Nine justices hold seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. In their hands lie fundamental questions of liberty, equity and who has the right to American citizenship.
The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2025. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: associate justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Photo courtesy the U.S. Supreme Court..
Editor’s note: On 3 July 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that a federal district court could not stop the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump from sending migrants to countries where they are not citizens, leading U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to say in dissent that the ruling showed that Trump “had the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
On 27 June, the court ruled that all parents in the United States can pull their children out of classes whenever the topic being discussed goes against their religious beliefs.The same day it ruled that if a federal judge rules that a law is unconsitutional that ruling won’t automatically affect other parts of the country; that people who are harmed by the law in other regions would have to sue separately. This last decision was generally seen as greatly enhancing the power of the presidency.
In light of all these decisions we decided to republish a “decoder” by News Decoder founder Nelson Graves, originally published in 2016 upon the death of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, that explains what the U.S. Supreme Court does and how its power has evolved over time.
We launched Decoder Replay to help readers better understand current world events by seeing how our correspondents decoded similar events in the past.
“A more imposing judicial power was never constituted by any people.”
It’s been nearly two centuries since Alexis de Tocqueville penned that observation about the U.S. Supreme Court. The French political philosopher grasped the critical importance of the Court to the young nation’s stability and prosperity, and he would not be surprised by the shock waves triggered by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia’s death at the weekend has touched off a bitter political struggle over the appointment of his successor on the nine-judge panel. It’s a struggle that will be played out in coming months in Congress and the U.S. presidential election; some will want to take to the streets.
The stakes could not be higher. Scalia was a staunch conservative, and with his death the Court is now split evenly, 4-4, between those considered liberal or moderate, and those conservative. Scalia’s successor could tip the balance in either direction.
To grasp the immense significance of the debate, it’s important to understand the Supreme Court’s role in the political system and the scope of its rulings, which in the past half century alone have ended racial segregation, helped drive a president from office, legalized abortion, decided the outcome of a presidential election and upheld same-sex marriage.
Checks and balances
The Supreme Court is one of three branches of government guaranteeing the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. The other two are Congress and the Executive, which is headed by the president.
Such a tripartite system, described by another French political philosopher, Baron de Montesquieu, aims to balance responsibilities and powers among the judiciary, the legislature and the executive. In the U.S. system, each branch can limit the power of another, providing a system of checks and balances.
The system is meant to protect the rights of individuals while allowing for a strong national government, and to balance the interests of states with federal authority. We examined the three branches of government in this decoder.
The Supreme Court is the highest tribunal for all cases arising under the Constitution or federal laws. It can strike down legislation or executive actions if they are at odds with the Constitution.
“Few other courts in the world have the same authority of constitutional interpretation and none have exercised it for as long or with as much influence,” the Supreme Court says in its own words.
Some landmark decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court
Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Supreme Court asserted its authority to decide if laws are unconstitutional.
→Brown v. Board of Education (1954): barred racial segregation in state schools
→New York Times Co. v. United States (1971): upheld freedom of the press in a ruling that eventually helped force President Richard Nixon to resign
Roe v. Wade (1973): upheld a woman’s right to abortion until fetal viability
Bush v. Gore (2000): upheld George W. Bush’s victory in the state of Florida, assuring he won the 2000 presidential election
Citizens United v. FEC (2010): allowed unlimited independent spending on political campaignsObergefell v. Hodges (2015): allowed same-sex marriage
King v. Burwell (2015): upheld an important provision of President Barack Obama’s health care plan, Obamacare
A polarized electorate
The first Italo-American to serve on the Supreme Court, Scalia had been appointed by Ronald Reagan, a Republican president. Of the eight remaining justices, four were appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats.
Both parties recognize that Scalia’s successor could tip the scales in close votes. Cases currently before the Court involve climate change, affirmative action, abortion, unions, immigrants and contraception — issues where the electorate is deeply divided.
Although the Constitution stipulates that the president nominates Supreme Court justices, Republican candidates for the presidency have said the choice of Scalia’s successor should be left to whoever succeeds Barack Obama in the White House next January. Obama, a Democrat, has said he will send a nomination to the Senate in due course.
That partisan split can be explained by the weight of the Court’s decisions and the polarization of the U.S. electorate.
Whereas historically the two major parties have been able to agree, sometimes begrudgingly, on the choice of justices, the process has become far more partisan and divisive in recent decades.
Unfavorable opinions
The gaping ideological split in the current Congress and an increasingly vitriolic presidential campaign ensure a bitter fight in coming months.
The political acrimony was reflected in a nationwide poll conducted last year by the Pew Research Center.
Following recent Supreme Court rulings on Obamacare and same-sex marriage, unfavorable opinions of Court have reached a 30-year high, the survey found. And opinions about the court and its ideology have never been more politically divided.
“Republicans’ views of the Supreme Court are now more negative than at any point in the past three decades,” it said. Little wonder that Republican presidential candidates are keen to put a conservative in the vacant seat.
While the Supreme Court is an independent branch of government, its composition is not — and has never been — immune from politics. The nomination of justices is part of the system of checks and balances.
But at the end of the day, the system requires the willingness of voters and their representatives to adhere to laws, executive orders and court rulings, however deep the political divide. If that faith ever crumbled, the U.S. experiment in democracy would be under threat.
Nelson Graves is the founder of News Decoder. A dual American-French citizen, he has worked as a foreign correspondent and educator on three continents. Recently he published a memoir entitled “Willful Wanderer”. He lives in France.