The Federal Courts
GOVT 2305
In this section we look at the
development of the federal courts
over time, with special attention
paid to the Supreme Court.
It concludes with a look at the
current Supreme Court, including
information about its current
members.
Some links:
The History of the Supreme Court.
History of the Supreme Court of the United
States – Wikipedia.
The Supreme Court Historical Society.
The Federal Judicial Center.
And for even more, there’s this
from the Supreme Court Website
The Court and Constitutional
Interpretation
The United States court system has
evolved over time due to the
passage of several redesigns of the
court system in one of the many
Judiciary Acts passed over
American history.
For a good survey of the history of
the Federal courts read: Creating
the Federal Judicial System.
And here are links to Wikipedia pages that describe the
major pieces of legislation that impacted the design of
the judiciary over time:
- Judiciary Act of 1789, established the federal judiciary.
- Judiciary Act of 1801, also called the Midnight Judges Act.
- Judiciary Act of 1802, repealed the 1801 Act.
- "Judiciary Act of 1866" may refer to two different laws.
Ch. 210, 14 Stat. 209 (July 23, 1866) is more commonly called the
Judicial Circuits Act
Ch. 288, 14 Stat. 306 (July 27, 1866) provided for the removal of
certain cases from state courts to the federal courts.
- Judiciary Act of 1869, also called the Circuit Judges Act of 1869
- Judiciary Act of 1891, also called the Evarts Act or the Circuit Courts
of Appeals Act.
- Judiciary Act of 1925, also called the Certiorari Act or the Judges' Bill.
For a bit of history, here are maps
of the federal courts over history.
These are pulled from Creating the
Federal Judicial System.
As seen in a few different places:
here is the map of the current
design of the judiciary:
For as much detail as you want,
click on these:
United States District Courts
United States Courts of Appeals
United States Supreme Court
Next Topic:
The Politics of Appointment and
Confirmation.
Remember that the purpose of the
appointed judiciary is to ensure a qualified
judiciary, as well as one that is removed
from the political pressures that ultimately
stem.
The basic appointment process is
established in Article II of the Constitution.
It is one of the president’s powers.
The president makes the appointments,
but the Senate must confirm those
appointments. Click here for info on the
appointments clause.
These people then serve during good
behavior – until they die or resign – which
means they can be on the court for a long,
long time. Click here for longevity records.
Federal Judges and Justices are supposed to be
apolitical, but Presidents and Senators are not.
Each is aware that appointees to the court will be
making decisions well into the future. They take the
ideological and political leanings of these appointees
into account when deciding who to appoint, or who to
confirm. How are they likely to interpret the
Constitution? What do they see the role of the court to
be? The political objectives of a legislator or president
can sometimes be achieved by the people they get into
the courts.
The more appointees a president
can make to the federal courts,
especially the Supreme Court – the
greater impact they will have over
time.
Click here for an article about
President Obama’s impact on the
judiciary.
Click here for a review of
presidential judicial appointments
since 1980:
Judicial appointment history for
United States federal courts.
The appointment process varies
depending on whether it is for a
position as federal judge, a judge
on the court of appeals, or the
Supreme Court.
For a look at the current state of
federal judicial nominations – as of
May 2014 – click on
judicialnominations.org.
Here is the breakdown of appellate
court judges by party, and listing
the number of vacancies as of May
2014
Why allow for vacancies?
Sometimes the party out of power
in the presidency tries to keep
vacancies open in case one of their
candidates wins the next election.
Eras of the Supreme Court
There have been 17 Supreme Court
Chief Justices.
Eras of the court are generally
divide into “courts” based on who
happened to be chief justice at
that time
List of Justices of the Supreme
Court of the United States
First, a quick word on what a Chief
Justice is exactly. The Chief Justice’s
responsibilities are mostly
administrative. The office has no
special judicial powers.
The Chief Justice leads the business of the Supreme
Court. He or she presides over oral arguments before
the Court. When the Court renders an opinion, the
Chief Justice—when in the majority—decides who
writes the Court's opinion. Finally, the Chief Justice has
significant agenda-setting power over the Court's
meetings. In the case of an impeachment of a President
of the United States, which has occurred twice, the
Chief Justice presides over the trial in the Senate. In
modern tradition, the Chief Justice also has the
ceremonial duty of administering the oath of office of
the President of the United States. – Wikipedia.
For a quick overview of the history
of the Supreme Court based on the
different times that a specific
person held the job of Chief
Justice, I highly recommend this
page from the Supreme Court
Historical Society’s website.
More detailed information can be
found here: Oyez Project
It separates all courts based on
who served together for a period
of time. And of course, here’s the
relevant wikipedia page.
Some detail on each
John Jay / The Jay
Court
September 26,
1789–June 29,
1795
The Supreme Court was the only
court of appeals for the nation. It
was composed of six Justices. All
the original Justices had helped
write the Constitution. The court
had little business, but the Justices
also has to serve as trial (circuit
court) judges, which required
travel and a lot of work.
Major case during this era:
Chisholm v Georgia.
Led to the 11th Amendment and
restrictions on the ability of the
national government to hear
lawsuits against states by citizens
of other states.
Jay – who had helped write the Federalists
Papers – was sent to negotiate a treaty with
Britain that was meant to resolve lingering
problems left over from the Treaty of Paris
which ended the American Revolution. This was
called Jay’s Treaty. Disputes over the treaty were
political in nature. Federalists supported it,
Democrat-Republicans opposed it. The dispute
helped solidify conflict between the emerging
parties, and led to future disputes on the court.
John Rutledge /
The Rutledge
Court
July 1, 1795–
December 28,
1795
Rutledge was a recess
appointment by Washington. His
opposition to the Jay Treaty put
him at odds with Washington and
his appointment was rejected by
the Senate.
Oliver Ellsworth /
The Ellsworth
Court
March 4, 1796–
September 30,
1800
Ellsworth suggested that the court had the
power of judicial review in Hylton v United
States, and stated that a presidential
signature was not necessary for
constitutional amendments to pass
Was responsible for encouraging the
Justices to sign on to opinions rather than
each write their own.
John Marshall /
The Marshall
Court
January 31,
1801–July 6,
1835
Commonly argued to be the
greatest Justice in Supreme Court
history. Was a cousin of Thomas
Jefferson. They would fight over
the nature of national power.
"My gift of John Marshall to the
people of the United States was
the proudest act of my life." John
Adams.
Increased the power of the court.
Established Judicial Review
Marshall pushed for the idea that the
union was “the supreme government of
the whole American people.”
Presided over the impeachment of
Samuel Chase.
Chase – a Federalist - was attacked by
opponents, including Thomas Jefferson.
His impeachment was considered to be
politically motivated. The failure to remove
him was argued to help establish the
independence of the judiciary, and the
Supreme Court especially.
Various cases heard by the
Marshall Court strengthened the
court. Examples:
McCullough v Maryland
Cohen v Virginia
Gibbons v Ogden
"We must never forget," he said,
"that it is a constitution we are
expounding . . . a constitution,
intended to endure for ages to
come, and consequently, to be
adapted to the various crises of
human affairs.“ – John Marshall
From the Supreme Court Historical Society:
“When he took the judicial oath the public
hardly noticed; when he died the Nation
mourned him. ‘There was something
irresistibly winning about him,’ said the
Richmond Enquirer and Niles’ Register,
which had long denounced his decisions,
said, "Next to Washington, only, did he
possess the reverence and homage of the
heart of the American people."
Marshall was one of the longest
serving members of the court.
He is #4 on this list.
Major
appointment
during that time:
Joseph Story.
Story wrote the first major book
elaborating on the nature of the
Constitution:
Commentaries on the Constitution
of the United States
Roger B. Taney /
The Taney Court
March 15, 1836–
October 12,
1864
Taney was appointed by Andrew
Jackson in many ways to push back
against many of the
accomplishments of John Marshall.
He interpreted corporation
charters more strictly, state powers
more generously, than Marshall
had. But found community rights
to be as important as corporate
rights, so he did not expand the
rights of corporations beyond that
of communities.
Trivia: Taney was the first justice to
wear pants – not knee breeches.
Most controversial decision:
Dred Scott. v. Sanford (1857).
This is argued by many legal
scholars as the worst decision in
the history of the Supreme Court.
Some claim it made the Civil War
inevitable.
He both overruled the Missouri
Compromise of 1820 and
mandated that people of African
descent could not be “citizens” and
had no right to use the courts to
redress grievances, especially
against whites.
“According to Taney, the authors of
the Constitution had viewed all
blacks as ‘beings of an inferior
order, and altogether unfit to
associate with the white race,
either in social or political
relations, and so far inferior that
they had no rights which the white
man was bound to respect.’”
By overturning the Missouri Compromise,
the arguments could be made that no state
could deny the right of slave owners to
have slaves wherever they choose.
The enhanced the rise of the abolition
movement, the growth of the Republican
Party, and led to the election of Abraham
Lincoln which in turn led to the secession
of slave states and the start of the Civil
War.
Chief Justice Taney administered the oath of
office to Lincoln on March 4, 1861, and heard
him disclaim "any assault upon the Court." But
Lincoln warned solemnly: "if the policy of the
Government, upon vital questions affecting the
whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they
are made, in ordinary litigation . . . the people
will have ceased to be their own rulers. . . ."
Salmon P. Chase
/ The Chase
Court
December 6,
1864–May 7,
1873
Chase had run against Lincoln in 1864.
Presided over a period of
constitutional transformation
following the end of the Civil War. The
13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were
added to the Constitution during his
term of office.
He protected the court from efforts
to dismantle it.
Radical Republicans attempted to
minimize the power of the courts
and the executive branch.
The court heard a variety of cases related to
legal tender beginning with Hepburn v.
Griswold, a test case challenging
constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act Click of
1862. Click here for Legal Tender Cases.
The question was whether Congress could allow
for legal tender to be printed that was not based
on gold or silver. This was a method used to
finance the Civil War, it also allowed for the use
of paper money.
Morrison Waite /
The Waite Court
March 4, 1874–
March 23, 1888
Fights heated up over shipping
rates charged by railroads to
farmers.
The Granger Cases –
States passed laws regulating rates
and the railroads claimed they
were unconstitutional.
Munn v Illinois
The Fourteenth Amendment does
not prevent the State of Illinois
from regulating charges for use of
a business' grain elevators.
The court argued that states could
regulate railroads, the rights of
private property could be balanced
against the rights of the
community.
The court agreed that the Civil
Rights Acts of 1875 was an
unconstitutional violation of the
th
14 Amendment’s equal
protection clause. Click here for
the Civil Rights Cases.
It only applied to state actions, not
private actions.
The workload of the court led to
the creation of the circuit courts of
appeals.
Melville Fuller /
The Fuller Court
October 8,
1888–July 4,
1910
This was the first court where
justices did not have to ride the
circuit. From now on, justices only
had to sit in DC.
The Fuller Court oversaw the
transition of the United States
from an agrarian to a commercial
nation. The court heard a large
number of cases that concerned
the extent of Congress’ ability to
regulate commerce. These conflict
are ongoing in many ways.
Many of these cases concerned the
impact of The Sherman Anti-Trust
Act which allowed the national
government to break apart
monopolies.
The Court weakened the act by
overruling cases breaking apart
monopolies, though some actions
were allowed to proceed, notable
in Northern Securities Co. v. United
States.
Ruled that Congress could pass
laws punishing price-fixing under
the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Restraint of trade can be made
illegal by Congress.
This strengthened the law.
Punished organized labor
Injunctions against leaders of the
Pullman Strike, including Eugene v
Debs were allowed to go forward.
See In re Debs (1895).
The court narrowly voted a federal
income tax unconstitutional in
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
The unapportioned income taxes on interest,
dividends and rents imposed by the Income Tax
Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes, and
were unconstitutional because they violated the
rule that direct taxes be apportioned. This would
be overturned by the 16th Amendment.
The fuller Court made separate but
equal the law in Plessy v Ferguson
(1896)
The court actively weakened the
impact of the equal protection
clause.
During this time the nation was also
expanding its activities overseas. As a
result of the Spanish-American War the
United States acquired a small handful of
territories including Cuba, the Philippines,
Guam and Puerto Rico.
Since these areas were already populated,
questions were asked about the legal
status of these residents.
Insular Cases
These were several cases in the early 1900s
where the court responded to the
expansion of American territories around
the world. They ruled that constitutional
rights did not automatically extend to
people who lived in those territories.
Theodore Roosevelt
becomes president
during this era of the
court:
He faced what he
called the "absolutely
vital question"—
whether the United
States Government had
the power to control
the giant corporations
of the day.
Roosevelt was a progressive and
wanted to actively use the powers
of the national government to
achieve his objectives.
Business interests used the courts
to push back against these efforts.
The courts were more often than
not supportive.
One example: Lochner v. New York.
This was a 1905 case that recognized a right to
contract as implicit in the die process clause of
the 14th Amendment. The state of New York
could not establish limits on working hours – 10
hours per day, 6 days a week – if an employee
was willing to work longer. This began an era in
the Supreme Court – the Lochner Era - where a
series of cases struck down laws meant to
impact working conditions.
States, ruled Justice Rufus W. Peckham, must not pass such laws,
"mere meddlesome interferences" to keep grown men from
taking care of themselves. States have a "police power" to
protect the public, but they may not limit such individual rights
as liberty of contract: A worker must be free to make his own
contract with his employer.
Justice Harlan dissented, citing evidence that bakers suffered eye
and lung troubles, that New York might protect their health. And
Oliver Wendell Holmes, who had joined the Court in 1902,
dissented separately, to say that "a constitution is not intended
to embody a particular economic theory," that laws might rest
on "novel and even shocking" ideas and be constitutional. –
Source.
An exemption from these cases
was Muller v Oregon. A law placing
restrictions on the labor of certain
classes of women was upheld.
The case was argued by future
Justice Louis Brandeis.
Brandeis – as a lawyer
before the court began the practice of
introducing facts, not
just legal arguments, in
his arguments. His
argument in Muller
relied on scientific
information as much as
legal arguments.
This would lead to an expansion of court activity
in the 20th Century.
The court began accepting an increased role of
the national government, partly because the
states were not sufficiently regulating the
economy in the interest of the general public.
They were more likely to protect the interests of
large corporations, generally because the
corporations were able to control the state
governments.
"When an evil is a national evil, it
must be cured by a national
remedy," cried Senator Albert J.
Beveridge of Indiana. Reformers
were demanding change in politics,
business, society in general; in
response, Congress was assuming
a "police power" for the whole
country. – Source.
The Fuller Court would uphold the
constitutionality of the Mann Act
(which made it a federal crime to
transport women across state lines
for “immoral purposes”) and the
Pure Food and Drug Act (which
allowed for the federal inspection
of food and drugs).
Major
appointment
during that time:
Oliver Wendell
Holmes, Jr. He
was appointed in
1902 and served
until 1932.
He would be responsible for many
decisions that would enforce the
freedom of speech.
Edward Douglass
White / The
White Court
December 19,
1910–May 19,
1921
Developed the exclusionary rule, but only
applied it to federal officials. It would not
be applied to states until Mapp v Ohio in
1961.
Reformers – like Louis Brandeis – are
appointed to the bench. They were more
likely to accept a role for the federal
government in economic regulation, but
they were still in a minority on the court.
They were not that successful early on. The
Supreme Court overturned the KeatingOwen Act of 1916 which prohibited
interstate commerce in products produced
by child labor.
The case which overturned it was Hammer
v. Dagenhart (1918). The court ruled that
production is not commerce, so Congress
had no ability to impact child labor.
Oliver Wendell Holmes issued a
strongly worded dissent.
Legislation can begin where an evil begins,
retorted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,
dissenting. If Congress chooses to prohibit trade
in "the product of ruined lives," the Court
should not outlaw its choice. He added: "I
should have thought that if we were to
introduce our own moral conceptions where in
my opinion they do not belong, this was
preeminently a case for upholding the exercise
of all its powers by the United States.“ – Source.
Congress passed two critical laws
during WWI.
The Espionage Act
The Sedition Act
The Sedition Act was written
broadly, which allowed for a high
level of prosecution.
The clear and present danger rule
was established to distinguish
between words uttered during
times of conflict and times of
peace.
Holmes’ dissent in Abrams v US
upheld the right of people to be
critical of government.
It helped narrow the ability of
government to use sedition to
punish speech – we will discuss
this further in an upcoming
section.
William Howard
Taft / The Taft
Court
July 11, 1921–
February 3, 1930
Ruled that federal child labor laws
were unconstitutional.
Gitlow v. New York
Upheld the New York Criminal
Anarchy Law, but ruled that the
14th Amendment made speech and
press freedoms applicable to the
states.
Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis
D. Brandeis would have set Gitlow
free. As Holmes explained, they did
not think his "redundant
discourse" a public danger. The
majority called it "a direct
incitement." Holmes replied
calmly: "Every idea is an
incitement."
Moore v. Dempsey
Mob-dominated trials were a violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Federal courts were furthermore
duty-bound to review habeas corpus petitions
that raised claims of discrimination in state
trials, and to order the release of unfairly
convicted defendants if the alleged violations
were found to be true. Eastern District of
Arkansas reversed and remanded.
How does the Constitution protect
the right to a fair trial in state
courts?
Judges Bill – 1925
By limiting the right of appeal, this law let
the Supreme Court devote its attention to
constitutional issues and important
questions of federal law. In most cases
since 1925, the parties ask permission to
be heard; the Justices grant or deny it at
discretion.
This changed procedures on the
court and allowed the court the
ability to choose cases.
Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
Minimum wage law for women
violated the due process right to
contract freely. D.C. Court of
Appeals affirmed.
The court was dominated by:
The Four Horsemen
Actively overturned many laws.
Sometimes joined by the two
roving Justices
The Three Musketeers
Charles Evans
Hughes / The
Hughes Court
February 24,
1930–June 30,
1941
This is the court that dealt with the
constitutionality of New Deal
legislation.
Near v Minnesota
Scottsboro Boys
if a defendant lacks a lawyer and a
fairly chosen jury, the Constitution
can help him.
Tom Mooney
. . . if a state uses perjured
witnesses, knowing that they lie, it
violates the Fourteenth
Amendment’s guarantee of due
process of law; it must provide
ways to set aside such tainted
convictions.
Court packing plan
Expansion of the commerce clause
Constitution in Exile Movement
Harlan Fiske
Stone / The
Stone Court
July 3, 1941–
April 22, 1946
Upheld the constitutionality of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Upheld the West Virginia’s
requirement that kids salute the
flag in Gobitis, then reversed itself
in Barnette.
It is a "fixed star in our
constitutional constellation" this
fact—"no official, high or petty,"
can prescribe orthodoxy in politics,
nationalism, or religion, for any
citizen. – Justice Robert Jackson.
Trivia: one of Jackson’s law clerks
was future Chief Justice William
Rehnquist.
Upheld the internment of Japanese
American citizens in Korematsu v.
United States. Argued it feel under
the president’s war powers.
Defended its powers against
attempts by the executive to limit
access to the courts.
Fred M. Vinson /
The Vinson Court
June 24, 1946–
September 8,
1953
He events that would lead to
Brown v Board of education were
set in motion during this period of
time.
Racially segregated school were
unequal – in violation of the
separate bit equal doctrine.
Facts drove the cases.
Vinson dies before the case
concluded
Earl Warren /
The Warren
Court
October 5,
1953–June 23,
1969
Overturned separate but equal
doctrine
Began to strengthen equal access
to the courts.
Griffin (?)
Gideon v
Mapp v Ohio
Miranda
The court weighed in on
apportionment
Baker v Carr
Engel v Vitale
"Almighty God, we acknowledge
our dependence upon Thee, and
we beg Thy blessings upon us, our
parents, our teachers and our
Country."
No government should compose
official prayers for Americans to
recite.
Griswold v Connecticut
Ruled that the application of the
death penalty – its racial unbalance
– violated the 8th Amendment.
Warren E. Burger
/ The Burger
Court
June 23, 1969–
September 26,
1986
Continued to clarify the dividing
line between church and state
Freedom of speech and press
Pentagon Papers
Obscenity and pornography
Defendants rights enhanced
But established good faith
exemption to the exclusionary rule.
Watergate tapes
Executive Privilege
What can the courts command a
president to do?
Began focusing on sex
discrimination
Began narrowing justifications for
affirmative action
Roe v Wade
Ruled that the application of the
death penalty – its racial unbalance
– violated the 8th Amendment.
William
Rehnquist / The
Rehnquist Court
September 26,
1986–September
3, 2005
Rehnquist clerked for Robert
Jackson and advised that he vote
against Brown in Brown v Board.
Appointed as an associate Justice
by Nixon, made Chief Justice by
Ronald Reagan.
John G. Roberts /
The Roberts
Court
September 29,
2005–present
Each era of the court is influence
by the results of previous
Presidential and Senatorial
elections.
If the electorate votes in a liberal
direction, the courts will – as
positions are made available – shift
in that direction, and vice versa.
Let’s pay special attention to
transition from the Warren to the
Rehnquist court.
Earl Warren, if you recall from the
last set of slides, was one of
Eisenhower’s self described
mistakes. He became Chief Justice
at a moment when the court was
composed of people nominated by
FDR or Truman.
They were primed to begin to
accept arguments developed by
liberals and progressives over
previous decades. Cases involving
segregation, speech and due
process were coming to the court
with greater frequency.
The Warren Court’s decisions
tended to be activist and were
based on broad interpretations of
Constitutional language
Their decisions included some of
the more famous an consequential
th
of the 20 Century, but they also
led to a backlash.
Brown v. Board of Education
Baker v. Carr
Mapp v. Ohio
Engel v Vitale
Griswold v. Conn
This is especially true of Brown v.
Board of Education which led to
the dismantling of public education
in southern states, and a slow
mobilization against the court.
Nixon’s Southern Strategy involved
using resentment against the court
as a way of getting the votes of the
South.
Once Nixon became president, he
appointed William Rehnquist (who
had been a law clerk when Brown
was decided) an Associate Justice.
He would be elevated to Chief
Justice when Ronald Reagan
became President.
From 1968 – 1993, no Democratic
President would be able to make
an appointment to the Supreme
Court. Many, though not all, of the
Justices appointed during this time
promoted judicial restraint and
narrow interpretations of the
Constitution.
They rolled back many Warren
Court decisions.
Three Examples: One, they made it
difficult to prove racial
discrimination. Two, they made it
easier for illegally obtained
evidence to be introduced into
court. Three, they made it easier to
have religious displays on public
ground.
Click here for the current court
Clarence Thomas
- Clarence Thomas's Originalism
- What Clarence Thomas's VideoGames Dissent Tells Us About
'Originalism‘
- Clarence Thomas’ Jurisprudence
Unexplained.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cg
i/viewcontent.cgi?article=2758&co
ntext=faculty_scholarship
Justice Kennedy’s Jurisprudence
http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi
/viewcontent.cgi?article=1843&co
ntext=faculty_publications
Appropriate Readings
Creating the Federal Judicial System
Ideological Leaning of US Supreme Court Justices
The U.S. Supreme Court
The Conservatives
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
John Roberts
Samuel Alito
The Liberals
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Elena Kagan (expected)
Sonia Sotomayor (expected)
The Swing Voter
Anthony Kennedy
Each justice is allowed to hire a
small handful of law clerks to assist
them. It is not unusual for law
clerks to later serve on the court.
See list of clerks here.
Data Regarding Recent Court
Decisions:
The Supreme Court Data Base
Scotus StatPack
How do cases get to the Supreme
Court?
Procedures
A case from a lower court is
appealed by the lowing party.
Specifically they request a Writ of
Certiorari. This is a writ where the
court asks the lower courts to send
it the trial and appellate records so
the court can search for errors.
If four justices choose to hear the
case it is placed on the court’s
calendar.
The Rule of Four.
If you won at the lower level, its
generally bad news if the Supreme
Court agrees to hear your case.
More often than not the case will
be overturned.
The petitioner – the party that
initiates the process – sends a legal
brief. The respondent – the party
that won at the lower level – can
also if it chooses. It doesn’t have
to.
The court also considers amicus
briefs – friend of the court briefs –
sent in by parties not involved in
the specific case, but interested in
the outcome.
Oral arguments are held after the
briefs are read. Generally each side
generally has 30 minutes to make
their case. The proceedings can be
open-ended and even entertaining.
Click here for recordings and
transcripts.
After oral arguments are held,
conferences are held internally
which result in votes where the
justices line up for and against the
petitioner.
The Chief Justice assigns the
responsibility to write the majority
decision – the one that carries
weight – to whoever he chooses,
unless he wants to do it himself.
Those in the minority can write
dissenting opinions.
Any justice can write a concurring
opinion.