FOLIO LINE
vote, and come up with a final deci-
The Supreme Court is the nation’s
highest appellate court, which means
the vast majority of its work involves
re-examining cases that have already
been handled in lower courts.
Parties that lose at trial or on their
initial appeals can petition the high
court’s nine justices for a final review
of the case.
The justices agree to hear cases
when they find a so-called “federal”
issue to resolve: conflicting interpreta-
tions of federal laws, regulations or the
U.S. Constitution.
The justices get first crack at
resolving only cases that raise ques-
tions beyond the jurisdiction of any
lower court, such as disputes between
states. (Think of arguments over water
rights, for example.)
The high court does not hold trials,
with witnesses, evidence and a jury.
Instead, lawyers argue their cases
directly to the justices, first in written
briefs and then during a live session.
Once a case is heard, it can take any-
where from a month to six months for
the justices to issue a decision.
Their rulings are as final as it gets
in the law: No other court can undo
their decisions.
Unlike other American courts, the
U.S. Supreme Court has nearly free
rein to decide which appeals it will
hear, and which it will reject. The
court’s jurisdiction is set by Congress,
but within that jurisdiction, the justices
themselves choose which disputes to
resolve and which to ignore.
The idea is that the court should
reserve its judgment for only the most
important matters, those involving fun-
damental questions about the
Constitution or federal law.
Each term, the justices receive
requests to hear more than 8,000 cases
filed throughout the country by people
in all walks of life: high-powered
lawyers representing big clients;
death-row inmates writing out their
appeals longhand from their cells;
ordinary citizens trying to resolve dis-
putes over their local school boards.
The justices generally agree to full
review of only about 80 of those cases
each year; they also resolve another 20
to 40 summarily, without accepting
briefs or hearing oral arguments. It
generally takes four justices to agree
to hear a case; in rare instances —
such as some death-penalty appeals —
five votes are necessary.
According to federal law, the
Supreme Court must begin each term
the first Monday in October, and each
session generally ends during the last
week of June.
During the session, they hear argu-
ments approximately six days per
month — two Mondays, Tuesdays and
Wednesdays. They hear two cases on
each of those days, then meet privately
to discuss the arguments. They also
meet most Fridays in private to discuss
cases that have been argued and to
decide which cases will be heard.
These sessions are attended only by
the nine justices; even clerks aren’t
allowed inside.
Tradition holds that the “junior jus-
tice,” the one with the least amount of
seniority, must act as a gopher of
U.S. Supreme Court justices (front row, from left) Anthony Kennedy,
John Paul Stevens (retiring), Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.,
Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Back row, from left: Samuel
Alito Jr., Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia
Sotomayor.
FOLIO LINE
Nine justices form the highest court in the
nation, and make decisions that affect all
Americans. Here, we look at what goes on
in the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court.
By Stephen Henderson, McClatchy Newspapers
Justices hear cases in the U.S. Supreme Court’s courtroom. Each term, the court receives more than
8,000 petitions to hear cases.
sorts. He or she answers the door if regarding which cases will be heard on
someone knocks, and gets coffee for argument Mondays as well as a third
the other justices. Justice Joseph Story Monday each month. Opinions are
(who was appointed to the court in the announced in the courtroom by the
early 1800s) was junior justice for a justice who wrote the majority opin-
record nine years and nearly seven ion, who also reads a short summary
months. of the decision. In some cases, a dis-
The court generally announces senting justice feels so strongly about
opinions on Tuesday and Wednesday his or her disagreement that he or she
argument days, and releases “orders” also will read from the bench.
The job of Supreme Court justice
is one of the few that’s defined in
the Constitution, but not accompa-
nied by a list of qualifications.
Justices, the Constitution says, are
to be appointed by the president
with the “advice and consent” of the
Senate, and they shall serve “during
good behavior,” which in practical
terms means the rest of their lives.
But there is no age requirement.
And the Constitution doesn’t say the
G A RY FA B I A N O / A B A C A P R E S S / M C T justices have to be judges, or even
lawyers. Technically, the
Constitution does not even require
that justices be U.S. citizens.
Throughout history, many of the
justices have, indeed, been judges at
U.S. SUPREME COURT: HOW THE COURT WORKS
MCCLATCHY-TRIBUNE
C O U R T E S Y O F T H E U. S . S U P R E M E C O U R T
The justices use the briefs submit-
ted and the question-and-answer ses-
sions at oral argument to decide how
they’ll vote in each case. After argu-
ment, they meet to discuss how they’ll
the time of their appointments. But
many others have not been. John
Marshall, perhaps the most impor-
tant chief justice of the United
States, was a Virginia congressman
and secretary of state before he was
appointed. Earl Warren, who led the
court through the tumultuous 1960s,
was governor of California. Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, who
died in 2005, had previously worked
in the Department of Justice as chief
counsel to the Attorney General.
The current justices are an eclec-
tic mix of personalities and judicial
philosophies, but all were accom-
plished lawyers or judges before
being appointed to the high court.
Knight R i d d e r / Tr i b u n e
sion. The chief justice expresses his
opinion first, then each justice, in
order of seniority, weighs in. It is
sometimes a lively debate, other times
an orderly recitation. After everyone
has spoken, the justices take a vote,
and opinions are assigned based on the
results.
If the chief justice is among those
voting with the winning side, he gets
to assign who writes the opinion. If
he’s on the losing side, the justice with
the most seniority on the winning side
gets to assign the majority opinion.
The justices on the losing side will fre-
quently write dissents. Once the opin-
ions are finished, they’re circulated
among all the justices, who may sug-
gest edits or changes to the majority
opinion. Sometimes at this stage, a
justice in the majority finds himself
more persuaded by a minority opinion,
and switches his vote. That could
result in a dissent becoming a majority
opinion, or vice versa. The justices’
deliberations are secret, however, and
they never explain how the decisions
are reached.
PETE SOUZA/CHICAGO TRIBUNE/MCT
Justice David Souter was nomi-
nated by George H.W. Bush, but
became a liberal fixture on the
Court.
Because the court has an odd num-
ber of members, many cases are decid-
ed by a single-vote margin. And
because the current membership of the
court is split between more conserva-
tive and more liberal justices, the jus-
tice closest to the political middle is
often described as holding the swing
vote. As that justice goes, so goes the
court.
Particularly in socially charged
cases — those involving issues such as
abortion or affirmative action or med-
ical marijuana — that swing vote
becomes the center of attention for the
press and interest groups that organize
around court issues. The court doesn’t
always have a swing voter; when one
side has a prohibitive majority, for
example, it can pretty much do what it
wants.
Before her retirement in 2005,
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was
considered by many to be the court’s
swing vote. O’Connor was a conserva-
tive, the first appointee by President
Ronald Reagan. But on many hot-but-
ton social issues, she took a more
moderate view and swung the court’s
decisions in a more liberal direction.
She was the “swing” vote in pivotal
cases involving abortion and affirma-
tive action, for example.
With O’Connor’s departure and
replacement by a more solidly conser-
vative justice in 2006, the court’s
proverbial middle was taken up by
Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy
cast key votes in cases on affirmative
action, free speech and abortion. With
the 2009, seating of Justice Sonia
Sotomayor and the recent nomination
of Elena Kagan, the court’s dynamic
shifts once again.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for example,
is a strident adherent to the idea that
the court should decide cases exclu-
sively by trying to divine the origi-
nal or “textual” meaning of the
Constitution and federal laws.
Justice Stephen Breyer, on the
other hand, believes that the justices
ought to merely consider original
meaning in their quest to decide
cases in a way that expands citizens’
role in democratic institutions. But
both were legal academics, govern-
ment lawyers and lower court judges
before they were nominated to the
Supreme Court. For the first time in
many years, the court has no mem-
ber who held elective office.