Table of Contents
The process of reviewing laws by the Supreme Court is one of the most important functions in the American legal system. Through the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court ensures that laws passed by Congress and actions taken by the executive branch comply with the United States Constitution. This comprehensive guide explains how the Supreme Court reviews laws, from the initial challenge to the final decision, providing you with a clear understanding of this essential constitutional process.
What Is Judicial Review?
Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the U.S. system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. This power allows the Supreme Court to examine whether laws, executive orders, and government actions align with the Constitution, and to strike down those that do not.
The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Despite not being explicitly written in the Constitution, judicial review has become a cornerstone of American democracy and the separation of powers.
The Historical Foundation: Marbury v. Madison
Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” This 1803 case fundamentally shaped the role of the Supreme Court in American government.
Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. Before this landmark case, while many of the Founding Fathers expected the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review, the power had not been formally established or tested at the federal level.
Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people. This principle remains central to the Court’s role today.
The Supreme Court’s Constitutional Role
Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judiciary. Article III, Section I states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This constitutional provision created the foundation for the Supreme Court, though it left many details to be determined by Congress.
The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. The Court serves as a check on both the legislative and executive branches.
Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. This counter-majoritarian function is essential to protecting individual rights.
The Composition of the Supreme Court
Over the years, various Acts of Congress have altered the number of seats on the Supreme Court, from a low of five to a high of 10. Shortly after the Civil War, the number of seats on the Court was fixed at nine. Today, there is one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Each justice is appointed by the President and must be confirmed by the Senate, serving lifetime appointments during good behavior.
How Cases Reach the Supreme Court
Understanding how a case reaches the Supreme Court is essential to comprehending the judicial review process. The vast majority of cases begin in lower courts and must navigate through multiple levels of the judicial system before potentially reaching the nation’s highest court.
The Path Through Lower Courts
Typically, the Court hears cases that have been decided in either an appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals or the highest Court in a given state (if the state court decided a Constitutional issue). This means that before a case can be considered by the Supreme Court, it must first proceed through the trial court level and typically through at least one level of appellate review.
A typical case begins when someone believes a law violates their constitutional rights or conflicts with the Constitution. The case starts in a trial court—either a federal district court for federal matters or a state trial court for state matters. At this level, evidence is presented, witnesses testify, and a judge or jury makes factual determinations. If one party believes the trial court made an error, they can appeal to a higher court.
The loser might decide to appeal the district court’s ruling by having the next level of court (the court of appeals) take a look at the case. There are 13 Circuit Courts of Appeals. Twelve geographic circuits, and the Federal Circuit. Unlike the Supreme Court, the court of appeals doesn’t control which cases it hears. If someone appeals their case to this court, the judges have to decide it. The appellate court reviews the trial court’s application of the law and can either affirm or reverse the lower court’s decision.
Petitioning for Supreme Court Review
For a case to be reviewed, a party must file a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is granted at the Court’s discretion based on specific criteria. The term “certiorari” comes from Latin, meaning “to be informed.” This petition is the formal request asking the Supreme Court to review a lower court’s decision.
The process begins with a challenger submitting a “writ of certiorari,” also called a cert petition. Certiorari is Latin for “to inform, apprise or show.” The justices review the petitions and vote on whether to hear the case. Four of the nine justices must vote in favor of taking a case. This is known as the “Rule of Four,” and it ensures that a significant minority of the Court believes a case merits review.
The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year. This means the Court grants certiorari in only about 1-2% of cases, making Supreme Court review highly selective. The justices carefully choose cases that present important constitutional questions or resolve conflicts between lower courts.
What Makes a Case Worthy of Supreme Court Review?
The lower courts may have disagreed on an issue. In situations in which one court has ruled one way and another court has ruled another, the Supreme Court justices may choose to intervene and clarify the law. These conflicts between circuit courts, known as “circuit splits,” are among the most common reasons the Court grants certiorari.
The court also hears cases that answer important constitutional questions, like the extent of state powers. It also looks for cases that will affect the whole nation, such as ones dealing with an individual’s right to expression and the freedom of the press to operate. The Supreme Court focuses on cases with broad national significance rather than simply correcting errors in individual cases.
From this cert docket, the Court tends to look for cases involving important constitutional questions or significant federal laws, especially those affecting civil rights or the separation of powers. It also is more likely to hear cases when review is requested by the federal government, which is involved in approximately two-thirds of all the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decides on the merits each year.
The Cert Pool and Petition Review Process
Thousands of petitions for hearings roll in through the court’s electronic filing system, by mail, or in person. The justices’ clerks, top legal positions usually held by recent law school graduates, write a summary of each petition, along with a recommendation about what the court should do about it. On Wednesdays and Fridays, the justices gather in a private conference to make a decision.
Each Justice determines how he or she will vote to accept or reject each certiorari petition, usually calling for a law clerk’s memorandum analyzing the petition. Eight of the Justices make use of a “cert pool” system. As the certiorari petitions are received, their clerks take turns writing memorandums, and each Justice conducts whatever additional research is necessary. This system helps the justices manage the enormous volume of petitions they receive each term.
If at least four of the nine justices vote in favor of accepting it, the court will hear the case. If the justices decline to hear a case, only they know why. They never comment on why they have declined a petition. When the Court denies certiorari, the lower court’s decision stands, but this denial does not constitute an endorsement of that decision or create any precedent.
The Supreme Court Review Process: Step by Step
Once the Supreme Court grants certiorari and agrees to hear a case, the review process follows a structured series of steps designed to ensure thorough consideration of the legal issues involved.
Step 1: Written Briefs
The party that asked the Court to hear the case is known as the “petitioner,” while the other party is known as the “respondent.” The petitioner must file a document called a brief that explains their legal arguments for why the lower court was wrong. The respondent then files a brief explaining why the lower court was right. Each side also can file briefs responding to the initial positions outlined by their opponent.
These briefs are comprehensive legal documents that present each side’s arguments, cite relevant precedents, and explain how the Constitution and applicable laws should be interpreted. The briefs are crucial because they provide the justices with detailed legal analysis before oral arguments take place.
Step 2: Amicus Curiae Briefs
With the permission of the Court, groups that do not have a direct stake in the outcome of the case, but are nevertheless interested in it, may file what is known as an amicus curiae (Latin for “friend of the court”) brief providing their own arguments and recommendations for how the case should be decided. These briefs allow interested parties, advocacy groups, legal scholars, and government entities to share their perspectives on how the case should be resolved.
In fact, according to Professor Kersch, amicus briefs have been very influential in shaping modern U.S. Supreme Court opinions because not only do the justices read them, but some also end up adopting the legal argument provided in them. The justices weigh all the arguments, he says, and then adopt those that they find most persuasive. So, the reality is that any justice’s legal argument could have come from a lawyer representing an expert or an advocacy group, who has submitted an amicus brief. This demonstrates the significant influence that amicus briefs can have on the Court’s decision-making process.
Step 3: Oral Arguments
By law, the U.S. Supreme Court’s term begins on the first Monday in October and goes through the Sunday before the first Monday in October of the following year. The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October. The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April. This schedule structures the Court’s annual work cycle.
Each case is traditionally allotted one hour for oral argument, with occasional exceptions for particularly complicated cases. Oral argument takes place in the courtroom of the Supreme Court building. No cameras are allowed, but the arguments are recorded. During oral arguments, attorneys for each side present their case and answer questions from the justices.
Oral arguments are not speeches or presentations. Instead, they are dynamic exchanges where the justices actively question the attorneys about their legal theories, the implications of their arguments, and how their positions align with constitutional principles and precedent. The justices use this time to probe weaknesses in arguments, explore hypothetical scenarios, and clarify their understanding of complex legal issues.
Many Justices, whether they use bench memos or not, spend time talking with their law clerks about the cases before argument. By the time a case is heard at oral argument, the Justices and their law clerks have spent a lot of time thinking about the issues. This preparation ensures that oral arguments are substantive and focused on the most important legal questions.
Step 4: The Justices’ Conference
When oral arguments are concluded, the Justices have to decide the case. They do so at what is known as the Justices’ Conference. When Court is in session, there are two conferences scheduled per week – one on Wednesday afternoon and one on Friday afternoon. These conferences are held in complete privacy, with only the nine justices present.
According to Supreme Court protocol, only the Justices are allowed in the Conference room at this time—no police, law clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice calls the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the Justices shake hands. This tradition emphasizes the respect and collegiality that exists among the justices, even when they disagree on legal issues.
According to Supreme Court protocol, all Justices have an opportunity to state their views on the case and raise any questions or concerns they may have. Each Justice speaks without interruptions from the others. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each Justice speaks in descending order of seniority, ending with the most junior justice—the one who has served on the court for the fewest years. After discussion, the justices vote on the case, with voting also proceeding in order of seniority.
Step 5: Opinion Writing and Circulation
Finally, once the justices reach a decision, one justice is assigned the task of writing the opinion. Drafts are circulated among the justices until all revisions, comments, and corrections are complete. A decision is not announced until the opinion is released to the public record. This process can take weeks or even months as justices refine their reasoning and respond to each other’s arguments.
The Justice who writes the opinion of the Court must make sure that it properly expresses the views of all the Justices who voted in the majority. This is because a majority of the Justices must sign onto the opinion, showing that they agree with it in its entirety, before it is publicly delivered. An opinion is not official until then. The opinion-writing process requires careful negotiation and compromise to maintain a majority coalition.
If the Chief Justice is in the majority, the Chief Justice assigns who writes the majority opinion. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the most senior justice in the majority makes the assignment. This assignment power is strategically important, as different justices may emphasize different aspects of the legal reasoning.
Types of Supreme Court Opinions
When the Supreme Court decides a case, it typically issues multiple opinions that reflect the different perspectives of the justices. Understanding these different types of opinions is essential to comprehending how the Court communicates its decisions and reasoning.
Majority Opinion
The majority opinion represents the official decision of the Court and is signed by at least five of the nine justices. This opinion establishes the legal precedent that lower courts must follow. The majority opinion explains the Court’s reasoning, interprets relevant constitutional provisions and statutes, and applies legal principles to the facts of the case. This opinion has binding authority and shapes American law going forward.
Concurring Opinion
Furthermore, if a Justice agrees with the majority but wants to clarify or explain an issue further, they may issue a concurring opinion. A concurring opinion agrees with the outcome reached by the majority but offers different reasoning or emphasizes different legal principles. Concurring opinions do not have binding precedential value, but they can influence how future courts interpret the majority opinion and may signal areas where the law might develop differently in the future.
Dissenting Opinion
If Justices disagree, they may write a dissenting opinion. A dissenting opinion explains why one or more justices believe the majority reached the wrong conclusion. While dissents have no legal force, they serve important functions: they can persuade future courts to reconsider the majority’s reasoning, they preserve alternative interpretations of the Constitution for future consideration, and they can influence public debate about constitutional issues.
Some of the most famous dissenting opinions in Supreme Court history have eventually become the majority view. For example, Justice John Marshall Harlan’s lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation, argued that “our Constitution is color-blind.” This view was vindicated nearly 60 years later in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which struck down school segregation.
Plurality Opinion
Sometimes, five or more justices agree on the outcome of a case, but they cannot agree on a single rationale. In these situations, the opinion that garners the most votes (but less than a majority) is called a plurality opinion. Plurality opinions are more limited in their precedential value because they do not represent the reasoning of a majority of the Court. Lower courts must follow the outcome but may struggle to determine which reasoning to apply in future cases.
Per Curiam Opinion
Once certiorari is granted, the Court may either hear the case with oral arguments or issue a decision without oral arguments, known as a per curiam decision. A per curiam opinion is an unsigned opinion issued by the Court as a whole rather than authored by a particular justice. These opinions are typically used for straightforward cases or when the Court wants to speak with one voice without attributing the opinion to any individual justice.
Standards of Review in Supreme Court Cases
As the Court confers privately to reach a decision, the Court is limited by the deference it must afford the lower court decision, the standard of review. The standard of review is determined by whether the issue appealed is a legal issue, a factual issue, or a discretionary issue. These standards govern how closely the Supreme Court examines lower court decisions.
Importantly, the Supreme Court primarily decides questions of law rather than determining facts. In most cases, lower courts establish the factual record and frame the legal issues, and the Supreme Court reviews how the law was applied to those facts. This distinction is fundamental to understanding the Supreme Court’s role as an appellate court.
Furthermore, the Court will affirm a lower court decision if the error complained of is harmless. An error is harmless if the judgment would have been the same absent the error. This harmless error doctrine prevents the Supreme Court from overturning decisions based on technical mistakes that did not affect the outcome.
The Scope and Impact of Judicial Review
The power of judicial review extends to all levels of government and all types of governmental actions. Understanding the scope of this power helps explain the Supreme Court’s central role in American constitutional democracy.
Review of Federal Laws
In the period 1960–2019, the Supreme Court has held 483 laws unconstitutional in whole or in part. This demonstrates that while judicial review is a powerful tool, the Court exercises it selectively. The Court can strike down federal statutes that violate constitutional provisions, whether those violations involve individual rights, separation of powers, or federalism principles.
Review of State Laws and Constitutions
The Court also claims that it can declare state constitutional provisions and state enactments unconstitutional. These powers of judicial review can be logically separated into actions declaring coordinate national branches unconstitutional and cases voiding actions of subordinate state governments. The power over state constitutions and state laws, although controversial at many times in history, can be justified by reference to Article VIII of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly states that the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States constitute the “supreme law of the land” regardless of anything in state laws to the contrary.
This supremacy clause ensures that federal constitutional rights are protected uniformly across all states, preventing states from enacting laws that violate federal constitutional guarantees. The Supreme Court’s review of state laws has been particularly important in protecting civil rights and ensuring equal treatment under the law.
Review of Executive Actions
The Supreme Court also reviews executive actions, including executive orders, agency regulations, and actions taken by executive branch officials. This review ensures that the executive branch operates within constitutional bounds and does not exceed the authority granted by Congress or the Constitution.
Limitations on Judicial Review
While judicial review is a powerful tool, the Supreme Court’s authority is not unlimited. Several important constraints shape how and when the Court can exercise this power.
The Case or Controversy Requirement
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” This means the Court cannot issue advisory opinions or decide abstract legal questions. There must be an actual dispute between parties with real stakes in the outcome. This requirement ensures that the Court decides cases based on concrete facts rather than hypothetical scenarios.
Standing, Mootness, and Ripeness
Related to the case or controversy requirement are several doctrines that limit when parties can bring cases to court. Standing requires that a party has suffered a concrete injury that can be traced to the challenged action and that a favorable court decision would redress. Mootness prevents courts from deciding cases where the controversy has been resolved or the parties no longer have a live dispute. Ripeness prevents courts from deciding cases before a controversy has fully developed.
Political Question Doctrine
The political question doctrine prevents courts from deciding issues that are constitutionally committed to other branches of government or that lack judicially manageable standards. This doctrine recognizes that some questions are better resolved through the political process rather than judicial decision-making.
Judicial Restraint and Separation of Powers
While this case has served as the bedrock for judicial review ever since, courts nevertheless must be careful not to violate the Separation of Powers doctrine when engaging in judicial review. While of course it is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the law and decide which laws violate the Constitution, judges and justices understand that they must not usurp the legislative duty to create the law. This principle of judicial restraint encourages courts to defer to the elected branches when possible and to avoid unnecessarily broad rulings.
Congressional Checks on Judicial Power
A still more dramatic restraint flows from Congress’s authority to determine how many justices sit on the Court. Congress and the president have the power to determine the total number of justices by ordinary legislative enactment. This power could be significant because if the Court rendered a controversial decision by five to four, the addition of just two new justices could potentially reverse that decision, assuming there were no other changes of mind or members. However, this power has rarely been exercised, and attempts to “pack” the Court have generally been politically unsuccessful.
The Court can be overturned by amendment. Such actions have occurred, but because of the difficult amending process, they are rare. Constitutional amendments can override Supreme Court decisions, though the high bar for amending the Constitution means this happens infrequently.
Original Jurisdiction Cases
While most Supreme Court cases arrive through the appellate process, the Court also has original jurisdiction over certain types of cases, meaning these cases can be filed directly with the Supreme Court without first going through lower courts.
It has the authority to hear cases that have been decided in lower courts, as well as original jurisdiction in disputes between states or between states and the federal government. These original jurisdiction cases are relatively rare but can involve significant issues.
Original jurisdiction cases are most often disputes between states. These rare cases usually involve technical matters such as boundary lines or water rights. There have been fewer than 20 such cases between 2000 and 2026. When the Court exercises original jurisdiction, it often appoints a special master to gather facts and make recommendations before the justices decide the legal issues.
The Role of Precedent in Supreme Court Decisions
Precedent, also known by the Latin term “stare decisis” (meaning “to stand by things decided”), plays a crucial role in how the Supreme Court reviews laws and makes decisions. This principle holds that courts should generally follow earlier decisions when deciding cases with similar facts and legal issues.
Precedent promotes stability, predictability, and consistency in the law. When the Supreme Court establishes a rule in one case, lower courts and future Supreme Court panels are expected to follow that rule. This creates a coherent body of constitutional law that guides government action and protects individual rights.
However, the Supreme Court is not absolutely bound by its own precedents. The Court can overrule its previous decisions when it concludes that those decisions were wrongly decided or that changed circumstances require a different approach. Overruling precedent is a significant step that the Court does not take lightly, as it can create uncertainty and undermine public confidence in the stability of the law.
When considering whether to overrule precedent, the Court examines factors such as whether the precedent has proven unworkable in practice, whether it has been undermined by subsequent legal developments, whether there has been significant reliance on the precedent, and whether the precedent was poorly reasoned. The Court must balance the benefits of correcting an erroneous decision against the costs of disrupting settled expectations.
How Supreme Court Decisions Affect American Life
The decisions of the Supreme Court have an important impact on society at large, not just on lawyers and judges. Supreme Court decisions shape fundamental aspects of American life, from civil rights and criminal justice to economic regulation and personal freedoms.
When the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, that law becomes unenforceable throughout the United States. This can have immediate and far-reaching consequences. For example, when the Court struck down school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, it fundamentally transformed American education and society. When the Court recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right in Obergefell v. Hodges, it immediately affected marriage laws in all 50 states.
Supreme Court decisions also influence how government operates and how power is distributed among federal and state governments. Decisions about the scope of congressional power, executive authority, and state sovereignty shape the structure of American federalism. These decisions determine which level of government can regulate various aspects of American life, from healthcare to environmental protection to criminal justice.
Beyond their immediate legal effects, Supreme Court decisions shape public discourse and influence how Americans understand their constitutional rights. Major decisions generate extensive media coverage, public debate, and political responses. They can catalyze social movements, influence elections, and shape the national conversation about fundamental values and rights.
Criticisms and Controversies Surrounding Judicial Review
The power of judicial review has been controversial since its inception. Critics and supporters have debated the appropriate scope of this power and how it should be exercised in a democratic society.
The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty
One fundamental criticism of judicial review is that it allows unelected judges with lifetime tenure to overturn laws passed by democratically elected representatives. This “counter-majoritarian difficulty” raises questions about the legitimacy of judicial review in a democratic system. Defenders argue that protecting constitutional rights sometimes requires checking majority will, and that the Constitution itself represents a higher form of democratic decision-making.
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
The scope and exercise of judicial review have been subjects of ongoing debate, particularly regarding the balance between judicial activism and self-restraint. Critics accuse judges of “judicial activism” when they believe judges are imposing their own policy preferences rather than faithfully interpreting the Constitution. Others argue that vigorous judicial review is necessary to protect constitutional rights and check government overreach.
Interpretive Methodologies
Justices disagree about how to interpret the Constitution, and these disagreements shape how they exercise judicial review. Some justices advocate for originalism, which interprets the Constitution according to its original public meaning when ratified. Others support a living constitutionalism approach, which views the Constitution as adaptable to changing circumstances and evolving values. Still others emphasize precedent, text, structure, or practical consequences. These different interpretive approaches can lead to dramatically different conclusions about whether laws are constitutional.
Recent Developments in Supreme Court Review
Currently, the Supreme Court issues signed decisions on about 60 cases per year. That’s down from more than 160 in the 1980s and significantly lower than the number of cases decided just 15 years ago. This declining docket has sparked debate about whether the Court is deciding too few cases and leaving too many important legal questions unresolved.
The Court has also faced increased scrutiny regarding its procedures and ethics. Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, however, had no ethics code or code of conduct for more than 230 years. On November 17, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court announced the adoption of the Justices’ Code of Conduct—the first time the justices had put a code in writing. This development reflects growing public concern about judicial ethics and accountability.
The Court has also expanded its use of the “shadow docket”—emergency applications and other matters decided without full briefing and oral argument. This practice has generated controversy, with critics arguing that major decisions should not be made through expedited procedures without the full deliberative process.
Understanding Key Legal Terms
To fully understand how the Supreme Court reviews laws, it’s helpful to be familiar with key legal terminology used throughout the process.
- Appeal: A request to a higher court to review and change the decision of a lower court. Appeals focus on legal errors rather than re-examining facts.
- Appellant/Petitioner: The party who appeals a lower court decision to a higher court, asking the higher court to review and reverse the decision.
- Appellee/Respondent: The party who won in the lower court and typically opposes the appeal, arguing that the lower court’s decision should be upheld.
- Certiorari: A writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court. The Supreme Court has discretion to grant or deny petitions for certiorari.
- Constitution: The fundamental law of the United States, establishing the structure of government, defining governmental powers, and protecting individual rights.
- Dissent: An opinion written by one or more justices who disagree with the majority’s decision, explaining their reasoning for reaching a different conclusion.
- Judicial Review: The power of courts to examine laws and government actions to determine whether they comply with the Constitution, and to invalidate those that do not.
- Jurisdiction: The authority of a court to hear and decide a case. The Supreme Court has both original jurisdiction (for certain cases filed directly with the Court) and appellate jurisdiction (for cases appealed from lower courts).
- Majority Opinion: The official decision of the Court, representing the views of at least five justices. This opinion establishes binding precedent.
- Oral Arguments: The stage of the Supreme Court process where attorneys for each side present their case and answer questions from the justices.
- Precedent: A previous court decision that serves as an example or guide for deciding similar cases in the future. Courts generally follow precedent under the principle of stare decisis.
- Remand: When an appellate court sends a case back to a lower court for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision.
- Stare Decisis: Latin for “to stand by things decided.” The principle that courts should follow precedent and not disturb settled legal principles without strong justification.
- Writ: A formal written order issued by a court. A writ of certiorari is the most common type of writ in Supreme Court practice.
How to Follow Supreme Court Cases
For those interested in following Supreme Court cases and understanding how the Court reviews laws, numerous resources are available to the public.
The Supreme Court’s official website (www.supremecourt.gov) provides access to opinions, oral argument transcripts and audio recordings, the Court’s docket, and information about Court procedures. All Supreme Court opinions are published on the website shortly after they are announced.
SCOTUSblog (www.scotusblog.com) is an independent website that provides comprehensive coverage of the Supreme Court, including analysis of pending cases, summaries of decisions, and statistics about the Court’s work. It has become an essential resource for lawyers, journalists, and anyone interested in the Supreme Court.
Oyez (www.oyez.org) provides free access to audio recordings of oral arguments, along with case summaries and information about the justices. The site makes Supreme Court proceedings accessible to the general public.
Major news organizations provide coverage of significant Supreme Court decisions and arguments. Legal publications and law school websites often offer more detailed analysis of Court decisions and their implications.
The Future of Judicial Review
The Court’s important and controversial power of judicial review is a significant contribution of the U.S. political system to the global system of governance. Particularly since World War II, concerns developed that democracy defined as pure majority rule has led to totalitarian governments. Judicial review has become a model for constitutional democracies worldwide, with many countries adopting some form of constitutional review by courts.
As American society continues to evolve, the Supreme Court’s role in reviewing laws will remain central to constitutional governance. New technologies, changing social norms, and emerging challenges will present novel constitutional questions for the Court to address. Issues such as digital privacy, artificial intelligence, climate change, and biotechnology will require the Court to apply constitutional principles to circumstances the Framers could not have imagined.
The composition of the Court will continue to shape how judicial review is exercised. As new justices join the Court, they bring different perspectives on constitutional interpretation and the appropriate scope of judicial power. These changes can lead to shifts in constitutional doctrine and different approaches to reviewing laws.
Public understanding of and confidence in the Supreme Court will remain important to the Court’s legitimacy and effectiveness. The Court’s power ultimately depends on public acceptance of its authority and willingness to comply with its decisions. Maintaining this legitimacy requires the Court to exercise its power of judicial review thoughtfully and to explain its decisions in ways that the public can understand and respect.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s power to review laws is fundamental to American constitutional democracy. Through judicial review, the Court ensures that government actions comply with the Constitution, protects individual rights, and maintains the balance of power among the branches of government. The process by which the Court reviews laws—from the initial petition for certiorari through oral arguments, conference deliberations, and opinion writing—reflects careful consideration of complex legal issues with far-reaching consequences.
Understanding how the Supreme Court reviews laws helps citizens appreciate the role of the judiciary in American government and the importance of constitutional principles in shaping public policy. While the power of judicial review remains controversial and its exercise continues to generate debate, it has proven to be an essential mechanism for protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that government operates within constitutional bounds.
As the Supreme Court continues to address new challenges and interpret the Constitution for changing times, its review of laws will remain a vital part of American democracy. By understanding this process, citizens can better engage with constitutional issues, evaluate Court decisions, and participate in the ongoing conversation about the meaning of the Constitution and the proper role of judicial review in a democratic society.