Restrictions on court power and the Supreme Court
Restrictions on court power, particularly concerning the Supreme Court, involve a complex interplay of constitutional, congressional, and executive limitations that shape its role within the U.S. government. The Supreme Court, with justices serving life tenure, is tasked with resolving major legal disputes and exercising judicial review to nullify legislation. However, its powers are confined by the Constitution, which outlines specific types of cases it can adjudicate, such as those raising constitutional issues or federal laws.
Congress exerts control over the Court by determining judicial salaries, regulating its jurisdiction, and holding the power to impeach justices. Congress can also pass new legislation to counteract Court decisions or initiate constitutional amendments to address judicial interpretations. Meanwhile, the executive branch influences the Court through judicial appointments and the enforcement of its rulings, which can lead to instances where Court decisions are not implemented, as seen in historical cases like Brown v. Board of Education.
Additionally, the Supreme Court practices self-restraint by only addressing actual legal disputes and adhering to doctrines such as standing, which requires a party to demonstrate real injury. The Court also refrains from engaging in political questions, ensuring its decisions are based on legal precedents and statutory interpretations. This intricate system of checks and balances underscores the significance of limited government and the rule of law within American democracy.
Restrictions on court power and the Supreme Court
Definition: Constraints on the power of the Supreme Court, as determined by the Constitution, the executive and legislative branches, and the nature of the judicial process.
Significance: The Supreme Court is restrained in the kinds of cases it may hear, in the way it may rule on these cases, and in its impact on U.S. politics and society.
The Supreme Court, whose justices enjoy virtual life tenure, has the power to decide major disputes involving the powers of the government and the rights of citizens. It possesses the power to exercise judicial review and nullify legislation. However, the Court operates within a political and constitutional system that limits its powers. The most significant constraints are those imposed by the Constitution, Congress, and the executive branch and those imposed by the nature of the judicial process.
Constitutional Restrictions
The Court is an integral part of a constitutional democracy founded on the principles of limited government, the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances. In this constitutional system, the will of the people, expressed in the Constitution, is considered the ultimate source of governmental power and of law. The Court, like the other branches of the government, is therefore bound fundamentally by the terms of the Constitution. For example, Article III sets limits on the kinds of cases the Court has authority over, such as cases raising constitutional issues and those involving laws passed by Congress. This means that state laws that do not involve a constitutional issue or do not come into conflict with a federal statute are generally not within the reach of the Court.
Congressional Restrictions
The principle of separation of powers effectively means that the Court may not enact law. The Court is charged with interpreting the law that originates within Congress or a state legislature or from the Constitution itself. Congress also possesses constitutional checks on Court power. For example, it sets the salaries of the justices, though it is constitutionally prohibited from reducing them. The Congress may increase the number of justices on the Court, as it did during the Civil War, when ten justices served in 1863.
Congress may overrule a Court interpretation of a federal law by passing a new statute. For example, when the Court ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not require private employers to provide disability benefits to pregnant workers, Congress passed a law revising Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to require those benefits. If Congress disagrees with the Court’s interpretation of a provision of the Constitution, it can initiate a constitutional amendment. For example, the Court’s ruling in Scott v. Sandford (1857) that African Americans enjoyed no rights of U.S. citizenship was overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress can also adjust the jurisdiction of the Court, effectively denying it authority to hear certain kinds of cases on appeal. Although members of Congress have threatened to deny the Court jurisdiction over cases involving abortion and prayer in public schools, Congress has not enacted any jurisdictional limits on the Court in the twentieth century.
Congress indirectly restricts the Court’s power by influencing who becomes a justice. The Senate must vote to approve each person nominated by the president for a seat on the Court. Congress also is empowered by the Constitution to remove justices by impeachment and conviction for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Executive Branch Restrictions
The president influences the Court by appointing members to it and restricts its power by deciding how its rulings will be enforced. The Court depends on the political branches of the government, the executive branch in particular, to enforce its rulings. On some occasions, rulings have gone unenforced, such as the Court’s rulings prohibiting prayer in public schools. Although the Court ruled in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation of public schools was unconstitutional, it was several years before the president and Congress used their enforcement powers to coerce the compliance of resistant southern school authorities. Presidents sometimes attempt to influence Court rulings by appealing to public opinion and to Congress, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt did in the 1930’s with his court-packing plan, designed to fill the Court with justices sympathetic to New Deal legislation.
Judicial Process Restrictions
The Court is restricted insofar as it abides by certain traditions and doctrines regarding the nature of the judicial process. For example, the Court restricts itself to cases involving parties in an actual dispute where something important is at stake. It will not give advice, even to the president, in hypothetical cases.
Similarly, the doctrine of standing restricts the Court. One of the parties must suffer some real injury or deprivation. For example, in 1974 the Court refused to rule on Marco DeFunis’s claim that he had suffered discrimination when he was refused admission to law school in favor of minority applicants. The lower courts had allowed DeFunis to be admitted pending appeal of his case. By the time the case got to the Court, DeFunis was in his last year of law school, and it rejected the case, considering DeFunis no longer deprived.
The Court also restrains itself from becoming embroiled in so-called “political questions,” which often involve a battle between members of Congress and the president over a controversial policy, such as introducing U.S. troops into combat.
The Court’s tradition that all of its justices participate in each case restricts the Court in limiting the number of cases it is able to decide. Once a case does qualify for a ruling, the Court is further restricted by the force of law and precedent. The text of the law at issue and the prior Court interpretations of it impose a significant limit on how the Court may rule.
Bibliography
Abraham, Henry J. The Judicial Process. 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Baum, Lawrence. The Supreme Court. 6th ed. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1998.
Walker, Thomas G., and Lee Epstein. The Supreme Court of the United States. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993.