Changes

The Supreme Court opened its first session in February 1790 in New York City, the then capital of the United States. Later in 1790, it moved to Philadelphia, which also became the capital, where the court met in Independence Hall. Initially, the court was made up of six justices, where it was envisioned that a two-thirds majority would be needed for any decision. The court did not have a permanent nine members until 1869, when that number was established as precedent. The justices were given lifetime appointments because it was seen as a way to avoid them being influenced by a sitting president. The first case to be litigated before the court, <i>West v. Barnes</i>, involved procedural issues, in particular, the procedures of appeal. There were few major cases in the 1790s and the court lacked a permanent home. The first major case was <i>Chisholm v. Georgia</i>, which saw Chisholm sue the state of Georgia. The case influenced the 11th Amendment to the Constitution, which allowed individuals to sue states based on state consent (Figure 1).<ref>For more on the forming of the first Supreme Court, see: Casto, W. R. (2013). <i>The Supreme Court in the early republic: the chief justiceships of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth</i>. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.</ref>

Arguably the most impactful Supreme Court decision helped create the fault lines that became the Civil War. The <i>Dred Scott v. Sandford</i> in 1857 case, under Chief Justice Robert Taney, established that American citizenship was not to be given to black people, regardless if they were free or slave. Effectively this made all blacks not have citizenship rights. Ultimately the 14th Amendment overturned this decision. The <i>Dred Scott v. Sandford</i> case also influenced subsequent legislation in avoiding a similar case and what ultimately would become the concept of substantive due process, which protected the rights of individuals even if their rights were not explicit in the Constitution. This not only helped prevent a repeat of The <i>Dred Scott v Sandfor</i> case but it became established as legal precedent under the Chief Justice Waite and Fuller courts in the late 19th century through several cases.<ref>For more on the impact of the Dred Scott case, see: Fehrenbacher, D. E. (2001). <i>The Dred Scott Case: its significance in American law and politics</i>. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Pr. </ref>

[[File:Jay.jpg|thumb|Figure 1.John Jay was This not only helped prevent a repeat of The <i>Dred Scott v Sandfor</i> case but it became established as legal precedent under the first Chief Justice Waite and heard Fuller courts in the first late 19th century through several cases.<ref>For more on the impact of the Dred Scott case presented before the Court, see: Fehrenbacher, D. E. (2001). <i>The Dred Scott Case: its significance in American law and politics</i>. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Pr.]]</ref>

During the earliest years of the 20th century, the boundaries of free speech and the 1st Amendment were not clear and states did ban certain publications. The case of <i>Gitlow v. New York</i> in 1925 established more clear guidelines as to what constituted free speech and protection under the 1st Amendment. This case greatly restricted the powers of states to suppress publications or speech by individuals. The <i>Adkins v. Children's Hospital</i> case in 1923 first established precedent on due process in the 5th Amendment, further protecting individuals' rights from states or organizations that infringed on those rights such as in work requirements and payment. In the  The 1930s to 1953 saw a substantial number of court decisions that sided with the federal government and that enhanced government powers, in part as a reaction to major crises. This included granting greater power for Roosevelt to apply the New Deal legislation he had worked to pass in the 1930s. Perhaps the most controversial was the Court's decision that upheld the government's power to intern Japanese-American citizens during World War II, arguably also a complete reversal of earlier decisions that had enhanced civil rights.  The two major crises, the Great Depression and World War II, may have influenced court action to face these crises more than political leaning for parties by giving the federal government greater powers. <ref>For more on the early 20th century and shaping of the court and its decisions, see: Walker, S. (2012). <i>Presidents and civil liberties from Wilson to Obama: a story of poor custodians</i>. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.</ref>

Earl Warren, Chief Justice from 1953-1969, led perhaps the most influential period that enhanced a series of civil liberties. One of the most famous cases was <i> Brown v. Board of Education</i> which began the long process of desegregation in public schools and influenced desegregation in general across the United States (Figure 2). Additionally, <i>Reynolds v. Sims </i> forced states to reapportion their legislatures according to changing populations. Thus, districts have to be somewhat equal as to how they apportioned representation. Previously, low population places could be used to influence the legislative process, which in the South had led to restrictive laws against African Americans. Also, the role of religion in schools was severely limited by the case of <i>Engel v. Vitale</i>. Another landmark case was <i>Gideon v. Wainwright</i>, which required, under the 6th Amendment, states to appoint an attorney for defendants in criminal cases. The Miranda rights, which are given in cases where the police detain a suspect, were also a result of the <i>Miranda v. Arizona</i> case, another landmark that has greatly influenced the criminal justice system.<ref>For more on the Warren Court, see: Newton, J. (2014). <i>Justice for all: Earl Warren and the nation he made.</i> Penguin Publishing Grou. </ref>

The court, arguably, took a more conservative turn in the 1970s under the Burger courtCourt, that which existed until 1986. Nevertheless, one of the most landmark cases, <i>Roe v. Wade</i> protected individuals' rights to abortion and prevented states from creating restrictive laws against abortion access and upheld affirmative action in <i>University of California v. Bakke</i>. It still remains one of the most polarizing decisions by the Supreme Court. The Court, however, struck down earlier cases that limited campaign finance in <i>Buckley v. Valeo</i>. The Rehnquist Court, from 1986-2005, generally upheld individual rights, such as <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> that struck down Texas' s sodomy law. The most controversial decision was its involvement in the 2000 election in <i> Bush v. Gore</i> that ended the recount of the election. The court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, is seen as generally being conservative, but key decisions such as <i>United States v. Windsor</i> led to the decision that part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) legislation was unconstitutional and gay and lesbian couples cannot be discriminated on in relation to benefits and rights in cases where they are married.<ref>For more on Burger and the later courts, see: Greenhouse, L. (2012). <i>The U.S. Supreme Court: a very short introduction</i>. New York: Oxford University Press. </ref>

The main controversies today most controversial decision was its involvement in the Supreme Court, interestingly, are not different from one 2000 election in <i> Bush v. Gore</i> that ended the recount of the first impeachments in the United Stateselection. The court, which had to do with a under Chief Justice being perceived John Roberts, is seen as generally being politically influenced. There are clear and well documents cases where Justices were not impartialconservative, but key decisions such as in the Dredd Scott case<i>United States v. However, Windsor</i> led to the topic itself remains contentious and decision that part of the recent appointment Defense of Brett Kavanaugh Marriage Act (DOMA) legislation was unconstitutional and gay and the process of his appointing support this. Nevertheless, repeatedly judges nominated by left-leaning or right-leaning presidents often do not follow their perceived political bent, perhaps indicating that the Court has at times maintained a level of independence as envisioned early lesbian couples cannot be discriminated on in relation to benefits and rights in its historycases where they are married. <ref>For more on Burger and the partial leanings of the Courtlater courts, see: BaumGreenhouse, L. (20172012). <i>Ideology in the The U.S. Supreme Court: a very short introduction</i>. New JerseyYork: Princeton Oxford University Press.</ref>

[[File:59c82e99014f4The main controversies today in the Supreme Court, interestingly, are not different from one of the first impeachments in the United States, which had to do with a Justice being perceived as being politically influenced.imageThere are clear and well documents cases where the Justices were not impartial, such as in the Dredd Scott case.jpg|thumb|Figure 2However, the topic itself remains contentious and the recent appointment of Brett Kavanaugh and the process of his appointing support this. While segregation began Nevertheless, repeatedly judges nominated by left-leaning or right-leaning presidents often do not follow their perceived political bent, perhaps indicating that the Court has at times maintained a level of independence as envisioned early in its end with Brown vhistory. Education<ref>For more on the partial leanings of the Court, it also led to racial tensionssee: Baum, L. (2017). <i>Ideology in the Supreme Court</i>. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.]]</ref>

 {{ContrinbutorsContributors}}