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 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>

The most influential figure in the early Supreme Court was justice John Marshal (1801-1835. This was the period when the concept of judicial review became an established precedent that has influenced subsequent acts by the court Court to review legislation as they come up. The Arguably, the Supreme Court developed more into something more similar to its modern form during the Marshal years. For instance, the concept of a review of Constitutional issues became fully established by this time and many practices, including issuing a single majority opinion by the Court, became established during this time. One influential case was the impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase. He was accused of partisan bias and the case that involved his impeachment influenced and shaped the idea that the Supreme Court is must be kept an independent part of the government. In effect, the Court attempted to make a more complete break from partisan politics and established a precedent to be an independent reviewer of legislation and judgment of following the laws of the United States. <ref>For more on the Marshal Court, see: Brookhiser, R. (2018). <i>John Marshall: the man who made the Supreme Court</i>. New York: Basic Books.</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 would thus not only helped prevent a repeat of The <i>Dred Scott v Sandfor</i> case and but it became established as legal precedent under the Chief Justice Waite and Fuller courts in the late 19th centurythrough 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>

The in During the earliest years of the 20th century, the boundaries of free speech and the 1st Amendment were not well established 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 further individuals' rights from states or organizations that infringed on those rightssuch 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. The court Perhaps the most controversial was instrumental in upholding the Court's decision that upheld the government's power to intern Japanese-American citizensduring 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 WarrenThe court, Chief Justice from 1953-1969arguably, led perhaps took a more conservative turn in the 1970s under the most influential period that enhanced a series of civil libertiesBurger Court, which existed until 1986. One Nevertheless, one of the most famous landmark cases was , <i> Brown Roe v. Board of EducationWade</i> which began the long process of desegregation in public schools protected individuals' rights to abortion and prevented states from creating restrictive laws against abortion access and influenced desegregation upheld affirmative action in general across the United States. Additionally, <i>Reynolds University of California v. Sims Bakke</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 It still remains one of the legislative process, which in most polarizing decisions by the South had led to restrictive laws against African AmericansSupreme Court. AlsoThe Court, however, the role of religion struck down earlier cases that limited campaign finance in schools was severely limited by the case of <i>Engel Buckley v. VitaleValeo</i>. Another landmark case was <i>Gideon v. Wainwright</i>The Rehnquist Court, which required, under the 6th Amendmentfrom 1986-2005, states appoint an attorney for defendants in criminal cases. The Miranda generally upheld individual rights, which are given in police cases, were also a result of the such as <i>Miranda Lawrence v. ArizonaTexas</i> casethat struck down Texas's sodomy law.

The court, arguably, took a more conservative turn most controversial decision was its involvement in the 1970s under 2000 election in <i> Bush v. Gore</i> that ended the recount of the Burger election. The court, that existed until 1986. Neverthelessunder Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the most landmark casesis seen as generally being conservative, but key decisions such as <i>Roe United States v. WadeWindsor</i> protected individuals' rights led to abortion the decision that part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) legislation was unconstitutional and prevented states from creating restrictive laws against abortion access gay and upheld affirmative action lesbian couples cannot be discriminated on in relation to benefits and rights in cases where they are married.<iref>University of California vFor more on Burger and the later courts, see: Greenhouse, L. (2012). Bakke</i>The U.S. It, however, struck down earlier cases that limited campaign finance in Supreme Court: a very short introduction</i>Buckley v. ValeoNew York: Oxford University Press. </iref>.  The Rehnquist main controversies today in the Supreme Court, interestingly, are not different from 1986-2005one of the first impeachments in the United States, generally upheld individual rightswhich had to do with a Justice being perceived as being politically influenced. There are clear and well documents cases where the Justices were not impartial, such as in the Dredd Scott case. However, the topic itself remains contentious and the recent appointment of Brett Kavanaugh 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 in its history. <iref>Lawrence vFor more on the partial leanings of the Court, see: Baum, L. (2017). Texas</i> that struck down Texas' sodomy law. The most controversial decision was its involvement Ideology in the 2000 election in Supreme Court</i> Bush v. GoreNew Jersey: Princeton University Press.</iref> that ended the recount of the election.