美國最高法院（英語：Supreme Court of the United States），一般是指美國聯邦最高法院，是美國最高級別的聯邦法院，為美國三權繼總統、國會後最為重要的一環。根據1789年《美國憲法第三條》的規定，最高法院對所有聯邦法院、州法院和涉及聯邦法律問題的訴訟案件具有最終（並且在很大程度上是有斟酌決定權的）上訴管轄權，以及對小範圍案件具有初審管轄權。在美國的法律制度中，最高法院通常是包括《美國憲法》在內的聯邦法律的最終解釋者，但僅在具有管轄權的案件範圍內；例如最高法院並不享有判定政治問題的權力，關於政治問題的執法機關是行政機關，而不是司法部門。
位於One First Street NE和馬里蘭大街，[138][139]即美國國會大廈的街對面，美國最高法院大樓周一至周五上午9時至下午4時30分向公眾開放，周末和假期不開放。[138] 參觀者不得自己參觀法庭。建築內有一個自助餐廳，一個禮品店，展品以及時長半小時的宣傳片。[137]最高法院休庭期間的上午9時30分至下午3時30分，每小時都舉行有關法庭的講座，無需預約。[137]當法院在十月至四月每隔兩周的周一、二、三的早上（有時候是下午）舉行庭審期間，公眾可以旁聽口頭辯論，至十二月至二月暫停。旁聽坐席先到先得，一場公開的庭審大概有250個旁聽席位。[140]開放旁聽席位的數量隨着不同案件的情況而不同；對於重要的案件，一些訪客會在前一天到達並等待一整夜。從五月中旬至六月底，最高法院從上午十時開始發布判決或司法意見，這些15至30分鐘的庭審活動也以類似的方式向公眾開放。[137]最高法院警察可以回答公眾的問題。[138]
最高法院的上訴管轄權包括來自聯邦上訴法院的上訴（通過調取案卷的令狀，調取案卷的令狀前的認證和刑事責任問題），[148]美國武裝力量法院（通過調取案卷的令狀），[149]波多黎各最高法院（通過調取案卷的令狀） ，[150]維爾京群島最高法院（通過調取案卷的令狀），[151]哥倫比亞特區上訴法院（通過調取案卷的令狀），[152]以及「對州最高法院作出的最終判決或命令做出判定」（通過調取案卷的令狀） 。[152]在最後一類案件中，如果一個州的最高法院拒絕聽審上訴或缺乏聽審上訴的管轄權，可向最高法院提起上訴。例如，佛羅里達地區上訴法院拒絕作出判決，如果（a）佛羅里達州最高法院拒絕調取案卷的令狀，如佛羅里達州之星訴B. J. F.案，或（b）地方上訴法院發布了一項引用法院判詞的決定，只是肯定了下級法院的判定，而不討論案件所涉及的實體問題，那麼可向最高法院提出上訴。這是因為佛羅里達州最高法院缺乏聽審類似判定的上訴管轄權。[153]基於1789年的《司法法案》創立的最高法院的權力可接受考慮州法院而不僅僅是聯邦法院的上訴。通過對且在馬丁訴亨特之承租人案 (1816)和科恩斯訴弗吉尼亞州（1821）中判決中看出這是最高法院的早期歷史始終堅持的。儘管有幾種允許所謂「程序與附隨審查 」的州案件，但最高法院是唯一一個對州法院判決的直接上訴具有管轄權的聯邦法院。必須指出的是，這種「附帶審查」通常僅適用於死囚，而不適用於常規司法系統。[來源請求]
由於美國《憲法》第三條規定，聯邦法院只能受理「案件」或「爭議」，最高法院不能像一些州最高法院那樣不就相關案件作出判決或不出具意見。例如，在Defunis訴 Odegaard 416 U.S. 312（1974）案中，416（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 416）U.S.312 (1974)法院駁回了訴訟，質疑法學院平權政策的合憲性，因為原告學生開始訴訟後已從該學院畢業，最高法院的判定是無法補救原告所受損害。然而，最高法院認定在某些情況下，聽審似乎沒有意義的案件是有益的。如果一個問題是「可以重新迴避審查」的話，即使原告在最高法院並不一定會得到有利結果，最高法院也會處理該問題。在羅伊訴韋德案（1973）以及其他墮胎案件中，410（英語：List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 410）U.S.113 (1973)最高法院也會處理懷孕婦女所提出的墮胎要求，即使後來不懷孕了。因為通過下級法院向最高法院提起上訴的案件的處理時間通常比正常妊娠期的時間要長。另一個訴由消失的例外是自願停止非法行為，最高法院考慮再次發生這種行為的可能性以及原告人是否需要救濟。[154]
陳述也通過兩名非正式的平行匯編發表：由西方（現為湯森路透一部分）出版的《最高法院判例匯編》和由LexisNexis公司出版的《美國最高法院報告，律師版》簡稱「律師版」。在法庭文件，法律期刊和其他法律媒體中，案件引文一般源於三本匯編的一處；例如聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案的引文以聯合公民訴聯邦選舉委員會案，585 U.S. 50，130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010)呈現。其中，"S. Ct."代表《最高法院判例匯編 》，「L. Ed」代表律師版。[177][178]
引用發表陳述
律師使用縮寫格式，即以「vol U.S. page, pin (year)」引用案件。其中vol為卷號，page為陳述開始的頁碼，year為該案裁定的年份，pin用於「精確定位」到意見中的特定頁碼。例如，羅伊訴韋德案的引文是410 U.S. 113 (1973)，這表明該案是在1973年判決的，並出現在《美國報告》第410卷第113頁中。對於尚未在初步印刷材料中發表的陳述或法定，卷和頁碼可以替換為「___」。
最高法院大法官聘請的書記員通常在起草陳述時留下相當大的迴旋餘地。根據范德比爾特大學法學院法律評論2009年發表的一項研究，「最高法院書記員似乎是從20世紀40年代到80年代一直是一個無黨派機構」。[188][189]前聯邦上訴法院法官J. Michael Luttig說：「隨着法律越來越趨近於政治，政治關係自然而且可預見地成為通過法院壓制的不同政治議程的代理人」。[188]劍橋大學歷史教授戴維·傑羅夫（David J. Garrow）表示，法院已經開始反映出政府政治部門的影子。加羅教授稱「我們的書記員工作隊伍的組成越來越像眾議院的組成」。「各方都提出只有意識形態的純粹主義者。」[188]
Scott Douglas Gerber (editor). Seriatim: The Supreme Court Before John Marshall. New York University Press. 1998 [2009-10-31]. ISBN 0-8147-3114-7. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. (page 3) Finally many scholars cite the absence of a separate Supreme Court building as evidence that the early Court lacked prestige.
Manning, John F. The Eleventh Amendment and the Reading of Precise Constitutional Texts. Yale Law Journal. 2004, 113 (8): 1663–1750. doi:10.2307/4135780.
Epps, Garrett. Don't Do It, Justices. The Washington Post. 2004-10-24 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2008-10-13）. The court's prestige has been hard-won. In the early 1800s, Chief Justice John Marshall made the court respected
The Supreme Court had first used the power of judicial review in the case Ware v. Hylton, (1796), wherein it overturned a state law that conflicted with a treaty between the United States and Great Britain.
Rosen, Jeffrey. Black Robe Politics(book review of Packing the Court by James MacGregor Burns). Washington Post. 2009-07-05 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-02-09）. From the beginning, Burns continues, the Court has established its "supremacy" over the president and Congress because of Chief Justice John Marshall's "brilliant political coup" in Marbury v. Madison (1803): asserting a power to strike down unconstitutional laws.
The People's Vote: 100 Documents that Shaped America – Marbury v. Madison (1803). U.S. News & World Report. 2003 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2003-09-20）. With his decision in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, an important addition to the system of "checks and balances" created to prevent any one branch of the Federal Government from becoming too powerful...A Law repugnant to the Constitution is void.
Sloan, Cliff; McKean, David. Why Marbury V. Madison Still Matters. Newsweek. 2009-02-21 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-08-02）. More than 200 years after the high court ruled, the decision in that landmark case continues to resonate.
The Constitution In Law: Its Phases Construed by the Federal Supreme Court(PDF). New York Times. 1893-02-27 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-04-30）. The decision … in Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee is the authority on which lawyers and Judges have rested the doctrine that where there is in question, in the highest court of a State, and decided adversely to the validity of a State statute... such claim is reviewable by the Supreme Court ...
Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter, Breyer. Dissenting opinions in Bush v. Gore. USA Today. 2000-12-13 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2010-05-25）. Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court … The Virginia court refused to obey this Court's Fairfax's Devisee mandate to enter judgment for the British subject's successor in interest. That refusal led to the Court's pathmarking decision in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304 (1816).
The Supreme Quiz. Washington Post. 2000-10-02 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2012-05-30）. According to the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, Marshall's most important innovation was to persuade the other justices to stop seriatim opinions – each issuing one – so that the court could speak in a single voice. Since the mid-1940s, however, there's been a significant increase in individual "concurring" and "dissenting" opinions.
Slater, Dan. Justice Stevens on the Death Penalty: A Promise of Fairness Unfulfilled. Wall Street Journal. 2008-04-18 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2012-01-25）. The first Chief Justice, John Marshall set out to do away with seriatim opinions–a practice originating in England in which each appellate judge writes an opinion in ruling on a single case. (You may have read old tort cases in law school with such opinions). Marshall sought to do away with this practice to help build the Court into a coequal branch.
Suddath, Claire. A Brief History Of Impeachment. Time Magazine. 2008-12-19 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-04-30）. Congress tried the process again in 1804, when it voted to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase on charges of bad conduct. As a judge, Chase was overzealous and notoriously unfair … But Chase never committed a crime — he was just incredibly bad at his job. The Senate acquitted him on every count.
Greenhouse, Linda. Rehnquist Joins Fray on Rulings, Defending Judicial Independence. New York Times. 1996-04-10 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. the 1805 Senate trial of Justice Samuel Chase, who had been impeached by the House of Representatives … This decision by the Senate was enormously important in securing the kind of judicial independence contemplated by Article III" of the Constitution, Chief Justice Rehnquist said
Edward Keynes; with Randall K. Miller. The Court vs. Congress: Prayer, Busing, and Abortion. Duke University Press. 1989 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. (page 115)... Grier maintained that Congress has plenary power to limit the federal courts' jurisdiction.
Ifill, Sherrilyn A. Sotomayor's Great Legal Mind Long Ago Defeated Race, Gender Nonsense. US News & World Report. 2009-05-27 [2009-10-31]. But his decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford doomed thousands of black slaves and freedmen to a stateless existence within the United States until the passage of the 14th Amendment. Justice Taney's coldly self-fulfilling statement in Dred Scott, that blacks had "no rights which the white man [was] bound to respect", has ensured his place in history—not as a brilliant jurist, but as among the most insensitive
Liberty of Contract?. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. 2009-10-31 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-11-22）. The term "substantive due process" is often used to describe the approach first used in Lochner—the finding of liberties not explicitly protected by the text of the Constitution to be impliedly protected by the liberty clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the 1960s, long after the Court repudiated its Lochner line of cases, substantive due process became the basis for protecting personal rights such as the right of privacy, the right to maintain intimate family relationships.
Adair v. United States 208 U.S. 161. Cornell University Law School. 1908 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2012-04-24）. No. 293 Argued: October 29, 30, 1907 --- Decided: January 27, 1908
Bodenhamer, David J.; James W. Ely. The Bill of Rights in modern America. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. 1993: 245. ISBN 978-0-253-35159-3. … of what eventually became the 'incorporation doctrine,' by which various federal Bill of Rights guarantees were held to be implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment due process or equal protection.
White, Edward Douglass. Opinion for the Court, Arver v. U.S. 245 U.S. 366. [2017-07-01]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-01）. Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.
Siegan, Bernard H. The Supreme Court's Constitution. Transaction Publishers. 1987: 146 [2009-10-31]. ISBN 978-0-88738-671-8. In the 1923 case of Adkins v. Children's Hospital, the court invalidated a classification based on gender as inconsistent with the substantive due process requirements of the fifth amendment. At issue was congressional legislation providing for the fixing of minimum wages for women and minors in the District of Columbia. (p.146)
Biskupic, Joan. Supreme Court gets makeover. USA Today. 2005-03-29 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-06-05）. The building is getting its first renovation since its completion in 1935.
Justice Roberts. Responses of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. to the Written Questions of Senator Joseph R. Biden. Washington Post. 2005-09-21 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2013-01-24）. I agree that West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish correctly overruled Adkins. Lochner era cases – Adkins in particular – evince an expansive view of the judicial role inconsistent with what I believe to be the appropriately more limited vision of the Framers.
Lipsky, Seth. All the News That's Fit to Subsidize. Wall Street Journal. 2009-10-22 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2013-12-19）. He was a farmer in Ohio … during the 1930s, when subsidies were brought in for farmers. With subsidies came restrictions on how much wheat one could grow—even, Filburn learned in a landmark Supreme Court case, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), wheat grown on his modest farm.
Cohen, Adam. What's New in the Legal World? A Growing Campaign to Undo the New Deal. New York Times. 2004-12-14 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2013-03-07）. Some prominent states' rights conservatives were asking the court to overturn Wickard v. Filburn, a landmark ruling that laid out an expansive view of Congress's power to legislate in the public interest. Supporters of states' rights have always blamed Wickard … for paving the way for strong federal action...
United Press International. Justice Black Dies at 85; Served on Court 34 Years. New York Times. 1971-09-25 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-10-15）. Justice Black developed his controversial theory, first stated in a lengthy, scholarly dissent in 1947, that the due process clause applied the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights to the states.
100 Documents that Shaped America Brown v. Board of Education (1954). US News & World Report. 1954-05-17 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-11-06）. On May 17, 1954, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. This historic decision marked the end of the "separate but equal" … and served as a catalyst for the expanding civil rights movement...
Essay: In defense of privacy. Time. 1966-07-15 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-10-13）. The biggest legal milestone in this field was last year's Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which overthrew the state's law against the use of contraceptives as an invasion of marital privacy, and for the first time declared the "right of privacy" to be derived from the Constitution itself.
Gibbs, Nancy. America's Holy War. Time. 1991-12-09 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-05-10）. In the landmark 1962 case Engel v. Vitale, the high court threw out a brief nondenominational prayer composed by state officials that was recommended for use in New York State schools. "It is no part of the business of government", ruled the court, "to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite."
Mattox, William R., Jr; Trinko, Katrina. Teach the Bible? Of course.. USA Today. 2009-08-17 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-08-20）. Public schools need not proselytize — indeed, must not — in teaching students about the Good Book … In Abington School District v. Schempp, decided in 1963, the Supreme Court stated that "study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education", was permissible under the First Amendment.
The Law: The Retroactivity Riddle. Time Magazine. 1965-06-18 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-02-03）. Last week, in a 7 to 2 decision, the court refused for the first time to give retroactive effect to a great Bill of Rights decision—Mapp v. Ohio (1961).
The Supreme Court: Now Comes the Sixth Amendment. Time. 1965-04-16 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2010-05-28）. Sixth Amendment's right to counsel (Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963). … the court said flatly in 1904: 'The Sixth Amendment does not apply to proceedings in state criminal courts." But in the light of Gideon … ruled Black, statements 'generally declaring that the Sixth Amendment does not apply to states can no longer be regarded as law.'
Guilt and Mr. Meese. New York Times. 1987-01-31 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. 1966 Miranda v. Arizona decision. That's the famous decision that made confessions inadmissible as evidence unless an accused person has been warned by police of the right to silence and to a lawyer, and waived it.
O'Connor, Karen. Roe v. Wade: On Anniversary, Abortion Is out of the Spotlight. U.S. News & World Report. 2009-01-22 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-03-26）. The shocker, however, came in 1973, when the Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, relied on Griswold's basic underpinnings to rule that a Texas law prohibiting abortions in most situations was unconstitutional, invalidating the laws of most states. Relying on a woman's right to privacy...
Bakke Wins, Quotas Lose. Time. 1978-07-10 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2010-10-14）. Split almost exactly down the middle, the Supreme Court last week offered a Solomonic compromise. It said that rigid quotas based solely on race were forbidden, but it also said that race might legitimately be an element in judging students for admission to universities. It thus approved the principle of 'affirmative action'…
Time to Rethink Buckley v. Valeo. New York Times. 1998-11-12 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. ...Buckley v. Valeo. The nation's political system has suffered ever since from that decision, which held that mandatory limits on campaign spending unconstitutionally limit free speech. The decision did much to promote the explosive growth of campaign contributions from special interests and to enhance the advantage incumbents enjoy over underfunded challengers.
Staff writer. Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist's Key Decisions. Washington Post. 1972-06-29 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2010-05-25）. Furman v. Georgia … Rehnquist dissents from the Supreme Court conclusion that many state laws on capital punishment are capricious and arbitrary and therefore unconstitutional.
History of the Court, in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (eds) The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.Oxford University Press, 1992, ISBN 0-19-505835-6
A Supreme Revelation. Wall Street Journal. 2008-04-19 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-12-01）. Thirty-two years ago, Justice John Paul Stevens sided with the majority in a famous "never mind" ruling by the Supreme Court. Gregg v. Georgia, in 1976, overturned Furman v. Georgia, which had declared the death penalty unconstitutional only four years earlier.
Greenhouse, Linda. The Chief Justice on the Spot. New York Times. 2009-01-08 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-12）. The federalism issue at the core of the new case grows out of a series of cases from 1997 to 2003 in which the Rehnquist court applied a new level of scrutiny to Congressional action enforcing the guarantees of the Reconstruction amendments.
Greenhouse, Linda. William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80. New York Times. 2005-09-04 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-04-30）. United States v. Lopez in 1995 raised the stakes in the debate over federal authority even higher. The decision declared unconstitutional a Federal law, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, that made it a federal crime to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school.
Greenhouse, Linda. The Rehnquist Court and Its Imperiled States' Rights Legacy. New York Times. 2005-06-12 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-05）. Intrastate activity that was not essentially economic was beyond Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the 5-to-4 majority in United States v. Morrison.
Greenhouse, Linda. Inmates Who Follow Satanism and Wicca Find Unlikely Ally. New York Times. 2005-03-22 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-04-30）. His (Rehnquist's) reference was to a landmark 1997 decision, City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the court ruled that the predecessor to the current law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exceeded Congress's authority and was unconstitutional as applied to the states.
Amar, Vikram David. Casing John Roberts. New York Times. 2005-07-27 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2008-10-14）. SEMINOLE TRIBE v. FLORIDA (1996) In this seemingly technical 11th Amendment dispute about whether states can be sued in federal courts, Justice O'Connor joined four others to override Congress's will and protect state prerogatives, even though the text of the Constitution contradicts this result.
Greenhouse, Linda. Justices Seem Ready to Tilt More Toward States in Federalism. New York Times. 1999-04-01 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. The argument in this case, Alden v. Maine, No. 98-436, proceeded on several levels simultaneously. On the surface … On a deeper level, the argument was a continuation of the Court's struggle over an even more basic issue: the Government's substantive authority over the states.
Lindenberger, Michael A. The Court's Gay Rights Legacy. Time Magazine. [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-11-07）. The decision in the Lawrence v. Texas case overturned convictions against two Houston men, whom police had arrested after busting into their home and finding them engaged in sex. And for the first time in their lives, thousands of gay men and women who lived in states where sodomy had been illegal were free to be gay without being criminals.
Justice Sotomayor. Retire the 'Ginsburg rule' – The 'Roe' recital. USA Today. 2009-07-16 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2009-08-22）. The court's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed the court holding of Roe. That is the precedent of the court and settled, in terms of the holding of the court.
Kamiya, Gary. Against the Law. Salon.com. 2001-07-04 [2012-11-21]. （原始內容存檔於2012-10-13）. ...the remedy was far more harmful than the problem. By stopping the recount, the high court clearly denied many thousands of voters who cast legal votes, as defined by established Florida law, their constitutional right to have their votes counted. … It cannot be a legitimate use of law to disenfranchise legal voters when recourse is available. …
Krauthammer, Charles. The Winner in Bush v. Gore?. Time Magazine. 2000-12-18 [2009-10-31]. （原始內容存檔於2010-11-22）. Re-enter the Rehnquist court. Amid the chaos, somebody had to play Daddy. … the Supreme Court eschewed subtlety this time and bluntly stopped the Florida Supreme Court in its tracks—and stayed its willfulness. By , mind you, …
Babington, Charles; Baker, Peter. Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice. Washington Post. 2005-09-30 [2009-11-01]. （原始內容存檔於2010-01-16）. John Glover Roberts Jr. was sworn in yesterday as the 17th chief justice of the United States, enabling President Bush to put his stamp on the Supreme Court for decades to come, even as he prepares to name a second nominee to the nine-member court.
Greenhouse, Linda. In Steps Big and Small, Supreme Court Moved Right. New York Times. 2007-07-01 [2009-11-01]. （原始內容存檔於2009-04-17）. It was the Supreme Court that conservatives had long yearned for and that liberals feared … This was a more conservative court, sometimes muscularly so, sometimes more tentatively, its majority sometimes differing on methodology but agreeing on the outcome in cases big and small.
Savage, Charlie. Respecting Precedent, or Settled Law, Unless It's Not Settled. New York Times. 2009-07-14 [2009-11-01]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. Gonzales v. Carhart — in which the Supreme Court narrowly upheld a federal ban on the late-term abortion procedure opponents call "partial birth abortion" — to be settled law.
Barnes, Robert. Justices to Decide if State Gun Laws Violate Rights. Washington Post. 2009-10-01 [2009-11-01]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-03）. The landmark 2008 decision to strike down the District of Columbia's ban on handgun possession was the first time the court had said the amendment grants an individual right to own a gun for self-defense. But the 5 to 4 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller...
Greenhouse, Linda. Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment. New York Times. 2008-04-18 [2009-11-01]. （原始內容存檔於2008-12-11）. His renunciation of capital punishment in the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees, was likewise low key and undramatic.
Greenhouse, Linda. Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape. New York Times. 2008-06-26 [2009-11-01]. （原始內容存檔於2008-12-11）. The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday … The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states.
"Justices, Number of", in Hall, Ely Jr., Grossman, and Wiecek (editors), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford University Press 1992, ISBN0-19-505835-6
Jim Brunner. Sen. Patty Murray will oppose Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court. The Seattle Times. 2017-03-24 [2017-04-09]. （原始內容存檔於2017-04-10）. In a statement Friday morning, Murray cited Republicans' refusal to confirm or even seriously consider President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, a similarly well-qualified jurist — and went on to lambaste President Trump's conduct in his first few months in office. [...] And Murray added she's "deeply troubled" by Gorsuch's "extreme conservative perspective on women's health," citing his "inability" to state a clear position on Roe v. Wade, the landmark abortion-legalization decision, and his comments about the "Hobby Lobby" decision allowing employers to refuse to provide birth-control coverage.
McCaskill, Claire. Gorsuch:Good for corporations, bad for working people. 2017-03-31 [2017-04-09]. （原始內容存檔於2017-04-08）. I cannot support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of corporations. He is evasive, but his body of work isn't. Whether it is a freezing truck driver or an autistic child, he has shown a stunning lack of humanity. And he has been an activist - for example, writing a dissent on a case that had been settled, in what appears to be an attempt to audition for his current nomination.
Schallhorn, Kaitlyn. Schumer: Democrats will filibuster SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch. The Blaze. 2017-03-23 [2017-04-07]. （原始內容存檔於2017-04-10）. Schumer added that Gorsuch's record shows he has a "deep-seated conservative ideology" and "groomed by the Federalist Society," a conservative nonprofit legal organization.
Matt Flegenheimer. Senate Republicans Deploy 'Nuclear Option' to Clear Path for Gorsuch. New York Times. 2017-04-06 [2017-07-02]. （原始內容存檔於2018-10-02）. After Democrats held together Thursday morning and filibustered President Trump's nominee, Republicans voted to lower the threshold for advancing Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to a simple majority.
See, e.g., Evans v. Stephens, 387 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 2004), which concerned the recess appointment of William Pryor. Concurring in denial of certiorari, Justice Stevens observed that the case involved "the first such appointment of an Article III judge in nearly a half century" 544 U.S. 942 (2005) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of cert) (internal quotation marks deleted).
Fisher, Louis. Recess Appointments of Federal Judges(PDF). CRSN Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service (The Library of Congress). 2001-09-05,. RL31112: 16– [2010-08-06]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2010-08-04）. Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the making of recess appointments to the Supreme Court of the United States may not be wholly consistent with the best interests of the Supreme Court, the nominee who may be involved, the litigants before the Court, nor indeed the people of the United States, and that such appointments, therefore, should not be made except under unusual circumstances and for the purpose of preventing or ending a demonstrable breakdown in the administration of the Court's business.
National Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al(PDF): 34, 35. [2017-07-02]. （原始內容存檔(PDF)於2017-07-28）. In the opinion for the Court, Breyer states "In our view, however, the pro forma sessions count as sessions, not as periods of recess. 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. The Senate met that standard here." Later, the opinion states: "For these reasons, we conclude that we must give great weight to the Senate's own determination of when it is and when it is not in session. But our deference to the Senate cannot be absolute. When the Senate is without the capacity to act, under its own rules, it is not in session even if it so declares."
戈薩奇原本信奉天主教，但在婚後參加美國聖公會的教堂。Daniel Burke. What is Neil Gorsuch's religion? It's complicated. CNN.com. 2017-03-22 [2017-07-02]. （原始內容存檔於2017-06-25）. Springer said she doesn't know whether Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian. "I have no evidence that Judge Gorsuch considers himself an Episcopalian, and likewise no evidence that he does not." Gorsuch's younger brother, J.J., said he too has "no idea how he would fill out a form. He was raised in the Catholic Church and confirmed in the Catholic Church as an adolescent, but he has been attending Episcopal services for the past 15 or so years."
Schumacher, Alvin. Roger B. Taney. Encyclopaedia Britannica. [2017-05-03]. （原始內容存檔於2017-08-24）. He was the first Roman Catholic to serve on the Supreme Court.
Greenhouse, Linda. An Invisible Chief Justice. The New York Times. 2010-09-09 [2010-09-09]. （原始內容存檔於2010-09-11）. Had [O'Connor] anticipated that the chief justice would not serve out the next Supreme Court term, she told me after his death, she would have delayed her own retirement for a year rather than burden the court with two simultaneous vacancies. […] Her reason for leaving was that her husband, suffering from Alzheimer's disease, needed her care at home.
Ward, Artemus. Deciding to Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the United States Supreme Court. SUNY Press. 2003: 358 [2017-07-02]. ISBN 978-0-7914-5651-4. （原始內容存檔於2017-07-03）. One byproduct of the increased [retirement benefit] provisions [in 1954], however has been a dramatic rise in the number of justices engaging in succession politics by trying to time their departures to coincide with a compatible president. The most recent departures have been partisan, some more blatantly than others, and have bolstered arguments to reform the process. A second byproduct has been an increase in justices staying on the Court past their ability to adequately contribute.[1] p. 9
Stolzenberg, Ross M.; Lindgren, James. Retirement and Death in Office of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Demography. May 2010, 47 (2): 269–298. PMC 3000028. PMID 20608097. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0100. If the incumbent president is of the same party as the president who nominated the justice to the Court, and if the incumbent president is in the first two years of a four-year presidential term, then the justice has odds of resignation that are about 2.6 times higher than when these two conditions are not met.
See for example Sandra Day O'Connor:How the first woman on the Supreme Court became its most influential justice, by Joan Biskupic, Harper Collins, 2005, p. 105. Also Rookie on the Bench: The Role of the Junior Justice by Clare Cushman, Journal of Supreme Court History 32 no. 3 (2008), pp. 282–296.
Bill Mears. Take a look through Neil Gorsuch's judicial record. FoxNews.com. 2017-03-20 [2017-07-02]. （原始內容存檔於2017-05-22）. A Fox News analysis of that record -- including some 3,000 rulings he has been involved with -- reveals a solid, predictable conservative philosophy, something President Trump surely was attuned to when he nominated him to fill the open ninth seat. The record in many ways mirrors the late Justice Antonin Scalia's approach to constitutional and statutory interpretation.
Cope, Kevin; Fischman, Joshua. It's hard to find a federal judge more conservative than Brett Kavanaugh. The Washington Post. 2018-09-05 [2020-11-02]. （原始內容存檔於2020-12-10）. Kavanaugh served a dozen years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court viewed as first among equals of the 12 federal appellate courts. Probing nearly 200 of Kavanaugh's votes and over 3000 votes by his judicial colleagues, our analysis shows that his judicial record is significantly more conservative than that of almost every other judge on the D.C. Circuit. That doesn't mean that he'd be the most conservative justice on the Supreme Court, but it strongly suggests that he is no judicial moderate.
Chamberlain, Samuel. Trump nominates Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Fox News. 2018-07-09 [2020-11-02]. （原始內容存檔於2020-12-07）. Trump may have been swayed in part because of Kavanaugh's record of being a reliable conservative on the court – and reining in dozens of administrative decisions of the Obama White House. There are some question marks for conservatives, particularly an ObamaCare ruling years ago.
Thomson-Devaux, Amelia; Bronner, Laura; Wiederkehr, Anna. How conservative is Amy Coney Barrett?. FiveThirtyEight. 2020-10-14 [2020-10-27]. （原始內容存檔於2020-12-11）. We can look to her track record on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though, for clues. Barrett has served on that court for almost three years now, and two different analyses of her rulings point to the same conclusion: Barrett is one of the more conservative judges on the circuit — and maybe even the most conservative.
Betz, Bradford. Chief Justice Roberts' recent votes raise doubts about 'conservative revolution' on Supreme Court. Fox News. 2019-03-02 [2020-11-02]. （原始內容存檔於2020-11-18）. Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, told Bloomberg that Roberts' recent voting record may indicate that he is taking his role as the median justice "very seriously" and that the recent period was "perhaps the beginning of his being the swing justice."
Roeder, Oliver. How Kavanugh will change the Supreme Court. FiveThirtyEight. 2018-10-06 [2020-11-02]. （原始內容存檔於2020-12-07）. Based on what we know about measuring the ideology of justices and judges, the Supreme Court will soon take a hard and quick turn to the right. It's a new path that is likely to last for years. Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, will almost certainly become the new median justice, defining the court's new ideological center.
Among the examples mentioned by Goldstein for the 2009 term were:
Dolan v. United States, which interpreted judges' prerogatives broadly, typically a "conservative" result. The majority consisted of the five junior Justices: Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor.
Magwood v. Patterson, which expanded habeas corpus petitions, a "liberal" result, in an opinion by Thomas, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., which yielded a pro-plaintiff result in an opinion by Scalia joined by Roberts, Stevens, Thomas, and Sotomayor.
Goldstein notes that in the 2009 term, the justice most consistently pro-government was Alito, and not the commonly perceived "arch-conservatives" Scalia and Thomas.
Curriden, Mark. A Supreme Case of Contempt. ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 2009-06-02 [2017-04-27]. （原始內容存檔於2017-04-27）. On May 28, [U.S. Attorney General William] Moody did something unprecedented, then and now. He filed a petition charging Sheriff Shipp, six deputies and 19 leaders of the lynch mob with contempt of the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously approved the petition and agreed to retain original jurisdiction in the matter. ... May 24, 1909, stands out in the annals of the U.S. Supreme Court. On that day, the court announced a verdict after holding the first and only criminal trial in its history.
Hindley, Meredith. Chattanooga versus the Supreme Court: The Strange Case of Ed Johnson. Humanities (National Endowment for the Humanities). November 2014, 35 (6) [2017-04-27]. （原始內容存檔於2017-04-27）. United States v. Shipp stands out in the history of the Supreme Court as an anomaly. It remains the only time the Court has conducted a criminal trial.
For example, the arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took place over three days and lasted over six hours, covering several issues; the arguments for Bush v. Gore were 90 minutes long; oral arguments in United States v. Nixon lasted three hours; and the Pentagon papers case was given a two-hour argument. Christy, Andrew. 'Obamacare' will rank among the longest Supreme Court arguments ever. NPR. 2011-11-15 [2011-03-31]. （原始內容存檔於2011-11-16）.
The longest modern-day oral arguments were in the case of California v. Arizona, in which oral arguments lasted over sixteen hours over four days in 1962.Bobic, Igor. Oral arguments on health reform longest in 45 years. Talking Points Memo. 2012-03-26 [2014-01-31]. （原始內容存檔於2014-02-04）.
See generally, Tushnet, Mark, ed. (2008) I Dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases, Malaysia: Beacon Press, pp. 256, ISBN978-0-8070-0036-6
See for example "Judicial activism" in The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, edited by Kermit Hall; article written by Gary McDowell
Buchanan, Pat. The judges war: an issue of power. Townhall.com. 2005-07-06 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-13）. The Brown decision of 1954, desegregating the schools of 17 states and the District of Columbia, awakened the nation to the court's new claim to power.
Lincoln, Abraham. First Inaugural Address. National Center. 1861-03-04 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2009-10-09）. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that 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 between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
Will, George F. Identity Justice: Obama's Conventional Choice. Washington Post. 2009-05-27 [2009-10-22]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-03）. Thurgood Marshall quote taken from the Stanford Law Review, summer 1992
Liptak, Adam. To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left. New York Times. 2009-01-31 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-12）. Every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell...in 1971...has been more conservative than his or her predecessor
Mark I. Sutherland; Dave Meyer; William J. Federer; Alan Keyes; Ed Meese; Phyllis Schlafly; Howard Phillips; Alan E. Sears; Ben DuPre; Rev. Rick Scarborough; David C. Gibbs III; Mathew D. Staver; Don Feder; Herbert W. Titus. Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America. St. Louis, Missouri: Amerisearch Inc. 2005: 242. ISBN 0-9753455-6-7.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos. Judge Bork: Judicial Activism Is Going Global. Fox News. 2003-09-11 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2010-05-23）. What judges have wrought is a coup d'état – slow moving and genteel, but a coup d'état nonetheless.
David G. Savage. Supreme Court finds history is a matter of opinions. Los Angeles Times. 2008-07-13 [2009-10-30]. （原始內容存檔於2010-04-13）. This suggests that the right of habeas corpus was not limited to English subjects … protects people who are captured … at Guantanamo … Wrong, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in dissent. He said English history showed that the writ of habeas corpus was limited to sovereign English territory
Alexander Hamilton (aka Publius). Federalist No. 28. Independent Journal. 1789 [2009-10-24]. （原始內容存檔於2009-07-09）. Power being almost always the rival of power; the General Government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state government; and these will have the same disposition toward the General Government.
Madison, James. The Federalist. Independent Journal (44 (quote: 8th para)). 1788-01-25 [2009-10-27]. （原始內容存檔於2009-10-27）. seems well calculated at once to secure to the States a reasonable discretion in providing for the conveniency of their imports and exports, and to the United States a reasonable check against the abuse of this discretion.
Madison, James. The Federalist No. 56 (quote: 6th para). Independent Journal. 1788-02-16 [2009-10-27]. （原始內容存檔於2009-02-15）. In every State there have been made, and must continue to be made, regulations on this subject which will, in many cases, leave little more to be done by the federal legislature, than to review the different laws, and reduce them in one general act.
Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist No. 22 (quote: 4th para). New York Packet. 1787-12-14 [2009-10-27]. （原始內容存檔於2010-02-03）. The interfering and unneighborly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have, in different instances, given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others, and it is to be feared that examples of this nature, if not restrained by a national control, would be multiplied and extended till they became not less serious sources of animosity and discord than injurious impediments to the intercourse between the different parts of the Confederacy.
Madison, James. The Federalist Papers. New York Packet. 1788-01-22 [2009-10-27]. （原始內容存檔於2009-07-09）. The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits.
Akhil Reed Amar. The Bill of Rights – Creation and Reconstruction. New York Times: Books. 1998 [2009-10-24]. （原始內容存檔於2009-04-16）. many lawyers embrace a tradition that views state governments as the quintessential threat to individual and minority rights, and federal officials—especially federal courts—as the special guardians of those rights.
Scott Gold. Justices Swat Down Texans' Effort to Weaken Species Protection Law. Los Angeles Times. 2005-06-14 [2012-03-24]. （原始內容存檔於2012-01-12）. Purcell filed a $60-million lawsuit against the U.S. government in 1999, arguing that cave bugs could not be regulated through the commerce clause because they had no commercial value and did not cross state lines. 'I'm disappointed,' Purcell said.
FDCH e-Media. U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court. Washington Post. 2006-01-10 [2009-10-30]. （原始內容存檔於2008-10-19）. I don't think there's any question at this point in our history that Congress' power under the commerce clause is quite broad, and I think that reflects a number of things, including the way in which our economy and our society has developed and all of the foreign and interstate activity that takes place – Samuel Alito
Hornberger, Jacob C. Freedom and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Future of Freedom Foundation. 2009-10-30 [2009-10-30]. Fourteenth Amendment. Some argue that it is detrimental to the cause of freedom because it expands the power of the federal government. Others contend that the amendment expands the ambit of individual liberty. I fall among those who believe that the Fourteenth Amendment has been a positive force for freedom.
James Vicini. Justice Scalia defends Bush v. Gore ruling. Reuters. 2008-04-24 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2008-09-30）. The nine-member Supreme Court conducts its deliberations in secret and the justices traditionally won't discuss pending cases in public
David Margolick. Meet the Supremes. New York Times. 2007-09-23 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-12）. Beat reporters and academics initially denounced the court's involvement in that case, its hastiness to enter the political thicket and the half-baked and strained decision that resulted.
David G. Savage. Roe vs. Wade? Bush vs. Gore? What are the worst Supreme Court decisions?. Los Angeles Times. 2008-10-23 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2008-10-23）. UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu described the decision as 'utterly lacking in any legal principle" and added that the court was "remarkably unashamed to say so explicitly.'
CQ Transcriptions (Senator Kohl). Key Excerpt: Sotomayor on Bush v. Gore. Washington Post. 2009-07-14 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-13）. Many critics saw the Bush v. Gore decision as an example of the judiciary improperly injecting itself into a political dispute"
Adam Cohen (Opinion section). Justice Rehnquist Writes on Hayes vs. Tilden, With His Mind on Bush v. Gore. New York Times. 2004-03-21 [2009-10-23]. （原始內容存檔於2011-05-11）. The Bush v. Gore majority, made up of Mr. Rehnquist and his fellow conservatives, interpreted the equal protection clause in a sweeping way they had not before, and have not since. And they stated that the interpretation was 'limited to the present circumstances,' words that suggest a raw exercise of power, not legal analysis.
See also Arthur D. Hellman, "Reining in the Supreme Court: Are Term Limits the Answer?", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 291.
Richard Epstein, "Mandatory Retirement for Supreme Court Justices", in Roger C. Cramton and Paul D. Carrington, eds., Reforming the Court: Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices (Carolina Academic Press, 2006), p. 415.
Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist No. 78. Independent Journal. 1788-06-14 [2009-10-28]. （原始內容存檔於2010-01-11）. and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.
Biskupic, Joan and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly. ISBN 1-56802-130-5
Hall, Kermit L.; McGuire, Kevin T. (編). Institutions of American Democracy: The Judicial Branch. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN 978-0-19-530917-1.
Beard, Charles A. (1912). The Supreme Court and the Constitution. New York: Macmillan Company. Reprinted Dover Publications, 2006. ISBN 0-486-44779-0.
Corley, Pamela C.; Steigerwalt, Amy; Ward, Artemus. (2013). The Puzzle of Unanimity: Consensus on the United States Supreme Court. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-8472-6.
Cushman, Barry. (1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court. Oxford University Press.
Cushman, Clare. The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 2nd. (Supreme Court Historical Society, Congressional Quarterly Books). 2001. ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Frank, John P. Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L. , 編. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. Chelsea House Publishers. 1995. ISBN 978-1-56802-126-3.
Garner, Bryan A. (2004). Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed. Thomson West. ISBN 0-314-15199-0.
Greenburg, Jan Crawford, Jan. (2007). Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control for the United States Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Press. ISBN 978-1-59420-101-1.
美國
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
