United States. Supreme Court

Article III, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States provides that ``[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is comprised of the Chief Justice of the United States and such number of Associate Justices as may be fixed by Congress, which is currently fixed at eight (28 U.S.C. 1). The President nominates the Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution further provides that ``[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.'' Court officers assist the Court in the performance of its functions. They [[Page 68]] include the Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice, the Clerk, the Reporter of Decisions, the Librarian, the Marshal, the Director of Budget and Personnel, the Court Counsel, the Curator, the Director of Data Systems, and the Public Information Officer. Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U.S.C. 1251, 1253, 1254, 1257-1259, and various special statutes. Congress has no authority to change the original jurisdiction of this Court. Rulemaking Power Congress has from time to time conferred upon the Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts of the United States. Court Term The term of the Court begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year.

Supreme Court of the United States, final court of appeal and final expositor of the Constitution of the United States. Within the framework of litigation, the Supreme Court marks the boundaries of authority between state and nation, state and state, and government and citizen.

Scope And Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as the head of a federal court system, though it was not formally established until Congress passed the Judiciary Act in 1789. Although the Constitution outlined the powers, structure, and functions of the legislative and executive branches of government in some detail, it did not do the same for the judicial branch, leaving much of that responsibility to Congress and stipulating only that judicial power be “vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” As the country’s court of last resort, the Supreme Court is an appellate body, vested with the authority to act in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; in controversies to which the United States is a party; in disputes between states or between citizens of different states; and in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. In suits affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls and in cases in which states are a party, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction—i.e., it serves as a trial court. Relatively few cases reach the court through its original jurisdiction, however; instead, the vast majority of the court’s business and nearly all of its most influential decisions derive from its appellate jurisdiction.

Size, Membership, And Organization
The organization of the federal judicial system, including the size of the Supreme Court, is established by Congress. From 1789 to 1807 the court comprised six justices. In 1807 a seventh justice was added, followed by an eighth and a ninth in 1837 and a tenth in 1863. The size of the court has sometimes been subject to political manipulation; for example, in 1866 Congress provided for the gradual reduction (through attrition) of the court to seven justices to ensure that President Andrew Johnson, whom the House of Representatives later impeached and the Senate only narrowly acquitted, could not appoint a new justice. The number of justices reached eight before Congress, after Johnson had left office, adopted new legislation (1869) setting the number at nine, where it has remained ever since. In the 1930s President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to consider legislation (which it subsequently rejected) that would have allowed the president to appoint an additional justice for each member of the court aged 70 years or older who refused to retire.

According to the Constitution, appointments to the Supreme Court and to the lower federal courts are made by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, though presidents have rarely consulted the Senate before making a nomination. The Senate Judiciary Committee ordinarily conducts hearings on nominations to the Supreme Court, and a simple majority of the full Senate is required for confirmation. When the position of chief justice is vacant, the president may appoint a chief justice from outside the court or elevate an associate justice to the position. In either case a simple majority of the Senate must approve the appointment. Members of the Supreme Court are appointed for life terms, though they may be expelled if they are impeached by the House of Representatives and convicted in the Senate. Only one justice has been impeached, Samuel Chase, who was acquitted in 1805. In 1969 Abe Fortas resigned under threat of impeachment for alleged financial improprieties unrelated to his duties on the court.

U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court as it was constituted in 2009, with (left to right) Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas.

The federal judicial system originally comprised only trial courts of original jurisdiction and the Supreme Court. As the country grew in size, and in the absence of intermediate appellate courts, the volume of cases awaiting review increased, and fidelity to Supreme Court precedents varied significantly among the lower courts. To remedy this problem, Congress passed the Circuit Court of Appeals Act (1891), which established nine intermediate courts with final authority over appeals from federal district courts, except when the case in question was of exceptional public importance. The Judiciary Act of 1925 (popularly known as the Judges’ Bill), which was sponsored by the court itself, carried the reforms farther, greatly limiting obligatory jurisdiction (which required the Supreme Court to review a case) and expanding the classes of cases that the court could accept at its own discretion through the issue of a writ of certiorari. Further changes were enacted in 1988, when Congress passed legislation that required the Supreme Court to hear appeals of cases involving legislative reapportionment and federal civil rights and antitrust laws. Currently, there are 12 geographic judicial circuits and a court of appeals for the federal circuit, located in Washington, D.C. Roughly 98 percent of federal cases end with a decision by one of the lower appellate courts.

Procedures And Power
The Supreme Court, which now enjoys almost exclusive discretion in determining its caseload, hears about 100 cases per term, which begins by statute (set in 1917) on the first Monday in October and typically ends in late June (though from 1873 to 1917 the court began its term on the second Monday in October). Each year the court receives some 7,000 certiorari requests. The number of these requests has increased some fivefold since World War II—a reflection of the country’s population growth, a progressively more litigious legal culture, and a surge in the demands placed by citizens on government. As the number of certiorari requests has increased, the number of cases decided by the Supreme Court has declined since the 1950s and ’60s, when civil rights cases dominated the docket, as the justices have opted to hear fewer cases per salient issue area.

All certiorari requests are circulated among the justices. The chief justice leads the court in developing a “discuss list” of potential cases, though the associate justices may request that additional cases be placed on the list. By the so-called “Rule of Four,” apparently developed in the late 19th century, the decision to grant certiorari requires the assent of at least four justices. Once the decision to hear a case has been made, lower-court records and briefs are delivered to the court and oral arguments are scheduled. Interested third parties also may submit their opinions to the court by filing an amicus curiae (Latin: “friend of the court”) brief. With rare exceptions the petitioners and respondents are each allotted 30 minutes of time to present their arguments to the court. The justices hear neither witnesses nor evidence. Each side in the case attempts to persuade the justices that the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that supports its point of view.

The decision-making process involves two major judgments. First, in a vote that is usually kept secret, the justices decide the merits of the case; then they issue the official written decision of the court. The first judgment determines who will write the official decision. By tradition, if the chief justice is in the majority, he selects which justice (including himself) will author the court’s verdict. If he is in the minority, the longest-serving member of the majority makes the decision-writing appointment. Since the era of John Marshall, chief justice from 1801 to 1835, it has been common practice for the court to issue formal opinions to justify its decisions, though the Constitution does not require it to do so. Drafts of all opinions circulate among the justices, and all justices may concur with or dissent from any decision, in full or in part. The final decision effectively represents the supreme law of the land and is expected to be used as controlling constitutional doctrine by lower courts.

The Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review, whereby it can declare acts of Congress or the state legislatures unconstitutional. Executive, administrative, and judicial actions also are subject to review by the court. The doctrine of judicial review is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution; instead, it was articulated by Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), in which the court struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789. Although since the late 19th century the vast majority of legal scholars have accepted judicial review as a proper power of the Supreme Court, critics have charged that the framers did not intend for the court to exercise such power, which allows it to act in effect as a legislative body.

Historical Trends
Any assessment of the unifying forces in American society must ascribe a significant role to the Supreme Court. In its institutional infancy, the court necessarily addressed structural and functional questions involving inter alia federalism, express and implied powers, checks and balances, and the separation of powers. During the mid- to late 19th century, the court employed the Constitution’s commerce clause (Article I Section 8) to nullify state laws of taxation or regulation that discriminated against or unduly burdened interstate commerce. The clause subsequently was used to uphold the power of Congress to regulate vast sectors of the economy.

Whereas the commerce clause has been the chief doctrinal source of power over the economy, the due-process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have been the principal sources of protection of persons and corporations against arbitrary or repressive acts of government. These clauses were used at first to protect property rights, but in the 1920s they began to be applied to civil liberties, particularly in the extension of Bill of Rights guarantees to state actions. By the middle of the century, the equal-protection clause, which had been designed to protect the rights of emancipated slaves, was being used to strike down laws that were racially discriminatory, and all rights guaranteed by the First Amendment had been incorporated (and thusly made applicable to the states) through the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the end of the 20th century, the court found itself addressing issues that had previously been considered off-limits according to the political question doctrine, which it had invoked to avoid entering into questions that it thought were best decided by legislatures (e.g., prison administration, the operation of districting systems, and even, arguably, the 2000 presidential election). While broadening the concept of justiciable disputes, the court also sought to limit congressional power to control the affairs of the states. In a variety of cases concerning issues such as state immunity from lawsuits, commerce, and criminal procedure, a states’ rights approach was adopted by the court’s conservative majority.

The opinions of the Supreme Court, including the dissenting opinions of individual justices, often have been considered epitomes of legal reasoning. Through these opinions, the court serves to clarify, refine, and test the philosophical ideals written into the Constitution and to translate them into working principles for a federal union under law. Beyond its specific contributions, this symbolic and pragmatic function may be regarded as the most significant role of the court.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party".[2] The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.[3] However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.

Established by Article III of the Constitution, the composition and procedures of the Supreme Court were initially established by the 1st Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789. As later set by the Judiciary Act of 1869, the Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices. Each justice has lifetime tenure, meaning they remain on the Court until they resign, retire, die, or are removed from office.[4] When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice. Each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases argued before it. When in majority, the chief justice decides who writes the opinion of the court; otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the task of writing the opinion.

The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Its law enforcement arm is the Supreme Court Police.


Contents
1 History
1.1 Earliest beginnings through Marshall
1.2 From Taney to Taft
1.3 New Deal era
1.4 Warren and Burger
1.5 Rehnquist and Roberts
2 Composition
2.1 Size of the court
2.2 Appointment and confirmation
2.2.1 Recess appointments
2.3 Tenure
3 Membership
3.1 Current justices
3.1.1 Length of tenure
3.2 Court demographics
3.3 Retired justices
3.4 Seniority and seating
3.5 Salary
3.6 Judicial leanings
4 Facilities
5 Jurisdiction
5.1 Justices as circuit justices
6 Process
6.1 Case selection
6.2 Oral argument
6.3 Supreme Court bar
6.4 Decision
6.5 Published opinions
6.5.1 Citations to published opinions
7 Institutional powers and constraints
8 Law clerks
8.1 Politicization of the Court
9 Criticism
9.1 Judicial activism
9.2 Failing to protect individual rights
9.3 Power excess
9.4 Courts are a poor check on executive power
9.5 Federal versus state power
9.6 Secretive proceedings
9.7 Judicial interference in political disputes
9.8 Not choosing enough cases to review
9.9 Lifetime tenure
9.10 Accepting gifts and outside income
10 See also
10.1 Landmark Supreme Court decisions (selection)
11 References
11.1 Bibliography
12 Further reading
13 External links
History
Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
It was while debating the separation of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary. Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea; in the English tradition, judicial matters had been treated as an aspect of royal (executive) authority. Early on, the delegates who were opposed to having a strong central government argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature. It was also proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executive's power to veto or revise laws. In the end, the framers compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish".[5][6] They delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the judicial branch as a whole.


The Royal Exchange, New York City, first meeting place of the Supreme Court
The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court, the country's highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nation's Capital and would initially be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices. The act also divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district.[7]

Immediately after signing the act into law, President George Washington nominated the following people to serve on the court: John Jay for chief justice and John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, and John Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Harrison, however, declined to serve. In his place, Washington later nominated James Iredell.[8]

The Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in New York City, then the U.S. capital.[9] A second session was held there in August 1790.[10] The earliest sessions of the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791.[7] When the national capital moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well. After initially meeting at Independence Hall, the Court established its chambers at City Hall.[11]

Earliest beginnings through Marshall
Main articles: Jay Court, Rutledge Court, Ellsworth Court, and Marshall Court

Chief Justice Marshall (1801–1835)
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving procedure.[12] As the Court initially had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to two).[13] However, Congress has always allowed less than the court's full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four justices in 1789.[14] The court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,[15] a situation not helped by the era's highest-profile case, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which was reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment.[16]

The court's power and prestige grew substantially during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[17] Under Marshall, the court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress,[18] including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[19][20] and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states (notably, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[21][22][23][24]

The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[25] a remnant of British tradition,[26] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[25] Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the Court's control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804–05 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[27][28]

From Taney to Taft
Main articles: Taney Court, Chase Court, Waite Court, Fuller Court, White Court, and Taft Court
The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[29] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[30] which helped precipitate the Civil War.[31] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[24] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[32] Adair v. United States).[33]

Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[34] grappled with the new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States), upheld the constitutionality of military conscription (Selective Draft Law Cases)[35] and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital).[36]

New Deal era
Main articles: Hughes Court, Stone Court, and Vinson Court
The Court seated
The Hughes Court in 1937, photographed by Erich Salomon. Members include Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (center), Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, and the "Four Horsemen" Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter, who opposed New Deal policies.
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the Court gained its own accommodation in 1935[37] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler).[38][39][40] During World War II, the Court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.

Warren and Burger
Main articles: Warren Court and Burger Court
The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[41] It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe and Green v. County School Bd.)[42] and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[43] limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp),[44][45] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[46][47]—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona).[48] At the same time, however, the Court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.[49]

The Burger Court (1969–1986) marked a conservative shift.[50] It also expanded Griswold's right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade),[51] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)[52] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo).[53] It also wavered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[54] but later, that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[54][55][56]

Rehnquist and Roberts
Main articles: Rehnquist Court and Roberts Court

Justices of the Supreme Court with President George W. Bush (center), October 2005.
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[57] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[58][59][60][61][62] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[63] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[64] The Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, was especially controversial.[65][66]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[67][68][69][70] Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Twombly-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[71] climate change (Massachusetts v. EPA), same-sex marriage (United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) and the Bill of Rights, notably in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[72] Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment)[73] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment).[74][75]

Composition
Size of the court
Article III of the Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it (though existence of the office of chief justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Instead, these powers are entrusted to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through Judiciary Act of 1789. The size of the Court was first altered by an 1801 act which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, but an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the court's size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.[76]

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase and in an attempt to limit the power of Andrew Johnson, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[77] where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt's New Deal.[78] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in Congress.[79] Nevertheless, the Court's balance began to shift within months when Justice Willis Van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[80]

Appointment and confirmation
Main article: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, thus a president may nominate anyone to serve, and the Senate may not set any qualifications or otherwise limit who the president can choose.[81]


Flowchart showing process of appointment of United States Supreme Court justices.
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group's views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee's practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[82] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.

Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, prior to 2017 a nomination could be blocked by filibuster once debate had begun in the full Senate. President Lyndon B. Johnson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It included both Republican and Democratic senators concerned with Fortas's ethics. President Donald Trump's nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the seat left vacant by Antonin Scalia's death was the second. Unlike the Fortas filibuster, however, only Democratic Senators voted against cloture on the Gorsuch nomination, citing his perceived conservative judicial philosophy, and the Republican majority's prior refusal to take up President Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.[83] This led the Republican majority to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.[84]

Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. A president may withdraw a nomination before an actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee; this occurred most recently with President George W. Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers in 2006. The Senate may also fail to act on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. For example, President Dwight Eisenhower's first nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in November 1954 was not acted on by the Senate; Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan in January 1955, and Harlan was confirmed two months later. Most recently, as previously noted, the Senate failed to act on the March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland; the nomination expired in January 2017, and the vacancy was filled by Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Trump.[85]

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[86] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[87] The importance of commissioning is underscored by the case of Edwin M. Stanton. Although appointed to the court on December 19, 1869, by President Ulysses S. Grant and confirmed by the Senate a few days later, Stanton died on December 24, prior to receiving his commission. He is not, therefore, considered to have been an actual member of the court.

Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[88] According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).[89][90]

Recess appointments
When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and eleven associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.[91]

No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts.[92] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances".[93] Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress's views in the hope of guiding executive action.[93][94]

The Supreme Court's 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning limited the ability of the President to make recess appointments (including appointments to the Supreme Court); the Court ruled that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session (or in recess). Writing for the Court, Justice Breyer stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."[95] This ruling allows the Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of pro-forma sessions.[96]

Tenure
The interior of the United States Supreme Court
The interior of the United States Supreme Court
The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire.[97] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[98] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.[99]

Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations, such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's nomination in 1994 to succeed Harry Blackmun and the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor (though Roberts' nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for the role of chief justice after Rehnquist died).

Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Likewise, Zachary Taylor died 16 months after taking office, but his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Andrew Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a reduction in the size of the Court. Jimmy Carter is the only person elected president to have left office after at least one full term without having the opportunity to appoint a justice. Presidents James Monroe, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush each served a full term without an opportunity to appoint a justice, but made appointments during their subsequent terms in office. No president who has served more than one full term has gone without at least one opportunity to make an appointment.