin.php). Jurist. Archived Center. fjc.gov. Archived from the original (http://www.fjc.gov/fede
from the original (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/symposium-jc/bal ral/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu3c&page=/federa
kin.php) on December 18, 2007. Retrieved February 13, 2008. l/courts.nsf/page/A783011AF949B6BF85256B35004AD214?ope
ndocument) on September 15, 2012. Retrieved March 18, 2012.
93. "History of the Federal Judiciary: Impeachments of Federal 107. "Current Members" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biograp
Judges" (http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/page/judges_impea hies.aspx#BKavanaugh). www.supremecourt.gov. Washington,
chments.html). Federal Judicial Center fjc.gov. Archived (https:// D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States. Archived (https://web.
www.webcitation.org/5uplZEskJ?url=http://www.fjc.gov/history/ho archive.org/web/20110721063602/https://www.supremecourt.go
me.nsf/page/judges_impeachments.html) from the original on v/about/biographies.aspx#BKavanaugh) from the original on July
December 8, 2010. Retrieved March 18, 2012. 21, 2011. Retrieved October 21, 2018.
94. Appel, Jacob M. (August 22, 2009). "Anticipating the 108. Walthr, Matthew (April 21, 2014). "Sam Alito: A Civil Man" (http
Incapacitated Justice" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-a s://web.archive.org/web/20170522135245/https://spectator.org/5
ppel/anticipating-the-incapaci_b_266179.html). The Huffington 8731_sam-alito-civil-man/). The American Spectator. Archived
Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090827005222/htt from the original (https://spectator.org/58731_sam-alito-civil-ma
p://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/anticipating-the-incap n/) on May 22, 2017. Retrieved June 15, 2017 – via The
aci_b_266179.html) from the original on August 27, 2009. ANNOTICO Reports.
Retrieved August 23, 2009. 109. DeMarco, Megan (February 14, 2008). "Growing up Italian in
95. Federal Judiciary Act (1789) (https://www.ourdocuments.gov/do Jersey: Alito reflects on ethnic heritage" (https://web.archive.org/
c.php?flash=true&doc=12) Archived (https://web.archive.org/we web/20170730160055/http://www.italystl.com/ra/3788.htm). The
b/20201105232024/https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flas Times. Trenton, New Jersey. Archived from the original (http://ww
h=true&doc=12) November 5, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, w.italystl.com/ra/3788.htm) on July 30, 2017. Retrieved June 15,
National Archives and Records Administration, retrieved 2017.
September 12, 2017 110. Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic, but attends an Episcopalian
96. "Judges on Horseback" (https://www.lb8.uscourts.gov:444/pubsa church. It is unclear if he considers himself a Catholic or a
ndservices/histsociety/empire-panel2-judges-on-horseback.pdf) Protestant. Burke, Daniel (March 22, 2017). "What is Neil
(PDF). U.S Courts Library - 8th Circuit. Archived (https://web.arc Gorsuch's religion? It's complicated" (http://www.cnn.com/2017/0
hive.org/web/20201103041606/https://www.lb8.uscourts.gov:444/ 3/18/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion/). CNN. Archived (https://web.a
pubsandservices/histsociety/empire-panel2-judges-on-horsebac rchive.org/web/20170625231112/http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/1
k.pdf) (PDF) from the original on November 3, 2020. Retrieved 8/politics/neil-gorsuch-religion) from the original on June 25,
April 4, 2021. 2017. Retrieved April 7, 2017. "Springer said she doesn't know
97. Why does the Supreme Court have nine Justices? (https://constit whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an
utioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justi Episcopalian. "I have no evidence that Judge Gorsuch considers
ces) himself an Episcopalian, and likewise no evidence that he does
98. 16 Stat. 44 (http://legislink.org/us/stat-16-44) not." Gorsuch's younger brother, J.J., said he too has "no idea
how he would fill out a form. He was raised in the Catholic
99. Mintz, S. (2007). "The New Deal in Decline" (https://web.archive. Church and confirmed in the Catholic Church as an adolescent,
org/web/20080505032845/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/datab but he has been attending Episcopal services for the past 15 or
ase/article_display.cfm?HHID=479). Digital History. University of so years.""
Houston. Archived from the original (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.e
du/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=479) on May 5, 2008. 111. "Religion of the Supreme Court" (https://web.archive.org/web/200
Retrieved October 27, 2009. 10405054827/http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html).
adherents.com. January 31, 2006. Archived from the original on
100. Hodak, George (2007). "February 5, 1937: FDR Unveils Court April 5, 2001. Retrieved July 9, 2010.
Packing Plan" (http://abajournal.com/magazine/article/february_5
_1937/). ABAjournal.com. American Bar Association. Archived (h 112. Segal, Jeffrey A.; Spaeth, Harold J. (2002). The Supreme Court
ttps://web.archive.org/web/20110815154911/http://www.abajourn and the Attitudinal Model Revisited (https://archive.org/details/su
al.com/magazine/article/february_5_1937/) from the original on premecourtatti00sega). Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 183 (https://ar
August 15, 2011. Retrieved January 29, 2009. chive.org/details/supremecourtatti00sega/page/n105). ISBN 978-
0-521-78971-4.
101. "TSHA | Court-Packing Plan of 1937" (https://www.tshaonline.or
g/handbook/entries/court-packing-plan-of-1937). Archived (http 113. Schumacher, Alvin. "Roger B. Taney" (https://www.britannica.co
s://web.archive.org/web/20210506124559/https://www.tshaonlin m/biography/Roger-B-Taney). Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170824103041/https://www.britan
e.org/handbook/entries/court-packing-plan-of-1937) from the
original on May 6, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021. nica.com/biography/Roger-B-Taney) from the original on August
24, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017. "He was the first Roman
102. "Some Democrats Want to Make the Supreme Court Bigger. Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court."
Here's the History of Court Packing" (https://time.com/5702280/c
ourt-packing-history/). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202 114. "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20170320120356/https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.a
10201160941/https://time.com/5702280/court-packing-history/)
from the original on February 1, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021. spx#faqjustice12). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived
from the original (https://www.supremecourt.gov/faq_justices.asp
103. "How FDR lost his brief war on the Supreme Court - National x#faqjustice12) on March 20, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017.
Constitution Center" (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/how-fdr-l
ost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2). Archived (https://web. 115. Baker, Peter (August 7, 2010). "Kagan Is Sworn in as the Fourth
archive.org/web/20210329041250/https://constitutioncenter.org/b Woman, and 112th Justice, on the Supreme Court" (https://www.
nytimes.com/2010/08/08/us/08kagan.html). The New York
log/how-fdr-lost-his-brief-war-on-the-supreme-court-2) from the
original on March 29, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021. Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204748/h
ttp://www.nytimes.com//2010//08//08//us//08kagan.html) from the
104. "Archived copy" (https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LS original on August 7, 2010. Retrieved August 8, 2010.
B/LSB10562). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202104150
12232/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB1056 116. Mark Sherman, Is Supreme Court in need of regional diversity?
(http://www.nbcnews.com/id/36890869) Archived (https://web.arc
2) from the original on April 15, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021.
hive.org/web/20200814112320/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3689
105. "Is Court Packing Constitutional? - Mike Rappaport" (https://lawli 0869) August 14, 2020, at the Wayback Machine (May 1, 2010).
berty.org/is-court-packing-constitutional/). November 6, 2020.
117. Shane, Scott; Eder, Steve; Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Liptak, Adam;
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210414202208/https://la
Savage, Charlie; Protess, Ben (July 15, 2018). "Influential Judge,
wliberty.org/is-court-packing-constitutional/) from the original on
April 14, 2021. Retrieved April 4, 2021. Loyal Friend, Conservative Warrior – and D.C. Insider" (https://w
ww.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/politics/judge-brett-kavanaugh.ht
106. "Press Release Regarding The Honorable Amy Coney Barrett ml). The New York Times. p. A1. Archived (https://web.archive.or
Oath Ceremony" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/pres g/web/20180716115030/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/14/us/
s/pressreleases/pr_10-26-20) (Press release). Washington, D.C.: politics/judge-brett-kavanaugh.html) from the original on July 16,
Press Office of the Supreme Court of the United States. October 2018. Retrieved July 16, 2018.
26, 2020. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2020121021214
6/https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/p
r_10-26-20) from the original on December 10, 2020. Retrieved
October 27, 2020.
118. O'Brien, David M. (2003). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in 128. Hasen, Richard L. (May 11, 2019). "Polarization and the
American Politics (https://archive.org/details/stormcentersupre00 Judiciary" (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-polisci-051317-12
00obri_a4l4/page/46) (6th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. p. 46 5141). Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 261–276.
(https://archive.org/details/stormcentersupre0000obri_a4l4/page/ doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051317-125141 (https://doi.org/10.11
46). ISBN 978-0-393-93218-8. 46%2Fannurev-polisci-051317-125141). ISSN 1094-2939 (http
119. de Vogue, Ariane (October 22, 2016). "Clarence Thomas' s://www.worldcat.org/issn/1094-2939).
Supreme Court legacy" (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politics/ 129. Harris, Allison P.; Sen, Maya (May 11, 2019). "Bias and Judging"
clarence-thomas-supreme-court-25-years/). CNN. Archived (http (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fannurev-polisci-051617-090650).
s://web.archive.org/web/20170402164558/http://www.cnn.com/2 Annual Review of Political Science. 22 (1): 241–259.
016/10/22/politics/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-25-years/) doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051617-090650 (https://doi.org/10.11
from the original on April 2, 2017. Retrieved May 3, 2017. 46%2Fannurev-polisci-051617-090650). ISSN 1094-2939 (http
120. "The Four Justices" (http://npg.si.edu/exhibition/four-justices). s://www.worldcat.org/issn/1094-2939).
Smithsonian Institution. October 21, 2015. Archived (https://web. 130. Mears, Bill (March 20, 2017). "Take a look through Neil
archive.org/web/20160820153726/http://npg.si.edu/exhibition/fou Gorsuch's judicial record" (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/
r-justices) from the original on August 20, 2016. Retrieved May 3, 03/20/take-look-through-neil-gorsuchs-judicial-record.html). Fox
2017. News. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170522071006/h
121. David N. Atkinson, Leaving the Bench (University Press of ttp://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/20/take-look-through-neil
Kansas 1999) ISBN 0-7006-0946-6 -gorsuchs-judicial-record.html) from the original on May 22, 2017.
Retrieved April 7, 2017. "A Fox News analysis of that record –
122. Greenhouse, Linda (September 9, 2010). "An Invisible Chief
Justice" (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/an-invi including some 3,000 rulings he has been involved with – reveals
sible-chief-justice/). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.a a solid, predictable conservative philosophy, something President
Trump surely was attuned to when he nominated him to fill the
rchive.org/web/20201125193759/https://opinionator.blogs.nytime
s.com/2010/09/09/an-invisible-chief-justice/) from the original on open ninth seat. The record in many ways mirrors the late Justice
Antonin Scalia's approach to constitutional and statutory
November 25, 2020. Retrieved September 9, 2010. "Had
[O'Connor] anticipated that the chief justice would not serve out interpretation."
the next Supreme Court term, she told me after his death, she 131. Cope, Kevin; Fischman, Joshua (September 5, 2018). "It's hard
would have delayed her own retirement for a year rather than to find a federal judge more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh"
burden the court with two simultaneous vacancies. […] Her (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/0
reason for leaving was that her husband, suffering from 9/05/its-hard-to-find-a-federal-judge-more-conservative-than-bret
Alzheimer's disease, needed her care at home." t-kavanaugh). The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archiv
123. Ward, Artemus (2003). Deciding to Leave: The Politics of e.org/web/20201210212343/https://www.washingtonpost.com/ne
ws/monkey-cage/wp/2018/09/05/its-hard-to-find-a-federal-judge-
Retirement from the United States Supreme Court (http://www.su
nypress.edu/pdf/60710.pdf) (PDF). SUNY Press. p. 9. ISBN 978- more-conservative-than-brett-kavanaugh) from the original on
0-7914-5651-4. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210217 December 10, 2020. Retrieved January 11, 2019. "Kavanaugh
211651/http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/60710.pdf) (PDF) from the served a dozen years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a
original on February 17, 2021. Retrieved January 31, 2013. "One court viewed as first among equals of the 12 federal appellate
courts. Probing nearly 200 of Kavanaugh's votes and over 3000
byproduct of the increased [retirement benefit] provisions [in
1954], however has been a dramatic rise in the number of votes by his judicial colleagues, our analysis shows that his
justices engaging in succession politics by trying to time their judicial record is significantly more conservative than that of
almost every other judge on the D.C. Circuit. That doesn't mean
departures to coincide with a compatible president. The most
recent departures have been partisan, some more blatantly than that he'd be the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court,
but it strongly suggests that he is no judicial moderate."
others, and have bolstered arguments to reform the process. A
second byproduct has been an increase in justices staying on 132. Chamberlain, Samuel (July 9, 2018). "Trump nominates Brett
the Court past their ability to adequately contribute." Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court" (https://www.foxnews.com/pol
itics/trump-nominates-brett-kavanaugh-to-supreme-court). Fox
124. Stolzenberg, Ross M.; Lindgren, James (May 2010). "Retirement
News. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201207150450/h
and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices" (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3000028). Demography. 47 ttps://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-nominates-brett-kavanaug
h-to-supreme-court) from the original on December 7, 2020.
(2): 269–298. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0100 (https://doi.org/10.1353%
2Fdem.0.0100). PMC 3000028 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm Retrieved January 11, 2019. "Trump may have been swayed in
part because of Kavanaugh's record of being a reliable
c/articles/PMC3000028). PMID 20608097 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/20608097). "If the incumbent president is of the same conservative on the court – and reining in dozens of
administrative decisions of the Obama White House. There are
party as the president who nominated the justice to the Court,
some question marks for conservatives, particularly an
and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-
year presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation ObamaCare ruling years ago."
that are about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions 133. Thomson-Devaux, Amelia; Bronner, Laura; Wiederkehr, Anna
are not met." (October 14, 2020). "How conservative is Amy Coney Barrett?"
125. See for example Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conservative-is-amy-con
ey-barrett/). FiveThirtyEight. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
the Supreme Court became its most influential justice, by Joan
Biskupic, Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also Rookie on the b/20201211233451/https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-conse
Bench: The Role of the Junior Justice by Clare Cushman (2008). rvative-is-amy-coney-barrett/) from the original on December 11,
2020. Retrieved October 27, 2020. "We can look to her track
Journal of Supreme Court History 32 (3): 282–296.
record on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though, for clues.
126. Mauro, Tony (January 10, 2008). "Breyer Just Missed Record as Barrett has served on that court for almost three years now, and
Junior Justice" (https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/90 two different analyses of her rulings point to the same
0005500308/breyer-just-missed-record-as-junior-justice/). conclusion: Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the
law.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2021110820052 circuit — and maybe even the most conservative."
0/https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/almID/900005500308/b
reyer-just-missed-record-as-junior-justice/?slreturn=2021100815
0506) from the original on November 8, 2021.
127. "Judicial Compensation" (https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judge
ships/judicial-compensation). United States Courts. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20211123062547/https://www.uscourts.
gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-compensation) from the original
on November 3, 2021. Retrieved December 6, 2021.
134. Betz, Bradford (March 2, 2019). "Chief Justice Roberts' recent 141. "End of Term statistical analysis– October 2010" (http://www.scot
votes raise doubts about 'conservative revolution' on Supreme usblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SB_Summary_Memo_
Court" (https://www.foxnews.com/us/chief-justice-roberts-recent- OT10.pdf) (PDF). SCOTUSblog. July 1, 2011. Archived (https://w
voting-record-downplays-notion-of-conservative-revolution-in-sup eb.archive.org/web/20110917075913/http://www.scotusblog.com/
reme-court). Fox News. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20 wp-content/uploads/2011/07/SB_Summary_Memo_OT10.pdf)
201118001952/https://www.foxnews.com/us/chief-justice-roberts- (PDF) from the original on September 17, 2011. Retrieved July 2,
recent-voting-record-downplays-notion-of-conservative-revolution 2011.
-in-supreme-court) from the original on November 18, 2020. 142. "Cases by Vote Split" (https://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conte
Retrieved April 20, 2019. "Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at nt/uploads/2011/06/SB_votesplit_OT10_final.pdf) (PDF).
the University of California at Berkeley, told Bloomberg that SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
Roberts' recent voting record may indicate that he is taking his web/20111026051032/http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conte
role as the median justice "very seriously" and that the recent nt/uploads/2011/06/SB_votesplit_OT10_final.pdf) (PDF) from the
period was "perhaps the beginning of his being the swing original on October 26, 2011. Retrieved June 28, 2011.
justice.""
143. "Justice agreement – Highs and Lows" (https://sblog.s3.amazona
135. Roeder, Oliver (October 6, 2018). "How Kavanugh will change ws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SB_agreement_highs_and_
the Supreme Court" (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-kav lows_OT10_final.pdf) (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011.
anaugh-will-change-the-supreme-court/). FiveThirtyEight. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201018114744/http://sbl
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201207162032/https://fi og.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SB_agreem
vethirtyeight.com/features/how-kavanaugh-will-change-the-supre ent_highs_and_lows_OT10_final.pdf) (PDF) from the original on
me-court/) from the original on December 7, 2020. Retrieved October 18, 2020. Retrieved June 28, 2011.
April 20, 2019. "Based on what we know about measuring the 144. Bhatia, Kedar (June 29, 2018). "Final October Term 2017 Stat
ideology of justices and judges, the Supreme Court will soon
Pack and key takeaways" (http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/fi
take a hard and quick turn to the right. It's a new path that is nal-october-term-2017-stat-pack-and-key-takeaways/#more-272
likely to last for years. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W.
264). SCOTUSBlog. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2018
Bush appointee, will almost certainly become the new median 0629155110/http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/06/final-october-ter
justice, defining the court's new ideological center."
m-2017-stat-pack-and-key-takeaways/#more-272264) from the
136. Roche, Darragh (October 5, 2021). "Brett Kavanaugh Is original on June 29, 2018. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
Supreme Court's Ideological Median as New Term Begins" (http 145. Bhatia, Kedar S. (June 29, 2018). "Stat Pack for October Term
s://www.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-ideologi
2017" (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/S
cal-median-new-term-conservatives-1635584). Newsweek.
B_Stat_Pack_2018.06.29.pdf) (PDF). SCOTUSBlog. pp. 17–18.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20211030175713/https://w Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201125205154/https://w
ww.newsweek.com/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-ideological-
ww.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SB_Stat_Pack_
median-new-term-conservatives-1635584) from the original on 2018.06.29.pdf) (PDF) from the original on November 25, 2020.
October 30, 2021. Retrieved October 30, 2021. Retrieved June 29, 2018.
137. Goldstein, Tom (June 30, 2010). "Everything you read about the
146. Feldman, Adam (June 28, 2019). "Final Stat Pack for October
Supreme Court is wrong (except here, maybe)" (http://www.scotu Term 2018" (https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/final-stat-pack-
sblog.com/2010/06/everything-you-read-about-the-supreme-cour for-october-term-2018/#more-287709). SCOTUSBlog. Archived
t-is-wrong/). SCOTUSblog. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we (https://web.archive.org/web/20190629143107/https://www.scotu
b/20100707195053/http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/everythi sblog.com/2019/06/final-stat-pack-for-october-term-2018/#more-
ng-you-read-about-the-supreme-court-is-wrong/) from the original
287709) from the original on June 29, 2019. Retrieved June 30,
on July 7, 2010. Retrieved July 7, 2010. 2019.
138. Among the examples mentioned by Goldstein for the 2009 term 147. Feldman, Adam (June 28, 2019). "Stat Pack for October Term
were: 2018" (https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/
Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605 (https://supreme.justia.c StatPack_OT18-7_30_19.pdf) (PDF). pp. 5, 19, 23. Archived (htt
om/cases/federal/us/560/605/) (2010), which interpreted ps://web.archive.org/web/20191123074325/https://www.scotusbl
judges' prerogatives broadly, typically a "conservative" result. og.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/StatPack_OT18-7_30_19.p
The majority consisted of the five junior Justices: Thomas, df) (PDF) from the original on November 23, 2019. Retrieved
Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor. June 30, 2019.
Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (https://supreme.justia.c 148. "Plan Your Trip (quote:) "In mid-May, after the oral argument
om/cases/federal/us/561/320/) (2010), which expanded portion of the Term has concluded, the Court takes the Bench
habeas corpus petitions, a "liberal" result, in an opinion by Mondays at 10AM for the release of orders and opinions." " (htt
Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Sotomayor. p://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=VisitingWas
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P. A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., hingtonDC.PlanYourTrip#supremecourt). US Senator John
559 U.S. 393 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/55 McCain. October 24, 2009. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
9/393/) (2010), which yielded a pro-plaintiff result in an b/20091030224351/http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F
opinion by Scalia joined by Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and useAction=VisitingWashingtonDC.PlanYourTrip#supremecourt)
from the original on October 30, 2009. Retrieved October 24,
Sotomayor.
2009.
Goldstein notes that in the 2009 term, the justice most
consistently pro-government was Alito, and not the commonly 149. "Visiting the Court" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitin
perceived "arch-conservatives" Scalia and Thomas. g.aspx). Supreme Court of the United States. March 18, 2010.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100322195841/http://w
139. "October 2011 Term, Five to Four Decisions" (https://sblog.s3.am
ww.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visiting.aspx) from the original on
azonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SB_five-to-four_OT11
March 22, 2010. Retrieved March 19, 2010.
_final.pdf) (PDF). SCOTUSblog. June 30, 2012. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20201009231419/http://sblog.s3.amazo 150. "Visiting-Capitol-Hill" (https://web.archive.org/web/201608210111
naws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/SB_five-to-four_OT11_fin 48/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11663498/Visiting-Capitol-Hill).
al.pdf) (PDF) from the original on October 9, 2020. Retrieved docstoc. October 24, 2009. Archived from the original (http://ww
July 2, 2012. w.docstoc.com/docs/11663498/Visiting-Capitol-Hill) on August
21, 2016. Retrieved October 24, 2009.
140. "Final October 2010 Stat Pack available" (http://www.scotusblog.
com/2011/06/final-october-term-2010-stat-pack-available/). 151. "How The Court Works" (https://web.archive.org/web/201402030
SCOTUSblog. June 27, 2011. Archived (https://web.archive.org/ 81102/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/h
web/20110701202814/http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/final-o ow-the-court-work/visiting-the-court/). The Supreme Court
ctober-term-2010-stat-pack-available) from the original on July 1, Historical Society. October 24, 2009. Archived from the original
2011. Retrieved June 28, 2011. (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-th
e-court-work/visiting-the-court/) on February 3, 2014. Retrieved
January 31, 2014.
152. 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/ 167. Glick, Joshua (April 2003). "On the road: The Supreme Court
1251#a) and the history of circuit riding" (https://web.archive.org/web/201
153. Liptak, Adam (March 21, 2016). "Supreme Court Declines to 80925025629/http://supremecourthistory.org/assets/schs_publica
Hear Challenge to Colorado's Marijuana Laws" (https://www.nyti tions-circuitriding.pdf) (PDF). Cardozo Law Review. 24. Archived
mes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-hear- from the original (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/assets/schs
challenge-to-colorados-marijuana-laws.html). The New York _publications-circuitriding.pdf) (PDF) on September 25, 2018.
Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170531161322/h Retrieved September 24, 2018. "Gradually, however, circuit
ttps://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/22/us/politics/supreme-court-de riding lost support. The Court's increasing business in the
clines-to-hear-challenge-to-colorados-marijuana-laws.html) from nation's capital following the Civil War made the circuit riding
the original on May 31, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2017. seem anachronistic and impractical and a slow shift away from
154. 28 U.S.C. § 1251(b) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/ the practice began. The Judiciary Act of 1869 established a
1251#b) separate circuit court judiciary. The justices retained nominal
circuit riding duties until 1891 when the Circuit Court of Appeals
155. United States v. Shipp, 203 U.S. 563 (https://www.law.cornell.ed Act was passed. With the Judicial Code of 1911, Congress
u/supremecourt/text/203/563) (Supreme Court of the United officially ended the practice. The struggle between the legislative
States 1906). and judicial branches over circuit riding was finally concluded."
156. Curriden, Mark (June 2, 2009). "A Supreme Case of Contempt" 168. "Miscellaneous Order (11/20/2020)" (https://www.supremecourt.g
(http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/a_supreme_case_o ov/orders/courtorders/112020zr_8o6a.pdf) (PDF). Supreme
f_contempt). ABA Journal. American Bar Association. Archived Court of the United States. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170427193307/http://www.abajou b/20201120143347/https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor
rnal.com/magazine/article/a_supreme_case_of_contempt) from ders/112020zr_8o6a.pdf) (PDF) from the original on November
the original on April 27, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2017. "On May 20, 2020. Retrieved November 20, 2020.
28, [U.S. Attorney General William] Moody did something
unprecedented, then and now. He filed a petition charging Sheriff 169. 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12
Shipp, six deputies and 19 leaders of the lynch mob with 54)
contempt of the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously 170. 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12
approved the petition and agreed to retain original jurisdiction in 57); see also Adequate and independent state grounds
the matter. ... May 24, 1909, stands out in the annals of the U.S. 171. James, Robert A. (1998). "Instructions in Supreme Court Jury
Supreme Court. On that day, the court announced a verdict after Trials" (http://www.greenbag.org/v1n4/v1n4_articles_james.pdf)
holding the first and only criminal trial in its history." (PDF). The Green Bag. 2d. 1 (4): 378. Archived (https://web.arch
157. Hindley, Meredith (November 2014). "Chattanooga versus the ive.org/web/20130818030849/http://www.greenbag.org/v1n4/v1n
Supreme Court: The Strange Case of Ed Johnson" (https://www. 4_articles_james.pdf) (PDF) from the original on August 18,
neh.gov/humanities/2014/novemberdecember/feature/chattanoo 2013. Retrieved February 5, 2013.
ga-versus-the-supreme-court). Humanities. 35 (6). Archived (http 172. 28 U.S.C. § 1872 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/18
s://web.archive.org/web/20170427195125/https://www.neh.gov/h 72) See Georgia v. Brailsford, 3 U.S. 1 (https://supreme.justia.co
umanities/2014/novemberdecember/feature/chattanooga-versus- m/cases/federal/us/3/1/) (1794), in which the Court conducted a
the-supreme-court) from the original on April 27, 2017. Retrieved jury trial.
April 27, 2017. "United States v. Shipp stands out in the history of 173. Shelfer, Lochlan F. (October 2013). "Special Juries in the
the Supreme Court as an anomaly. It remains the only time the Supreme Court" (https://www.yalelawjournal.org/note/special-juri
Court has conducted a criminal trial." es-in-the-supreme-court). Yale Law Journal. 123 (1): 208–252.
158. Linder, Douglas. "United States v. Shipp (U.S. Supreme Court, Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170630133808/https://w
1909)" (http://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1117-shippcas ww.yalelawjournal.org/note/special-juries-in-the-supreme-court)
e). Famous Trials. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201704 from the original on June 30, 2017. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
27202728/http://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1117-shippc 174. Mauro, Tony (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe into Cert
ase) from the original on April 27, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2017. Pool" (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129799113829).
159. 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12 Legal Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2009060221
54) 3822/http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1129799113829) from
160. 28 U.S.C. § 1259 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12 the original on June 2, 2009. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
59) 175. Mauro, Tony (July 4, 2006). "Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party"
161. 28 U.S.C. § 1258 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12 (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144330162287). Legal
58) Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210355/h
ttp://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1144330162287) from the
162. 28 U.S.C. § 1260 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12
60) original on September 30, 2007. Retrieved October 31, 2007.
163. 28 U.S.C. § 1257 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/12 176. Liptak, Adam (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out
of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool' " (https://www.nytimes.co
57)
m/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html). The New York Times.
164. Brannock, Steven; Weinzierl, Sarah (2003). "Confronting a PCA: Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081211090108/http://ww
Finding a Path Around a Brick Wall" (https://www.stetson.edu/la w.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/washington/26memo.html) from the
w/lawreview/media/confronting-a-pca-finding-a-path-around-a-bri original on December 11, 2008. Retrieved October 17, 2008.
ck-wall.pdf) (PDF). Stetson Law Review. XXXII: 368–369, 387–
177. Liptak, Adam (May 1, 2017). "Gorsuch, in sign of independence,
390. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160804085916/htt
p://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/confronting-a-pca-findi is out of Supreme Court's clerical pool" (https://www.nytimes.co
m/2017/05/01/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-labor-pool-clerk
ng-a-path-around-a-brick-wall.pdf) (PDF) from the original on
s.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
August 4, 2016. Retrieved April 27, 2017.
web/20170502063829/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/p
165. 🖉"Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)" (https://supreme.justia.c olitics/gorsuch-supreme-court-labor-pool-clerks.html) from the
om/cases/federal/us/489/288/case.html). Justia Law. Archived (h original on May 2, 2017. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
ttps://web.archive.org/web/20180602012722/https://supreme.just
ia.com/cases/federal/us/489/288/case.html) from the original on
June 2, 2018. Retrieved October 31, 2020.
166. Gutman, Jeffrey. "Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid
Attorneys: 3.3 Mootness" (http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapt
er3/section3). Federal Practice Manual for Legal Aid Attorneys.
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20170427193132/http://federalpracticem
anual.org/chapter3/section3) from the original on April 27, 2017.
Retrieved April 27, 2017.
178. See the arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient 189. "Sliplists" (https://web.archive.org/web/20170406114133/https://w
Protection and Affordable Care Act took place over three days ww.supremecourt.gov/opinions/sliplists.aspx). Supreme Court of
and lasted over six hours, covering several issues; the the United States. Archived from the original (https://www.supre
arguments for Bush v. Gore were 90 minutes long; oral mecourt.gov/opinions/sliplists.aspx) on April 6, 2017. Retrieved
arguments in United States v. Nixon lasted three hours; and the January 1, 2019.
Pentagon papers case was given a two-hour argument. Christy, 190. "Supreme Court Research Guide" (http://www.law.georgetown.ed
Andrew (November 15, 2011). " 'Obamacare' will rank among the u/library/research/guides/supreme_court.cfm).
longest Supreme Court arguments ever" (https://www.npr.org/blo law.georgetown.edu. Georgetown Law Library. Archived (https://
gs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-amo web.archive.org/web/20120822172547/http://www.law.georgetow
ng-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever). NPR. Archived n.edu/library/research/guides/supreme_court.cfm) from the
(https://web.archive.org/web/20111116000140/http://www.npr.org/ original on August 22, 2012. Retrieved August 22, 2012.
blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/15/142363047/obamacare-will-rank-a
191. "How to Cite Cases: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions" (http://lib.gui
mong-the-longest-supreme-court-arguments-ever) from the des.umd.edu/content.php?pid=128265&sid=1100770).
original on November 16, 2011. Retrieved March 31, 2011. The lib.guides.umd.edu. University of Maryland University Libraries.
longest modern-day oral arguments were in the case of Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120822172846/http://lib.
California v. Arizona, in which oral arguments lasted over sixteen guides.umd.edu/content.php?pid=128265&sid=1100770) from
hours over four days in 1962.Bobic, Igor (March 26, 2012). "Oral
the original on August 22, 2012. Retrieved August 22, 2012.
arguments on health reform longest in 45 years" (http://talkingpoi
ntsmemo.com/livewire/oral-arguments-on-health-care-reform-lon 192. Hall, Kermit L.; McGuire, Kevin T., eds. (2005). Institutions of
gest-in-45-years). Talking Points Memo. Archived (https://web.arc American Democracy: The Judicial Branch (https://books.google.
hive.org/web/20140204025004/http://talkingpointsmemo.com/live com/books?id=6rWCaMAdUzgC&q=Institutions+of+American+D
wire/oral-arguments-on-health-care-reform-longest-in-45-years) emocracy%3A+The+Judicial+Branch). New York City: Oxford
from the original on February 4, 2014. Retrieved January 31, University Press. pp. 117–118. ISBN 978-0-19-530917-1.
2014. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201117175809/https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=6rWCaMAdUzgC&q=Institutions+of+
179. Glazer, Eric M.; Zachary, Michael (February 1997). "Joining the
American+Democracy%3A+The+Judicial+Branch) from the
Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court" (http://www.floridabar.org/divco original on November 17, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2020.
m/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Articles/0616A0059B6778BB85256ADB005
D6106). Volume LXXI, No. 2. Florida Bar Journal. p. 63. Archived 193. Mendelson, Wallace (1992). "Separation of Powers". In Hall,
(https://web.archive.org/web/20140405043602/http://www.florida Kermit L. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of
bar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Articles/0616A0059B6778BB85 the United States (https://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00
256ADB005D6106) from the original on April 5, 2014. Retrieved hall/page/775). Oxford University Press. p. 775 (https://archive.or
February 3, 2014. g/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/775). ISBN 978-0-19-
505835-2.
180. Gresko, Jessica (March 24, 2013). "For lawyers, the Supreme
Court bar is vanity trip" (https://web.archive.org/web/2013032307 194. The American Conflict by Horace Greeley (1873), p. 106; also in
3447/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/lawyers-supreme The Life of Andrew Jackson (2001) by Robert Vincent Remini
-court-bar-vanity-trip-18778432). Florida Today. Melbourne, 195. Brokaw, Tom; Stern, Carl (July 8, 1974). "Supreme Court hears
Florida. pp. 2A. Archived from the original (https://abcnews.go.co case of United States v. Nixon" (http://highered.nbclearn.com/por
m/Politics/wireStory/lawyers-supreme-court-bar-vanity-trip-18778 tal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard=3733). NBC Universal Media
432#.UU-ctDf75QI) on March 23, 2013. LLC. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190221054749/htt
181. "How The Court Works; Library Support" (https://web.archive.org/ p://highered.nbclearn.com/portal/site/HigherEd/flatview?cuecard
web/20140221121915/http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-t =3733) from the original on February 21, 2019. Retrieved
he-court-works/how-the-court-work/library-support/). The February 20, 2019. "But there is no guarantee that when the
Supreme Court Historical Society. Archived from the original (htt decision comes, it will end the matter. It may just set the stage for
p://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-the-c the next legal wrangle over compliance with the Court's
ourt-work/library-support/) on February 21, 2014. Retrieved decision."
February 3, 2014. 196. Vile, John R. (1992). "Court curbing". In Hall, Kermit L. (ed.). The
182. See generally, Tushnet, Mark, ed. (2008) I Dissent: Great Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (ht
Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, tps://archive.org/details/oxfordcompaniont00hall/page/202).
Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp. 256, ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6 Oxford University Press. p. 202 (https://archive.org/details/oxford
companiont00hall/page/202). ISBN 978-0-19-505835-2.
183. Kessler, Robert. "Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme
Court Again?" (https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/201 197. Peppers, Todd C. (2006). Courtiers of the Marble Palace: The
3/03/case-allowing-cameras-supreme-court-proceedings/31687 Rise and Influence of the Supreme Court Law Clerk (https://book
6/). The Atlantic. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2017032 s.google.com/books?id=NxiMWr730EcC). Stanford University
5201504/https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/03/ca Press. pp. 195, 1, 20, 22, and 22–24 respectively. ISBN 978-0-
se-allowing-cameras-supreme-court-proceedings/316876/) from 8047-5382-1. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2020110715
the original on March 25, 2017. Retrieved March 24, 2017. 3958/https://books.google.com/books?id=NxiMWr730EcC) from
the original on November 7, 2020. Retrieved October 29, 2020.
184. 28 U.S.C. § 1 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1)
198. Weiden, David; Ward, Artemus (2006). Sorcerers' Apprentices:
185. 28 U.S.C. § 2109 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/21
100 Years of Law Clerks at the United States Supreme Court (htt
09) p://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780814784648?auth=0). NYU Press.
186. Pepall, Lynne; Richards, Daniel L.; Norman, George (1999). ISBN 978-0-8147-9404-3. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
Industrial Organization: Contemporary Theory and Practice. 20160101192913/http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780814784648?aut
Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. pp. 11–12. h=0) from the original on January 1, 2016. Retrieved May 28,
187. "Bound Volumes" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/bound 2013.
volumes.aspx). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived (ht 199. Chace, James (2007). Acheson: The Secretary of State Who
tps://web.archive.org/web/20190108025637/https://www.suprem Created the American World (https://books.google.com/books?id
ecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes.aspx) from the original on =8Jf32GR7t3IC). New York City: Simon & Schuster (published
January 8, 2019. Retrieved January 9, 2019. 1998). p. 44. ISBN 978-0-684-80843-7. Archived (https://web.arc
188. "Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term, 2012 – hive.org/web/20201118002702/https://books.google.com/books?i
March 26 through June 13, 2013" (https://www.supremecourt.go d=8Jf32GR7t3IC) from the original on November 18, 2020.
v/opinions/boundvolumes/569bv.pdf) (PDF). United States Retrieved October 29, 2020.
Reports. 569. 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210 200. List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
331191802/https://www.supremecourt.gov//opinions/boundvolum
es/569BV.pdf) (PDF) from the original on March 31, 2021.
Retrieved January 9, 2019.
201. Liptak, Adam (September 7, 2010). "Polarization of Supreme 211. Savage, David G. (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs.
Court Is Reflected in Justices' Clerks" (https://www.nytimes.com/ Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?" (https://we
2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html). The New York Times. b.archive.org/web/20081023193212/http://www.latimes.com/new
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120713133454/http://w s/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus23-2008oct23%2C0%2C16937
ww.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/us/politics/07clerks.html) from the 57.story). Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original (http://ar
original on July 13, 2012. Retrieved September 7, 2010. ticles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23) on October
202. William E. Nelson; Harvey Rishikof; I. Scott Messinger; Michael 23, 2008. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "a lack of judicial authority
Jo (November 2009). "The Liberal Tradition of the Supreme to enter an inherently political question that had previously been
Court Clerkship: Its Rise, Fall, and Reincarnation?" (https://web.a left to the states"
rchive.org/web/20100727110418/http://www.vanderbiltlawreview. 212. Lewis, Neil A. (September 19, 2002). "Judicial Nominee Says His
org/articles/2009/11/Nelson-et-al.-Supreme-Court-Clerkships-62- Views Will Not Sway Him on the Bench" (https://www.nytimes.co
Vand.-L.-Rev.-1749-2009.pdf) (PDF). Vanderbilt Law Review. m/2002/09/19/us/judicial-nominee-says-his-views-will-not-sway-h
p. 1749. Archived from the original (http://www.vanderbiltlawrevie im-on-the-bench.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://w
w.org/articles/2009/11/Nelson-et-al.-Supreme-Court-Clerkships-6 eb.archive.org/web/20110511111441/http://www.nytimes.com/200
2-Vand.-L.-Rev.-1749-2009.pdf) (PDF) on July 27, 2010. 2/09/19/us/judicial-nominee-says-his-views-will-not-sway-him-on-
Retrieved September 7, 2010. the-bench.html) from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved
203. Liptak, Adam; Kopicki, Allison (June 7, 2012). "Approval Rating October 22, 2009. "he has written scathingly of Roe v. Wade"
for Supreme Court Hits Just 44% in Poll" (https://www.nytimes.co 213. "Election Guide 2008: The Issues: Abortion" (http://politics.nytime
m/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of-su s.com/election-guide/2008/issues/abortion.html). The New York
preme-court-in-new-poll.html). The New York Times. Archived (ht Times. 2008. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2008091615
tps://web.archive.org/web/20190616214829/https://www.nytimes. 4124/http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/aborti
com/2012/06/08/us/politics/44-percent-of-americans-approve-of- on.html) from the original on September 16, 2008. Retrieved
supreme-court-in-new-poll.html) from the original on June 16, October 22, 2009.
2019. Retrieved June 28, 2019. 214. Buchanan, Pat (July 6, 2005). "The judges war: an issue of
204. Nelson, Michael J.; Tucker, Patrick D. (2021). "The Stability and power" (http://townhall.com/columnists/PatBuchanan/2005/07/06/
Durability of the US Supreme Court's Legitimacy" (https://www.jo the_judges_war_an_issue_of_power). Townhall.com. Archived (h
urnals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/710143). The Journal of ttps://web.archive.org/web/20110513094434/http://townhall.com/
Politics. 83 (2): 000. doi:10.1086/710143 (https://doi.org/10.108 columnists/patbuchanan/2005/07/06/the_judges_war_an_issue_
6%2F710143). ISSN 0022-3816 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0 of_power) from the original on May 13, 2011. Retrieved
022-3816). S2CID 225495651 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/C October 23, 2009. "The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating
orpusID:225495651). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2021 the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened
0311152422/https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/7101 the nation to the court's new claim to power."
43) from the original on March 11, 2021. Retrieved March 19, 215. Sunstein, Carl R. (1991). "What Judge Bork Should Have Said"
2021. (https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?refere
205. See for example "Judicial activism" in The Oxford Companion to r=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=12520&context
the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by Kermit Hall; =journal_articles). Connecticut Law Review. 23: 2. Archived (http
article written by Gary McDowell s://web.archive.org/web/20201204052000/https://chicagounboun
206. Root, Damon W. (September 21, 2009). "Lochner and Liberty" (ht d.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fw
tps://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405297020448830457442 ww.google.com%2F&httpsredir=1&article=12520&context=journa
7193229878748). The Wall Street Journal. Archived (https://web. l_articles) from the original on December 4, 2020. Retrieved
archive.org/web/20160308035956/http://www.wsj.com/articles/S November 8, 2021 – via University of Chicago Law School -
B10001424052970204488304574427193229878748) from the Chicago Unbound.
original on March 8, 2016. Retrieved October 23, 2009. 216. Clymer, Adam (May 29, 1998). "Barry Goldwater, Conservative
207. Bernstein, David. Only One Place of Redress: African and Individualist, Dies at 89" (https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/
Americans, Labor Regulations, and the Courts from 04/01/specials/goldwater-obit.html). The New York Times.
Reconstruction to the New Deal (https://books.google.com/book Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130307223049/http://w
s?id=ZSZnwNF7aAoC&pg=PA100) Archived (https://web.archiv ww.nytimes.com/books/01/04/01/specials/goldwater-obit.html)
e.org/web/20201102063830/https://books.google.com/books?id= from the original on March 7, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
ZSZnwNF7aAoC&pg=PA100) November 2, 2020, at the 217. Stone, Geoffrey R. (March 26, 2012). "Citizens United and
Wayback Machine, p. 100 (Duke University Press, 2001): "The conservative judicial activism" (https://illinoislawreview.org/wp-co
Court also directly overturned Lochner by adding that it is no ntent/ilr-content/articles/2012/2/Stone.pdf) (PDF). University of
'longer open to question that it is within the legislative power to Illinois Law Review. 2012 (2): 485–500. Archived (https://web.arc
fix maximum hours.'" hive.org/web/20210217212201/http://illinoislawreview.org/wp-con
208. Dorf, Michael and Morrison, Trevor. Constitutional Law (https://bo tent/ilr-content/articles/2012/2/Stone.pdf) (PDF) from the original
oks.google.com/books?id=OsxMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA18) Archived on February 17, 2021. Retrieved May 13, 2020.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20201101085053/https://books.goo 218. Lincoln, Abraham (March 4, 1861). "First Inaugural Address" (htt
gle.com/books?id=OsxMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA18) November 1, ps://web.archive.org/web/20091009133835/http://www.nationalce
2020, at the Wayback Machine, p. 18 (Oxford University Press, nter.org/LincolnFirstInaugural.html). National Center. Archived
2010). from the original (http://www.nationalcenter.org/LincolnFirstInaug
209. Patrick, John. The Supreme Court of the United States: A ural.html) on October 9, 2009. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "At
Student Companion (https://books.google.com/books?id=gSniBw the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy
AAQBAJ&pg=PT362) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202 of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole
00805101434/https://books.google.com/books?id=gSniBwAAQB people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
AJ&pg=PT362) August 5, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, p. 362 Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between
(Oxford University Press, 2006). parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be
their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their
210. Steinfels, Peter (May 22, 2005). " 'A Church That Can and
Cannot Change': Dogma" (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/ Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
books/review/22STEINFE.html). The New York Times. Archived 219. Will, George F. (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's
(https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111423/http://www.nytime Conventional Choice" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
s.com/2005/05/22/books/review/22STEINFE.html) from the content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html). The
original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 22, 2009. Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2011050
3210501/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html) from the original on May 3,
2011. Retrieved October 22, 2009. "Thurgood Marshall quote
taken from the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992"
220. Irons, Peter. A People's History of the Supreme Court. London: 232. Taylor Jr., Stuart (October 15, 1987). "Reagan Points to a Critic,
Penguin, 1999. ISBN 0-670-87006-4 Who Points Out It Isn't So" (https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/1
221. Liptak, Adam (January 31, 2009). "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the 5/us/reagan-points-to-a-critic-who-points-out-it-isn-t-so.html). The
Supreme Court Left" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/weeki New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2011051
nreview/01liptak.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://we 1111316/http://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/15/us/reagan-points-to
b.archive.org/web/20110512175533/http://www.nytimes.com/200 -a-critic-who-points-out-it-isn-t-so.html) from the original on May
9/02/01/weekinreview/01liptak.html) from the original on May 12, 11, 2011. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
2011. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "Every judge who's been 233. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos (September 11, 2003). "Judge Bork:
appointed to the court since Lewis Powell...in 1971...has been Judicial Activism Is Going Global" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
more conservative than his or her predecessor" 0100523104338/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97117,00.
222. Babington, Charles (April 5, 2005). "Senator Links Violence to html). Fox News. Archived from the original (http://www.foxnews.
'Political' Decisions" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/art com/story/0,2933,97117,00.html) on May 23, 2010. Retrieved
icles/A26236-2005Apr4.html). The Washington Post. Archived (ht October 23, 2009. "What judges have wrought is a coup d'état –
tps://web.archive.org/web/20100428192247/http://www.washingt slow moving and genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless."
onpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26236-2005Apr4.html) from the 234. Leiter, Brian (March 19, 2017). "Let's start telling the truth about
original on April 28, 2010. Retrieved October 22, 2009. what the Supreme Court does" (https://www.washingtonpost.co
223. Liptak, Adam (February 2, 2006). "A Court Remade in the m/opinions/lets-start-telling-the-truth-about-what-the-supreme-co
Reagan Era's Image" (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politi urt-does/2017/03/17/c80bb162-0b2e-11e7-b77c-0047d15a24e0_
cs/politicsspecial1/02conservatives.html?pagewanted=print). The story.html). Washingtonpost.com. Archived (https://web.archive.o
New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2011051 rg/web/20190706234533/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio
1111153/http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/politicsspeci ns/lets-start-telling-the-truth-about-what-the-supreme-court-does/
al1/02conservatives.html?pagewanted=print) from the original on 2017/03/17/c80bb162-0b2e-11e7-b77c-0047d15a24e0_story.htm
May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 22, 2009. l) from the original on July 6, 2019. Retrieved September 29,
2019.
224. Savage, David G. (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history
is a matter of opinions" (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/13/nat 235. Safire, William (April 24, 2005). "Dog Whistle" (https://www.nytim
ion/na-scotus13). Los Angeles Times. Archived (https://web.archi es.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24ONLANGUAGE.html). The New
ve.org/web/20100413195843/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/ York Times Magazine. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
13/nation/na-scotus13) from the original on April 13, 2010. 10512173840/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/24/magazine/24
Retrieved October 22, 2009. ONLANGUAGE.html) from the original on May 12, 2011.
225. Napolitano, Andrew P. (February 17, 2005). "No Defense" (http Retrieved October 22, 2009.
s://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17napolitano.html). 236. Savage, David G. (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs.
The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201 Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?" (https://we
10512173848/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/17/opinion/17nap b.archive.org/web/20081023193212/http://www.latimes.com/new
olitano.html) from the original on May 12, 2011. Retrieved s/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus23-2008oct23%2C0%2C16937
October 23, 2009. 57.story). Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original (http://ar
226. Edsall, Thomas B.; Fletcher, Michael A. (September 5, 2005). ticles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23) on October
"Again, Right Voices Concern About Gonzales" (https://www.was 23, 2008. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
hingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR20050904 237. Mansnerus, Laura (October 16, 2005). "Diminished Eminence in
01338.html). The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archiv a Changed Domain" (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/nyregi
e.org/web/20080512063212/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- on/diminished-eminence-in-a-changed-domain.html). The New
dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090401338.html) from the York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20150529183
original on May 12, 2008. Retrieved October 23, 2009. 630/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/nyregion/diminished-emi
nence-in-a-changed-domain.html) from the original on May 29,
227. Lane, Charles (March 20, 2005). "Conservative's Book on
Supreme Court Is a Bestseller" (https://www.washingtonpost.co 2015. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
m/wp-dyn/articles/A50246-2005Mar19.html). The Washington 238. Smothers, Ronald (October 16, 2005). "In Long Branch, No Olive
Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081015174850/htt Branches" (https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/16/nyregion/in-long
p://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50246-2005Mar1 -branch-no-olive-branches.html). The New York Times. Archived
9.html) from the original on October 15, 2008. Retrieved (https://web.archive.org/web/20150529183657/http://www.nytime
October 23, 2009. s.com/2005/10/16/nyregion/in-long-branch-no-olive-branches.ht
228. Mark I. Sutherland; Dave Meyer; William J. Federer; Alan Keyes; ml) from the original on May 29, 2015. Retrieved October 22,
2009.
Ed Meese; Phyllis Schlafly; Howard Phillips; Alan E. Sears; Ben
DuPre; Rev. Rick Scarborough; David C. Gibbs III; Mathew D. 239. Cohen, Adam (January 15, 2008). "Editorial Observer – A
Staver; Don Feder; Herbert W. Titus (2005). Judicial Tyranny: Supreme Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters" (http
The New Kings of America (https://books.google.com/books?id= s://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15tue4.html). The New
VBrjcQkzV94C&pg=PA96). St. Louis, Missouri: Amerisearch Inc. York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201105111114
p. 242. ISBN 978-0-9753455-6-6. Archived (https://web.archive.o 17/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15tue4.html) from
rg/web/20201118000055/https://books.google.com/books?id=VBr the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
jcQkzV94C&pg=PA96) from the original on November 18, 2020. 240. Bendavid, Naftali (July 13, 2009). "Franken: 'An Incredible Honor
Retrieved October 29, 2020. to Be Here' " (https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/13/franken
229. Kakutani, Michiko (July 6, 2009). "Appointees Who Really -an-incredible-honor-to-be-here/). The Wall Street Journal.
Govern America" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/books/07 Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090918171517/http://blo
kaku.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.o gs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/07/13/franken-an-incredible-honor-to-
rg/web/20110512175527/http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/bo be-here/) from the original on September 18, 2009. Retrieved
oks/07kaku.html) from the original on May 12, 2011. Retrieved October 22, 2009.
October 27, 2009. 241. Savage, David G. (July 13, 2008). "Supreme Court finds history
230. Bazelon, Emily (July 6, 2009). "The Supreme Court on Trial: is a matter of opinions" (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/13/nat
James MacGregor Burns takes aim at the bench" (http://www.slat ion/na-scotus13). Los Angeles Times. Archived (https://web.archi
e.com/id/2222028/). Slate. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we ve.org/web/20100413195843/http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/
b/20091105215656/http://www.slate.com/id/2222028/) from the 13/nation/na-scotus13) from the original on April 13, 2010.
original on November 5, 2009. Retrieved October 27, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2009. "This suggests that the right of
231. Special keynote address by President Ronald Reagan, habeas corpus was not limited to English subjects … protects
November 1988, at the second annual lawyers convention of the people who are captured … at Guantanamo … Wrong, Justice
Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent. He said English history showed
Federalist Society, Washington, D.C.
that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to sovereign English
territory"
242. Will, George F. (May 27, 2009). "Identity Justice: Obama's 252. Hamilton, Alexander (December 14, 1787). "The Federalist No.
Conventional Choice" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ 22 (quote: 4th para)" (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.ht
content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html). The m). New York Packet. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2011050 00203031601/http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa22.htm) from
3210501/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ the original on February 3, 2010. Retrieved October 27, 2009.
2009/05/26/AR2009052602348.html) from the original on May 3, "The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States,
2011. Retrieved October 22, 2009. contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different
243. Taranto, James (June 9, 2009). "Speaking Ruth to Power" (http instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others,
s://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124456827959598503). The Wall and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not
Street Journal. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201608270 restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and
74835/http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124456827959598503) extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity
from the original on August 27, 2016. Retrieved October 22, and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse
2009. between the different parts of the Confederacy."
244. Woodward, Bob; Scott Armstrong (1979). The Brethren: Inside 253. Madison, James (January 22, 1788). "The Federalist Papers" (htt
the Supreme Court (https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtJ23G p://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp). New York
mD3AC). United States of America: Simon & Schuster. p. 541. Packet. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224058/
ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp) from the
20201118003022/https://books.google.com/books?id=6JtJ23Gm original on July 9, 2009. Retrieved October 27, 2009. "The
D3AC) from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly
October 29, 2020. "A court which is final and unreviewable needs unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation,
more careful scrutiny than any other" which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power
is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States,
245. Sabato, Larry (September 26, 2007). "It's Time to Reshape the
Constitution and Make America a Fairer Country" (http://www.huf and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State
within its own limits."
fingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/its-time-to-reshape-the-c_b_66030.
html). The Huffington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we 254. Akhil Reed Amar (1998). "The Bill of Rights – Creation and
b/20100531222116/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-sabato/it Reconstruction" (https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/amar-righ
s-time-to-reshape-the-c_b_66030.html) from the original on May ts.html). The New York Times: Books. Archived (https://web.archi
31, 2010. Retrieved October 23, 2009. ve.org/web/20090416221333/http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/
a/amar-rights.html) from the original on April 16, 2009. Retrieved
246. Christopher Moore (November 1, 2008). "Our Canadian Republic
– Do we display too much deference to authority … or not October 24, 2009. "many lawyers embrace a tradition that views
enough?" (http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2008/11/01/our-canadi state governments as the quintessential threat to individual and
minority rights, and federal officials—especially federal courts—
an-republic/). Literary Review of Canada. Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20091111195402/http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2 as the special guardians of those rights."
008/11/01/our-canadian-republic/) from the original on November 255. Gold, Scott (June 14, 2005). "Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort
11, 2009. Retrieved October 23, 2009. to Weaken Species Protection Law" (http://articles.latimes.com/2
247. Tomkins, Adam (2002). "In Defence of the Political Constitution". 005/jun/14/nation/na-cavebugs14). Los Angeles Times. Archived
United Kingdom: 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 157. "Bush (https://web.archive.org/web/20120112210116/http://articles.latim
v. Gore" es.com/2005/jun/14/nation/na-cavebugs14) from the original on
January 12, 2012. Retrieved March 24, 2012. "Purcell filed a
248. Madison, James (1789). "The Federalist Papers/No. 45 The $60-million lawsuit against the U.S. government in 1999, arguing
Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State that cave bugs could not be regulated through the commerce
Governments Considered" (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_F clause because they had no commercial value and did not cross
ederalist_Papers/No._45) – via Wikisource. "the States will state lines. 'I'm disappointed,' Purcell said."
retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion
of active sovereignty" 256. Reich, Robert B. (September 13, 1987). "The Commerce Clause;
The Expanding Economic Vista" (https://www.nytimes.com/1987/
249. Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius) (1789). "Federalist No. 28" (htt 09/13/magazine/the-commerce-clause-the-expanding-economic-
p://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp). Independent vista.html). The New York Times Magazine. Archived (https://we
Journal. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090709224634/ b.archive.org/web/20110512175507/http://www.nytimes.com/198
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp) from the 7/09/13/magazine/the-commerce-clause-the-expanding-economi
original on July 9, 2009. Retrieved October 24, 2009. "Power c-vista.html) from the original on May 12, 2011. Retrieved
being almost always the rival of power; the General Government October 27, 2009.
will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state
government; and these will have the same disposition toward the 257. FDCH e-Media (January 10, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary
Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the
General Government."
Supreme Court" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
250. Madison, James (January 25, 1788). "The Federalist" (http://ww nt/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001087.html). The Washington
w.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm). Independent Journal (44 Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20081019161905/htt
(quote: 8th para)). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/200910 p://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/
27045224/http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm) from the AR2006011001087.html) from the original on October 19, 2008.
original on October 27, 2009. Retrieved October 27, 2009. Retrieved October 30, 2009. "I don't think there's any question at
"seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a this point in our history that Congress' power under the
reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their commerce clause is quite broad, and I think that reflects a
imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable number of things, including the way in which our economy and
check against the abuse of this discretion." our society has developed and all of the foreign and interstate
251. Madison, James (February 16, 1788). "The Federalist No. 56 activity that takes place – Samuel Alito"
(quote: 6th para)" (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa56.htm). 258. Cohen, Adam (December 7, 2003). "Editorial Observer;
Independent Journal. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2009 Brandeis's Views on States' Rights, and Ice-Making, Have New
0215035104/http://constitution.org/fed/federa56.htm) from the Relevance" (https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/opinion/editori
original on February 15, 2009. Retrieved October 27, 2009. "In al-observer-brandeis-s-views-states-rights-ice-making-have-new-
every State there have been made, and must continue to be relevance.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.arch
made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, ive.org/web/20110511111215/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/0
leave little more to be done by the federal legislature, than to 7/opinion/editorial-observer-brandeis-s-views-states-rights-ice-m
review the different laws, and reduce them in one general act." aking-have-new-relevance.html) from the original on May 11,
2011. Retrieved October 30, 2009. "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"
259. Graglia, Lino (July 19, 2005). "Altering 14th Amendment would 269. Savage, David G. (October 23, 2008). "Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs.
curb court's activist tendencies" (https://web.archive.org/web/201 Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?" (https://we
01204214859/http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/071905_cou b.archive.org/web/20081023193212/http://www.latimes.com/new
rt.html). University of Texas School of Law. Archived from the s/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus23-2008oct23%2C0%2C16937
original (http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/071905_court.htm 57.story). Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original (http://ar
l) on December 4, 2010. Retrieved October 23, 2009. ticles.latimes.com/2008/oct/23/nation/na-scotus23) on October
260. Hornberger, Jacob C. (October 30, 2009). "Freedom and the 23, 2008. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "UC Berkeley law
Fourteenth Amendment" (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as 'utterly lacking
&safe=off&q=%22misused+the+fourteenth+amendment%22). in any legal principle" and added that the court was "remarkably
The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved October 30, 2009. unashamed to say so explicitly.'"
"Fourteenth Amendment. Some argue that it is detrimental to the 270. McConnell, Michael W. (June 1, 2001). "Two-and-a-Half Cheers
cause of freedom because it expands the power of the federal for Bush v Gore" (http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewc
government. Others contend that the amendment expands the ontent.cgi?article=5105&context=uclrev). University of Chicago
ambit of individual liberty. I fall among those who believe that the Law Review. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2016022513
Fourteenth Amendment has been a positive force for freedom." 3547/http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar
261. "Gamble v. United States" (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ ticle=5105&context=uclrev) from the original on February 25,
cases/gamble-v-united-states/). ScotusBlog. Archived (https://we 2016. Retrieved February 16, 2016.
b.archive.org/web/20180928200950/http://www.scotusblog.com/c 271. CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl) (July 14, 2009). "Key Excerpt:
ase-files/cases/gamble-v-united-states/) from the original on Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore" (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/s
September 28, 2018. Retrieved September 28, 2018. upreme-court/2009/07/key_excerpt_sotomayor_on_bush.html).
262. Vazquez, Maegan (June 28, 2018). "Supreme Court agrees to The Washington Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
hear 'double jeopardy' case in the fall" (https://www.cnn.com/201 10513210306/http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2
8/06/28/politics/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-clause/index.htm 009/07/key_excerpt_sotomayor_on_bush.html) from the original
l). CNN. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180927065840/ on May 13, 2011. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "Many critics saw
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/28/politics/supreme-court-double-j the Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the judiciary
eopardy-clause/index.html) from the original on September 27, improperly injecting itself into a political dispute""
2018. Retrieved September 28, 2018. 272. Adam Cohen (March 21, 2004). "Justice Rehnquist Writes on
263. Vicini, James (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore" (https://web.ar
Gore ruling" (https://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN244 chive.org/web/20110511111524/http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/
3345820080424). Reuters. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we 21/opinion/21SUN4.html). Opinion section. The New York Times.
b/20080930231355/http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU Archived from the original (https://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/21/
SN2443345820080424) from the original on September 30, opinion/21SUN4.html) on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 23,
2008. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "The nine-member Supreme 2009. "The Bush v. Gore majority, made up of Mr. Rehnquist and
Court conducts its deliberations in secret and the justices his fellow conservatives, interpreted the equal protection clause
traditionally won't discuss pending cases in public" in a sweeping way they had not before, and have not since. And
they stated that the interpretation was 'limited to the present
264. Margolick, David (September 23, 2007). "Meet the Supremes" (ht
tps://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/review/Margolick-t.htm circumstances,' words that suggest a raw exercise of power, not
legal analysis."
l). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0090411144020/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/books/revie 273. Kevin McNamara (June 3, 2009). "Letters – Supreme Court
w/Margolick-t.html) from the original on April 11, 2009. Retrieved Activism?" (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/lweb04
October 23, 2009. "Beat reporters and academics initially douthat.html). Letters to the editor. The New York Times.
denounced the court's involvement in that case, its hastiness to Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110511111132/http://ww
enter the political thicket and the half-baked and strained w.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/opinion/lweb04douthat.html) from the
decision that resulted." original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved October 23, 2009.
265. "Public Says Televising Court Is Good for Democracy" (http://publ 274. CQ Transcriptions (January 13, 2006). "U.S. Senate Judiciary
icmind.fdu.edu/courttv/). PublicMind.fdu.edu. March 9, 2010. Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110501085327/http://pu Supreme Court" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte
blicmind.fdu.edu/courttv/) from the original on May 1, 2011. nt/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011300802.html). The Washington
Retrieved December 14, 2010. Post. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20110429054319/htt
266. Mauro, Tony (March 9, 2010). "Poll Shows Public Support for p://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/
Cameras at the High Court" (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id AR2006011300802.html) from the original on April 29, 2011.
=1202445941834). The National Law Journal. Archived (https://w Retrieved October 28, 2009. "...Baker v. Carr, the
eb.archive.org/web/20100705141557/http://www.law.com/jsp/arti reapportionment case. We heard Justice Frankfurter who
delivered a scathing dissent in that..."
cle.jsp?id=1202445941834) from the original on July 5, 2010.
Retrieved December 18, 2010. 275. Greenhouse, Linda (September 10, 2007). "New Focus on the
267. "C-SPAN Supreme Court Week" (http://supremecourt.c- Effects of Life Tenure" (https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/10/was
hington/10scotus.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://w
span.org). CSPAN. October 4, 2009. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20091009211108/http://supremecourt.c-span.org//) eb.archive.org/web/20100726224409/http://www.nytimes.com/20
from the original on October 9, 2009. Retrieved October 25, 07/09/10/washington/10scotus.html) from the original on July 26,
2010. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
2009.
268. Vicini, James (April 24, 2008). "Justice Scalia defends Bush v. 276. Levinson, Sanford (February 9, 2009). "Supreme court prognosis
Gore ruling" (https://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN244 – Ruth Bader Ginsburg's surgery for pancreatic cancer highlights
why US supreme court justices shouldn't serve life terms" (http
3345820080424). Reuters. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20080930231355/http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idU s://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/
supreme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg). The Guardian. Manchester.
SN2443345820080424) from the original on September 30,
2008. Retrieved October 23, 2009. "Scalia was interviewed for Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130906035306/http://w
ww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/09/supr
the CBS News show "60 Minutes"
eme-court-ruth-bader-ginsburg) from the original on September
6, 2013. Retrieved October 10, 2009.
277. 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.
278. Richard Epstein, "Mandatory Retirement for Supreme Court 282. O'Brien, Reity (June 20, 2014). "Justice Obscured: Supreme
Justices," in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., court justices earn quarter-million in cash on the side" (https://ww
Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices w.publicintegrity.org/2014/06/20/14981/supreme-court-justices-ea
(Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 415. rn-quarter-million-cash-side). Center for Public Integrity. Archived
279. Brian Opeskin, "Models of Judicial Tenure: Reconsidering Life (https://web.archive.org/web/20170712155235/https://www.public
Limits, Age Limits and Term Limits for Judges", Oxford J Legal integrity.org/2014/06/20/14981/supreme-court-justices-earn-quart
Studies 2015 35: 627–663. er-million-cash-side) from the original on July 12, 2017. Retrieved
280. Hamilton, Alexander (June 14, 1788). "The Federalist No. 78" (htt July 24, 2016.
p://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm). Independent Journal. 283. Lipton, Eric (February 26, 2016). "Scalia Took Dozens of Trips
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20100111055502/http://ww Funded by Private Sponsors" (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/
w.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm) from the original on January 27/us/politics/scalia-led-court-in-taking-trips-funded-by-private-sp
11, 2010. Retrieved October 28, 2009. "and that as nothing can onsors.html). The New York Times. Archived (https://web.archiv
contribute so much to its firmness and independence as e.org/web/20210107010320/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/2
permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly 7/us/politics/scalia-led-court-in-taking-trips-funded-by-private-spo
regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, nsors.html) from the original on January 7, 2021. Retrieved
in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the September 15, 2017.
public security." 284. Berman, Mark; Markon, Jerry (February 17, 2016). "Why Justice
281. Liptak, Adam (June 22, 2016). "Justices Disclose Privately Paid Scalia was staying for free at a Texas resort" (https://www.washin
Trips and Gifts" (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/j gtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-de
ustices-disclose-privately-paid-trips-and-gifts.html). The New ath-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-
York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/036 visit-remote-resorts/). The Washington Post. Archived (https://we
2-4331). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2020021319354 b.archive.org/web/20170624001801/https://www.washingtonpost.
7/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/politics/justices-disclos com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-q
e-privately-paid-trips-and-gifts.html) from the original on February uestions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-rem
13, 2020. Retrieved February 13, 2020. ote-resorts/) from the original on June 24, 2017. Retrieved
July 24, 2016.
Bibliography
Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court of the United States, 5 vols., Irons, Peter (1999). A People's History of the Supreme Court.
Detroit [etc.] Macmillan Reference USA, 2008 New York: Viking Press. ISBN 0-670-87006-4.
The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (https://ww Rehnquist, William (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Alfred
w.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf) Archived A. Knopf. ISBN 0-375-40943-2.
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170605075740/https://www.supre Skifos, Catherine Hetos (1976). "The Supreme Court Gets a
mecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf) June 5, 2017, at Home" (https://web.archive.org/web/20020607011454/http://supr
the Wayback Machine (2013 ed.) (PDF). emecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c01_e.html),
Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt (1997). Congressional Quarterly's Supreme Court Historical Society 1976 Yearbook. [in 1990,
Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: renamed The Journal of Supreme Court History (ISSN 1059-
Congressional Quarterly. ISBN 1-56802-130-5 4329)]
Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (https://w
Supreme Court of the United States (https://archive.org/details/o ww.supremecourt.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved
xfordcompaniont00hall). New York: Oxford University Press. February 13, 2008.
ISBN 978-0-19-505835-2. Warren, Charles (1924). The Supreme Court in United States
Hall, Kermit L.; McGuire, Kevin T., eds. (2005). Institutions of History (3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
American Democracy: The Judicial Branch. New York, New York: Woodward, Bob and Armstrong, Scott (1979). The Brethren:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530917-1. Inside the Supreme Court. ISBN 978-0-7432-7402-9.
Harvard Law Review Assn. (2000). The Bluebook: A Uniform
System of Citation, 17th ed. [18th ed., 2005. ISBN 978-600-01-
4329-9]
Further reading
Abraham, Henry J. (1992). Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (1st ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-506557-2.
Beard, Charles A. (1912). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted Dover Publications,
2006. ISBN 0-486-44779-0.
Corley, Pamela C.; Steigerwalt, Amy; Ward, Artemus (2013). The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court.
Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8472-6.
Cushman, Barry (1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court. Oxford University Press.
Cushman, Clare (2001). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 (2nd ed.). (Supreme Court Historical Society,
Congressional Quarterly Books). ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Frank, John P. (1995). Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L. (eds.). The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major
Opinions. Chelsea House Publishers. ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Garner, Bryan A. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed. Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
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.
Katz, Daniel Martin; Bommarito, Michael James; Blackman, Josh (January 19, 2017) [July 9, 2014]. "A General Approach for Predicting
the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389610). PLOS ONE. Social
Science Research Network. 12 (4): e0174698. arXiv:1407.6333 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.6333). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2463244 (https://doi.
org/10.2139%2Fssrn.2463244). PMC 5389610 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5389610). PMID 28403140 (https://pubm
ed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28403140). SSRN 2463244 (https://ssrn.com/abstract=2463244).
Martin, Fenton S.; Goehlert, Robert U. (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography (https://archive.org/details/ussupremecourtbi000
0mart). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Books. ISBN 978-0-87187-554-9.
Lewis, Thomas Tandy, ed. The U.S. Supreme Court. 2nd ed. 3 volumes. Ipswich: Salem/Grey House, 2016. ISBN 978-168217-180-6.
McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). The American Supreme Court. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55682-4.
O'Brien, David M. (2008). Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics (https://archive.org/details/stormcentersupre0000obri_
a4l4) (8th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-93218-8.
Spaeth, Harold J. (1979). Supreme Court Policy Making: Explanation and Prediction (https://archive.org/details/supremecourtpoli0000sp
ae) (3rd ed.). New York: W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7167-1012-7.
Supreme Court Historical Society. "The Court Building" (https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/courtbuilding.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved
February 13, 2008.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
Urofsky, Melvin I. (1994). The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary (https://archive.org/details/supremecourtjust00melv/pa
ge/590). New York: Garland Publishing. p. 590 (https://archive.org/details/supremecourtjust00melv/page/590). ISBN 978-0-8153-1176-8.
Urofsky, Melvin and 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.
External links
Official website (https://www.supremecourt.gov/)
Supreme Court decisions from World Legal Information Institution (http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USSC/) (contains no
advertisements)
Supreme Court Collection (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/index.html) from the Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court Opinions (http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html) from FindLaw
U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (v. 1+) (http://www.justia.us/) from Justia, Oyez and U.S. Court Forms
Supreme Court Records and Briefs (https://web.archive.org/web/20070719195848/http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/Spe
cialCollections/Supreme-Court.cfm) from Cornell Law Library
Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101289.html) from InfoPlease
Supreme Court Nominations, present–1789 (https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/nominations/Nominations.htm)
Scales of Justice: The History of Supreme Court Nominations (https://web.archive.org/web/20110501111251/http://backstoryradio.org/th
e-supremes/) – radio program explores history of appointments and confirmations
Supreme Court Historical Society (http://www.supremecourthistory.org/)
Complete/Searchable 1991–2004 Opinions and Orders (https://web.archive.org/web/20110430042054/http://www.docstoc.com/collectio
n/684/Supreme-Court-Of-The-United-States)
The Supreme Court Database (http://scdb.wustl.edu/) A research database with information about cases from 1946 to 2011
The Oyez Project (https://www.oyez.org/) – audio recordings of oral arguments
"U.S. Supreme Court collected news and commentary" (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_co
urt/index.html). The New York Times.
U.S. Supreme Court (https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032400136.html) collected news and
commentary at The Washington Post
C-SPAN's The Supreme Court: Home to America's Highest Court (http://supremecourt.c-span.org/)
Supreme Court Briefs Hosted by the American Bar Association (http://www.americanbar.org/publications/preview_home/alphabetical.ht
ml)
Works by Supreme Court of the United States (https://www.gutenberg.org/author/United+States.+Supreme+Court) at Project Gutenberg
Works by or about Supreme Court of the United States (https://archive.org/search.php?query=%28%22Supreme+Court+of+the+United+
States%22+OR+%22United+States+Supreme+Court%22+OR+%22SCOTUS%22%29) at Internet Archive
Works by Supreme Court of the United States (https://librivox.org/author/4323) at LibriVox (public domain audiobooks)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&oldid=1061266219"

additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy
Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

Federal Institutions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Federal Institutions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12/22/21, 2:10 PM Federal government of the United States - Wikipedia

Federal government of the United States

Naming Jurisdiction United States of

The House currently consists of 435 voting members, each of whom

Impeachment of federal officers

The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. Enumerated

Congress's oversight function takes many forms:

Committee inquiries and hearings

Representatives. Each state is allocated two senators regardless of its population. As of

Executive powers and duties

The executive branch is established in Article Two of the United

The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.[9][14] Under

Election, succession, and term limits

Veto power, impeachment, and other issues

The president may be impeached by a majority in the House and

Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies

Overview of the federal judiciary

The Judiciary Act of 1789 subdivided the nation jurisdictionally into

Relationships between state and federal courts

For fiscal year (FY) 2018, the federal

Elections and voting

of the state legislature. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth

Under the U.S. Constitution, the representation of U.S. territories and

State, tribal, and local governments

President Law States and territories

6. "Trump impeachment: A very simple guide" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-3994

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

This page was last edited on 5 December 2021, at 03:03 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

Internet Engineering Task Force

The IETF started out as an activity supported by the federal

Organization Purpose Creating voluntary

Applications Area (app)

Liaison and ex officio members include:

IETF Executive Director

Early leadership and administrative history

In 1987, Corrigan was succeeded as IETF chair by Phill Gross.[14]

In 1995, IETF's RFC 2031 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2031) describes ISOC's role in the IETF

In 2003, IETF's RFC 3677 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3677) described IETFs role in appointing

A list of the past and current Chairs of the IETF follows:

Mike Corrigan (1986)

Automated network management

New transport technology

Token Binding Protocol

18. dave. "Footnotes to History" (http://netpolicynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=a

Past IESG Members and IETF Chairs (https://www.ietf.org/iesg/past-members.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Engineering_Task_Force&oldid=1061171338"

This page was last edited on 20 December 2021, at 02:30 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;

Request for Comments

Production and versioning

The RFC tradition of pragmatic, experience-driven, after-the-fact standards authorship accomplished by

on the World Wide Web is

the RFC Editor (https://ww

A. Collected Grammar .................................... 43

Almost any published RFC 1. Introduction

specify the nature of the data in the body of a MIME entity, by

Every RFC is submitted as RFC 2046 (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2046), which defines the

Best Current Practice

3. "RFC's, Internet Request For Comments" (http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ia_rfc.htm).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Request_for_Comments&oldid=1057242405"

This page was last edited on 26 November 2021, at 11:04 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License;