Supreme Court of the United States
- 1 Active Justices
- 2 Jurisdiction
- 3 Checks and Balances
- 4 Justices as Circuit Justices
- 5 Judicial posts
- 6 Opinions
- 7 Past Justices
- 8 Federal courthouse
- 9 See also
- 10 Further Reading
- 11 External links
- 12 References
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest judicial body in the country and leads the judicial branch of the federal government. It is often referred to by the acronym SCOTUS.
The Court consists of nine Justices: the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices. The justices are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate per Article II of the United States Constitution. As federal judges, the justices serve during "good behavior," meaning they essentially serve for life. Justices may be removed from the Court only by impeachment and subsequent conviction. The Supreme Court is the only Court established by the United States Constitution (in Article III); all other federal courts are created by Congress.
The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the next year. In mid-June, the Court generally releases the majority of its decisions.
Article III Justices
|Judge||Born||Home||Appointed by||Active||Preceeded||Law school|
|Associate Justice |
|April 1, 1950||Trenton, New Jersey||W. Bush||1/31/2006-Present||Sandra Day O'Connor||Yale Law, 1975|
|Chief Justice |
|1/27/1955||Buffalo, NY||W. Bush||9/29/2005-Present||William Rehnquist||Harvard Law, 1979|
|Associate Justice |
|6/23/1948||Savannah, GA||H.W. Bush||7/1/1991-Present||Thurgood Marshall||Yale Law, 1974|
|Associate Justice |
|March 11, 1936||Trenton, New Jersey||Reagan||9/26/1986-Present||William Rehnquist||Harvard Law, 1960|
|Associate Justice |
|August 15, 1938||San Francisco, CA||Clinton||8/3/1994-Present||Harry Blackmun||Harvard Law, 1964|
|Associate Justice |
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
|March 15, 1933||Brooklyn, New York||Clinton||8/5/1993-Present||Byron White||Columbia Law, LL.B., 1959|
|Associate Justice |
|July 23, 1936||Sacramento, CA||Reagan||2/17/1988-Present||Lewis Powell||Harvard Law, 1961|
|Associate Justice |
|April 28, 1960||New York, NY||Obama||8/7/2010-Present||John Paul Stevens||Harvard Law,1986|
|Associate Justice |
|June 25, 1954||New York (Bronx), NY||Obama||8/6/2009-present||David Souter||Yale Law, 1979|
The Supreme Court holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, with its appellate jurisdiction accounting for most of the Court's caseload. The Court's original jurisdiction is narrowly focused, as defined in Article III, Section 2:
|“||In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.||”|
Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
|“||The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.||”|
|“||The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.||”|
Also, in individual circumstances, Congress has the authority to limit the Court's jurisdiction. One recent example of this was discussed in the case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. At issue was the Detainee Treatment Act, in which the Congress states "'no court, justice or judge' shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee."
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).
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, federal courts may only entertain "cases" or "controversies." Therefore, the Court avoids deciding cases that are moot and does not render advisory opinions. This exception is not absolute; if an issue is "capable of repetition yet evading review," the Court will address it even though the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result.
How a Case Moves Through the Court
The vast majority of 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".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.
A cert petition is voted on at a session of the Court called a conference. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves; the public is not permitted to attend, and neither are the Justices' law clerks. If four Justices vote to grant the petition, then 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 certiorari only for "compelling reasons," spelled out in the Court's Rule 10. Such reasons include, without limitation:
- to resolve a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal constitution
- to correct an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
- to resolve 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 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 final ruling in the case.
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."
When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. At this point, both parties file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from reasons the parties may urge for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, amici curiae may also file briefs. The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from October through April. Each side has and half-hour to present its argument, and during that time the Justices can and do interrupt the advocate and ask questions of their own. The petitioner goes first, 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.
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, however, the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set time after oral argument. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied, and the most senior Justice in the majority assigns the initial draft of the Court's opinion to a Justice on his or her side. Drafts of the Court's opinion, as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions, circulate among the Justices until the Court is prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case.
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. If, because of recusals and vacancies, there is no quorum 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 directly 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.
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, a number of opinions 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. The individual volumes of U.S. Reports are numbered so that may cite this set of reporters -- or a competing version published by another commercial legal publisher -- to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs to find the cases quickly and easily.
How cases are named
The party that lost in the lower court is called the petitioner, and the party that prevailed is called 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.
The common shorthand name for cases is typically the first party (the appellant). For example, Brown v. Board of Education is referred to simply as Brown, and Roe v. Wade as Roe. The exception to this rule is when the name of a state, or the United States, or some government entity, is the first listed party. In that instance, the name of the second party is the shorthand name. For example, Iowa v. Tovar is referred to simply as Tovar, and Gonzales v. Raich is referred to simply as Raich, because the first party, Alberto Gonzales, was sued in his official capacity as the United States Attorney General.
Checks and Balances
The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist Paper No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances.
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!"; however, this quotation is likely apocryphal. State militia in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education.
The Constitution provides that the salary of a Justice may not be diminished during his or her continuance in office. This clause was intended to prevent Congress from punishing Justices for their decisions. Together with the provision that Justices hold office for good behavior, this clause helps guarantee judicial independence. However, as seen above, the President's practice of appointing justices with similar real, perceived or expected ideology can be seen to compromise judicial independence.
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 complained about the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it on the grounds that a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if he had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891. Today, the duties of a "Circuit Justice" are generally limited to receiving and deciding requests for stays in cases coming from the circuit or circuits to which the Justice is assigned, and other clerical tasks such as addressing certain requests for extensions of time. A Circuit Justice may (but in practice almost never does) sit as a judge of that circuit; when he or she does, however, a Circuit Justice has seniority over the Chief Judge of that circuit.
The Chief Justice is traditionally assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit, which includes Maryland and Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia. Each Associate Justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits. The Court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress. The Court, however, moved from its opposition to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, rendering the President's effort moot. In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint eight Justices to the Supreme Court (second only to George Washington) and promote one Associate Justice to Chief Justice.
Article II of the Constitution gives the President of the United States power to nominate justices, who are then appointed "by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate." As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made." Because the Constitution does not set forth any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate anyone to serve. However, that person must receive the confirmation of the Senate, meaning that a majority of that body must find that person to be a suitable candidate for a lifetime appointment on the nation's highest court.
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee, depending on whether the nominee's track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. At the close of confirmation hearings, the Committee votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report.
The practice of the nominee being questioned in person by the Committee is relatively recent. The first nominee to testify before the Committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925. Some western senators were concerned with his links to Wall Street and expressed their opposition when Stone was nominated. Stone proposed what was then the novelty of appearing before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions; his testimony helped secure a confirmation vote with very little opposition. The second nominee to appear before the Committee was Felix Frankfurter, who only addressed (at the Committee's request) what he considered to be slanderous allegations against him. The modern practice of the Committee questioning nominees on their judicial views began with the nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in 1955; the nomination came shortly after the Court handed down the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, and several Southern senators attempted to block Harlan's confirmation, hence the decision to testify.
Once the committee reports out the nomination, the whole Senate considers it; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork.
Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a Supreme Court nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate on the nomination has begun in the full Senate. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs the debate thereby preventing a final vote on the nominee. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968.
It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's name at any time before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. In 2005, President George W. Bush withdrew his nomination of Harriet Miers before committee hearings had begun, citing concerns about Senate requests during her confirmation process for access to internal Executive Branch documents resulting from her position as White House Counsel. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan withdrew the nomination of Douglas H. Ginsburg because of allegations of marijuana use.
Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently quick. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. Since the Reagan administration, the process has taken much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasingly political role Justices are said to play.
When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a full term. No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts.
The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that the Justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, although this is not compulsory as they may resign or retire voluntarily. A Justice may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote, but only one Justice has ever been impeached by the House (Samuel Chase, in 1805) and he was acquitted by the Senate, making impeachment as a restraint on the Court something of a paper tiger. Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, once in 1953 and once in 1970), but they have not even reached a vote in the House.
Because Justices have life tenure, it is impossible to predict when a vacancy will next occur. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Powell and William H. Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other because of health problems and died shortly thereafter. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 and the departures of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (by death and retirement, respectively) in 2005.
Despite the variability, all but four Presidents so far have been able to appoint at least one Justice. The exceptions are William H. Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Andrew Johnson, and Jimmy Carter. Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor, John Tyler made an appointment during that presidential term. Taylor likewise died early in his presidential term and an appointment was made before the term ended by Millard Fillmore. Johnson succeeded the assassinated Abraham Lincoln, and he was denied the opportunity to appoint a Justice by congressional action (see Size of the Court earlier in this article). Jimmy Carter is the only president to serve a full term without the opportunity to appoint at least one Justice.
Criticism of process
The process of nomination of Supreme Court Justices remains controversial in and of itself, and opposition to the current system because of beliefs of bias in appointments has existed since the creation of the Court. Historian Howard Zinn has claimed in his book A People's History of the United States that the justices cannot be independent, as the members are chosen by the president and ratified by the Senate. Likewise, he says that they cannot be neutral between the rich and the poor, as they are almost always from the upper class. He points specifically to their handling of the Sherman Anti-trust Act, which favored monopolies while opposing labor strikes, as well as their use of the Fourteenth Amendment to protect corporations more so than African-Americans, as proof of this.
Seniority and Seating
During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current Court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court: Sotomayor, Breyer, Thomas, Scalia (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan (most junior Associate Justice).
While justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, it is common for justices to be informally categorized in legal and political circles as being a judicial conservative, moderate, or liberal.
Five of the current justices of the Court were appointed by Republican presidents, while four were nominated by a Democratic president. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas compose the Court's conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotamayor and Kagan are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy, generally thought of as a moderate conservative, is considered most likely to be the swing vote that determines the outcome of certain close cases.
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Burwell
- McCullen v. Coakley
- National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
- Riley v. California; U.S. v. Wurie
- American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
- Abramski v. United States
- Bond v. United States
- Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway
- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
- United States v. Windsor
- Hollingsworth v. Perry
- Shelby County v. Holder
- Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
Research suggests that justices often strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role. 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, if at all possible, justices seek to depart under favorable presidents and Senates to ensure that a like-minded successor will be appointed.
Retired justices may be designated for temporary assignments to sit with several United States Courts of Appeals. Nominally, such assignments are made by the Chief Justice; they are analogous to the types of assignments that may be given to judges of lower courts who have elected senior status, except that a retired Supreme Court Justice never sits as a member of the Supreme Court itself.
Former Chief Justices
The following individuals previously served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Aside from currently serving Justices, 103 Justices have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.
For more information on those Justices, see former Justices of the United States Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants Exchange Building in New York City, then the national capital. Philadelphia became the capital city later in 1790, and the Court followed Congress and the President there, meeting briefly in Independence Hall, and then from 1791 to 1800 at Old City Hall at 5th and Chestnut Streets. After Washington, D.C., became the capital in 1800, the Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own home at One First Street Northeast, Washington, DC.
The four-story courthouse was designed in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol complex and Library of Congress by architect Cass Gilbert, and is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes space for the Courtroom, Justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services such as workshop, stores, cafeteria and a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force, separate from the Capitol Police.
- History of the Supreme Court
- Associate Justice
- Federal judicial nominations by president
- Supreme Court: Major cases of the October 2012 term
- News: SCOTUS issues ruling overturning AZ immigration law and affirming Citizens United for MT state officials, June 25, 2012
- Beard, Charles A. (1912). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted Dover Publications, 2006. ISBN 0-486-44779-0
- Garner, Bryan A. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed. Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
- Greenburg, 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
- McCloskey, Robert G. (2005). The American Supreme Court. 4th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-55682-4.
- Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the secret world of the Supreme Court. Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 0-385-51640-1.
- Urofsky, Melvin and Paul Finkelman. (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.
- Supreme Court official website list of all former and current justices
- Supreme Court of the United States. Official Homepage
- Anchorage Daily News, "Police use of GPS is ruled unconstitutional by court," January 23, 2012
- JD Supra "U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Reaffirms Right of Religious Organizations to Hire, Fire," January 12, 2012
- The New York Times, "On Language' Potus and Flotus," October 12, 1997
- The Supreme Court of the United States, A Brief Overview of the Supreme Court
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- Legal Times "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool" 10/21/2005
- Legal Times, "Justice Alito Joins Cert Pool Party" 7/4/2006
- Caselaw.com, U.S.C. Title 28, Section 1
- FindLaw "U.S.C. Title 28, Section 1" Accessed 2007-10-30
- Justices, Number of. in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (editors), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press 1992, ISBN 0-19-505935-6.
- Presidents, Picking Justice, Can Have Backfires, Purdum, Todd S., July 5, 2005
- United States Senate, Nominations
- Jurist Legal Intelligence, "The Passionate Intensity of the Confirmation Process"
- Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. New York: Perennial, 2003. p.260-261 ISBN 0060528370
- Kennedy Seen as The Next Justice In Court's Middle, The Washington Post, Lane, Charles January 31, 2006
|Former chief justices||White|
|Former associate justices||
Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Goldberg • Gray • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Shiras • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods