The paramount court in the federal judiciary and the final arbiter of constitutional matters emanating from the parallel systems of state courts. Soon after its inception in 1789, under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court legitimized its own constitutional authority through a series of decisions which still constitute the foundation of its power. In Marbuty v. Madison (1803) the Court enunciated and justified its power of judicial review and held a congressional statute unconstitutional. Fletcher v. Peck (1810) concluded that the federal courts could test the constitutionality of state laws.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) recognized the Court’s power to review the constitutionality of decisions made by state courts and the supremacy of such Supreme-Court decisions. Finally, in McCuiloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court validated Congress’ use of enumerated and implied legislative powers and the supremacy of the exercise of such national authority over conflicting state actions. As a result of these decisions the Court established its role as the constitutional monitor of actions by other branches of the national government and the delineator of federalism, determining the balance and interrelationship between national power and that of state governments.

Using the mechanism of deciding specific cases, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and shapes public policy. Most of its decisions do not engage the general public. But it still reaches enough politically charged rulings with broad impact to result in an institution tinged with controversy. Recurring contentious themes have involved federalism, the limits of legislative economic and social regulation, construing civil rights and liberties, protecting the expression of unpopular political viewpoints and preserving the rights of racial and religious minorities and of criminal defendants.

The Court supported the institution of slavery in a decision that eroded public confidence in its judicial integrity. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruled that slaveowners’ property rights enabled them to retain ownership of slaves taken into free states, upholding a Missouri law over Congress’ attempt to prohibit the spread of slavery into territories.

After the beginning of the twentieth century, the Court, usingconstitutional theories stressing freedom to contract and narrow the scope of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, curtailed economic and social legislation passed by Congress and the states to ameliorate child labor, harsh working conditions and union organizing. This approach generally prevailed into the Great Depression of the 1930s which Congress attempted to alleviate with emergency social and economic programs. In a dramatic shift, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed threat to “pack” the Court with sympathetic justices, the Court suddenly changed course and granted constitutional leeway to federal and state corrective New Deal programs.

The post-Second World War constitutional era is marked by continued latitude for legislative control of economic matters and a switch to a focus on questions of individual rights. Its rulings ushered in the Civil Rights movement. It struck down racially restrictive covenants in real property transactions, outlawed racially segregated public schools in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and desegregated other public places.

The Warren Court, attaining the high-water mark of progressive constitutional judicial activism, struggled with questions involving prayer in the public schools, taxpayer funding of religious schools, revolutionizing the rights of criminal defendants, gender discrimination, reapportionment, the death penalty and, in Roe v. Wade (1973), recognizing a privacy right for women to choose an abortion.

The Court has been able to maintain its credibility even though eventually it becomes immersed in all society’s political and moral controversies. It is the most highly respected and trusted by the general public of all government bodies. It accomplishes this despite a limited power to enforce its judgments and the secretive nature of its internal functioning.

Oral arguments, usually interrupted by piercing questions from the justices, are open to the public, as is access to the records of cases and printed briefs—written arguments—but Court proceedings are never televised. The entire process of considering and selecting cases for full review, discussing and voting on cases after oral argument and circulating drafts of opinions takes place in a strictly closed environment. The Court lacks tools to carry out directly many of its most significant rulings, especially those with broad impact.

It commands no army or police to force a resistant executive branch or state officials to implement its orders. It cannot levy taxes and appropriate money to fund change as legislatures can. It must rely on government officials to effectuate and assure compliance, prodded by the public, which acquiesces in the Court’s rulings and respects the rule of law.

The Court also preserves its credibility by using self-protective devices to avoid extremely contentious cases. It has almost total discretion in choosing cases. For example, for years it refused to accept any case that directly questioned the constitutionality of the Vietnam War; yet it acted quickly to rule that the government could not restrain the press from publishing the “Pentagon Papers”, which were critical of the war. Despite about 7,500 requests for review each term, the Court accepts about 90 for argument.

Many constitutional terms, such as “due process” and “speech,” are couched in vague, valueladen language. This provides justices with flexibility to reinterpret subjective constitutional language and enables successor Courts to overrule prior decisions and adjust constitutional doctrine to meet current social and economic needs. The practice of writing detailed, dissenting opinions allows justices to voice opposition to the majority, spurs legal debate and encourages optimism in discontented groups that, as society’s views or the composition of the Court changes, minority positions will prevail. The Court’s direction remains constantly intertwined in the current of history, but at times, courageously, it moves to the forefront and shapes history.