Honestly, I used to think the Supreme Court was just a bunch of judges in black robes listening to lawyers argue. Then I spent a summer interning at a constitutional law firm and wow – the reality is way more intense. Let me break down what they actually do day-to-day.
The Core Work: Constitutional Refereeing
Imagine a football game where referees constantly disagree on rules. That's essentially America's legal system without the Supreme Court. Their primary job? Interpreting the U.S. Constitution when laws or government actions are challenged. I witnessed this firsthand when our firm worked on a First Amendment case – that document from 1787 still decides Twitter controversies today.
Here's what they handle daily:
- Constitutional disputes: When state laws conflict with federal powers (like immigration enforcement)
- Federal law clashes: Agencies fighting over regulations (EPA vs. Department of Energy)
- Civil rights cases: Voting rights, discrimination claims – remember the Obergefell same-sex marriage ruling?
- State vs. state lawsuits: Yes, Texas can sue California over water rights!
How Cases Actually Reach Them
Fun fact: The justices pick what they hear. Out of 7,000+ annual petitions, they select about 80. The "rule of four" applies – if four justices vote to hear a case, it's added to the docket. I've seen petitions rejected for trivial formatting errors.
| Case Type | Real-Life Example | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Appellate Jurisdiction | Dobbs v. Jackson (2022 abortion case) | Overturned lower court rulings impacting 50 states |
| Original Jurisdiction | Texas v. New Mexico (water rights dispute) | Prevents interstate conflict escalating to federal crisis |
| Constitutional Review | Citizens United v. FEC (campaign finance) | Redefined political spending as free speech |
The Hidden Mechanics: How Decisions Happen
After oral arguments (where lawyers get grilled for 30 mins each), justices meet privately. The most senior justice in the majority assigns the opinion draft. Drafts circulate internally – my professor clerked for Justice Ginsburg and described brutal editing sessions lasting weeks.
Contrary to popular belief, dissenting opinions matter tremendously. Justice Harlan's 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson dissent later became the foundation for Brown v. Board of Education.
A Day in Chambers: Behind Closed Doors
I interviewed a former clerk about process quirks:
- Justices communicate through printed memos – even when offices are adjacent
- The "cert pool" system: Law clerks jointly screen petitions (saves 1000s of hours)
- Thursday conferences: All justices debate cases over lunch (usually chicken salad)
The People Factor: Who Are the Justices?
Forget impartial robots – these are humans with philosophies. The current bench includes:
| Justice | Appointing President | Judicial Philosophy | Notable Opinions |
|---|---|---|---|
| John Roberts | G.W. Bush (2005) | Institutionalist | Upheld ACA individual mandate |
| Elena Kagan | Obama (2010) | Pragmatist | Dissent in Shelby County voting rights case |
| Clarence Thomas | G.H.W. Bush (1991) | Originalist | Consistent 2nd Amendment defenses |
Appointments are political minefields. The Senate confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 showed how partisan this process has become – and frankly, it worries me how much politics now influences judicial independence.
Landmark Cases That Define Their Job
You can't grasp the Supreme Court's job without knowing these game-changers:
| Case | Year | Core Issue | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marbury v. Madison | 1803 | Judicial review power | Established SCOTUS as constitutional interpreter |
| Brown v. Board of Education | 1954 | School segregation | Overturned "separate but equal" doctrine |
| Roe v. Wade | 1973 | Abortion rights | Recognized privacy right (later overturned) |
| Dobbs v. Jackson | 2022 | Abortion access | Returned regulation to states |
Common Misconceptions I Used to Believe
Before working in law, I thought:
- Myth: They make laws
Truth: They interpret existing laws/constitution - Myth: All cases get hearings
Truth: They reject 99% of petitions without comment - Myth: Justices follow presidential agendas
Truth: Many "disappoint" appointers (e.g., Roberts upholding Obamacare)
The court's power has limits. They can't:
- Initiate cases (must wait for lawsuits)
- Enforce rulings (relies on executive branch cooperation)
- Advisory opinions (they rule only on concrete disputes)
The Real-World Consequences
When they ruled in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), gutting Voting Rights Act provisions, southern states immediately implemented voter ID laws. My cousin in Georgia waited 4 hours to vote in 2018 – directly linked to that decision.
Their job extends beyond legal theory:
| Ruling Area | Daily Life Impact |
|---|---|
| 4th Amendment (search/seizure) | Police phone searches require warrants |
| 1st Amendment (speech) | Social media moderation policies |
| Commerce Clause | State marijuana laws vs. federal bans |
Public Interaction: Can You Access the Court?
I visited last year – here's practical info:
- Location: 1 First St NE, Washington DC
- Public hours: Mon-Fri 9am-4:30pm (closed weekends)
- Oral arguments: Open to public on first-come basis (arrive by 7am!)
- Visitor center: Exhibits on landmark cases and justice biographies
Frequently Asked Questions (From Real People)
How many cases does the Supreme Court hear annually?
Typically 70-80, though they receive over 7,000 petitions. They prioritize cases with constitutional significance or conflicting lower court rulings.
Can the President override Supreme Court decisions?
No. Only constitutional amendments or future Court reversals can change rulings. FDR tried pressuring the Court in 1937 – it backfired spectacularly.
Do justices ever change their minds during deliberations?
More often than you'd think! Justice Kennedy switched positions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), preserving abortion rights for decades.
How much does the Chief Justice influence outcomes?
Massively. They assign opinion-writing duties and control conference discussions. Warren Burger (1969-1986) notoriously manipulated assignments to control rulings.
Controversies That Test Their Role
Let's address the elephant in the room: recent ethics scandals. Justices accepting luxury trips from billionaires with cases before the Court? That erodes public trust in their job as impartial arbiters. I'm disappointed by the refusal to adopt binding ethics rules.
Other flashpoints:
- Politicization: Increasingly partisan confirmation battles
- "Shadow docket": Emergency rulings without hearings (criticized for lack of transparency)
- Legitimacy crises: Dropping public approval (down to 41% in 2023 Gallup polls)
The Bottom Line: Why Their Job Matters
After studying constitutional law for a decade, here's my take: The Supreme Court's job is to be society's anchor during storms. When presidents overreach, states fight, or rights are threatened – they interpret our foundational document. Flawed? Absolutely. Essential? Undeniably.
Understanding what is the job of the Supreme Court means recognizing their power to redefine America. Whether expanding marriage equality or restricting abortion access, their interpretations ripple through generations. That's why appointments matter – and why we should all pay attention.
Leave a Comments