AP Gov 2.10
Main idea
The Supreme Court’s independence allows it to make decisions based on constitutional interpretation rather than politics—but this independence also fuels debates about legitimacy when rulings are unpopular or ignored.
Key Points:
The Court’s authority comes from public confidence, not enforcement power.
Disagreement between the Court and other branches—like Jackson vs. Marshall—tests its legitimacy.
Controversial decisions reveal the tension between independence and accountability.
Supreme Court Oppinions
Court opinions explain legal reasoning and shape future interpretation.
Majority Opinion: sets binding precedent.
Concurring Opinion: agrees with ruling, different reasoning.
Dissenting Opinion: disagrees entirely—can influence future cases.
Per Curiam Opinion: unsigned, short decision.
Written opinions demonstrate that rulings are grounded in law, not politics.
U.S. vs Nixon
A key example of the Court exercising authority over the executive.
Facts: Nixon refused to release Oval Office tapes during Watergate.
Issue: Could the president use executive privilege to withhold evidence?
Holding: No—executive privilege cannot obstruct justice.
Impact: Forced Nixon to release tapes → resignation followed.
Reinforced that no one, not even the president, is above the law.
The Taney Court
Slavery and sectional tension defined the Court’s early crises.
Chief Justice Roger Taney succeeded Marshall (1836–1864).
Congress expanded to nine justices in 1837 to manage workload.
The Court defended states’ rights and upheld the Fugitive Slave Act (1850).
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruled enslaved persons were not citizens.
Decision denied freedom to Dred Scott and intensified North–South divisions.
Abolitionists saw this as a direct attack on justice → Court’s legitimacy questioned.
Dred Scott v Sandford
Background:
Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom after living in free territory.
Case reached the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney.
Majority Decision:
The Court ruled that enslaved persons were not citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court.
Declared that Congress could not ban slavery in U.S. territories, invalidating the Missouri Compromise (1820).
Reasoned that a slave owner’s right to property was protected under the 5th Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Impact on Legitimacy:
Deepened sectional tensions between North and South.
Viewed by abolitionists as a moral and legal failure of the Supreme Court.
Undermined the Court’s credibility and fueled the lead-up to the Civil War.
Later overturned by the 14th Amendment (1868), granting citizenship and equal protection to all born in the U.S.
Dred Scott exposed the limits of the Court’s legitimacy when its rulings opposed moral and democratic principles — a turning point that redefined federal authority and citizenship rights.
Competing interpretations of the constitution
Two approaches shaped Court philosophy:
Strict Constructionists: Interpret the Constitution as written, in original context.
Liberal Constructionists: View the Constitution as a living document, adapting to social change.
During the Progressive Era, the Court struck down child labor and minimum wage laws.
Under Chief Justice William Howard Taft, Court further limited social legislation.
These rulings reinforced the Court’s image as resistant to reform.
The Warren Court (1953-1969)
The most transformative era for civil rights and liberties.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, appointed by Eisenhower, led a liberal Court.
Expanded rights for minorities, the accused, and students.
Key decisions:
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) – Ended segregation (“separate but equal” unconstitutional).
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) – Excluded illegally obtained evidence.
Engel v. Vitale (1962) – Banned school-sponsored prayer.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) – Right to an attorney.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) – Required informing suspects of rights.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) – Protected student symbolic speech.
Critics accused Warren of judicial activism, but his Court advanced equality and liberty.
The Burger Court (1969-1986)
Shift toward conservatism, but many liberal precedents remained.
Chief Justice Warren Burger (what an unfortunate name), appointed by Nixon.
Nixon hoped to move Court rightward but Burger was moderate and ineffective leader.
Roe v. Wade (1973) legalized abortion under due process clause.
Supported school busing to promote racial balance.
Court became overworked with growing caseload (~150 appeals per year).
Burger’s tenure reflected continuity, not transformation, from the Warren Court.
The Rehnquist Court (1986-2005)
Return to conservative judicial restraint and states’ rights.
President Reagan elevated William Rehnquist to Chief Justice.
Promoted strict constructionism and reduced Court’s caseload for efficiency.
Early dissenter nicknamed “The Lone Ranger,” later gained conservative majority.
Limited Congress’s commerce power.
Emphasized federalism — shifting power back to the states.
Restored procedural order and conservative consistency.
Legislative and Constitutional responses
Congress and states can respond to Court rulings.
The Court’s interpretations can be overturned by constitutional amendment:
Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) → 11th Amendment limited lawsuits against states.
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) → 14th Amendment granted citizenship and equal protection.
Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust (1895) → 16th Amendment authorized income tax.
Amending the Constitution is difficult, so Congress often passes modified laws to achieve similar goals.
Efforts to amend against Roe v. Wade, same-sex marriage, and flag burning all failed.
Implementation and enforcement
The Court’s power relies on others to enforce decisions.
Courts issue rulings but lack enforcement power.
Rely on the executive branch, agencies, and local governments.
Examples:
Jackson ignored Worcester v. Georgia (1832).
Eisenhower enforced Brown v. Board with federal troops.
Without enforcement, judicial authority is symbolic, not practical.
Implementation demonstrates the interdependence of government branches.