Shane Pappas

AP Government
April 26, 2011
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is a branch of government that may sometimes often get overlooked.
It holds the responsibility of interpreting laws and court cases. The Supreme Court sets precedent
on many controversial issues and has immense responsibility. The Supreme Court is a very
crucial part of our government and has a very rich history.
Other than establishing it, Article III of the U.S. Constitution spells out neither the
specific duties, powers, nor organization of the Supreme Court. "The 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." Instead, the Constitution left it to Congress and to
the Justices of the Court itself to develop the authorities and operations of the entire Judicial
Branch of government. The very first bill introduced in the United States Senate was the
Judiciary Act of 1789. It divided the country in 13 judicial districts, which were further organized
into the Eastern, Middle, and Southern "circuits." The 1789 Act called for the Supreme Court to
consist of a Chief Justice and only five Associate Justices, and for the Court to meet, or "sit" in
the Nation's Capital. For the first 101 years of its service, Supreme Court Justices were required
to "ride circuit," holding court twice a year in each of the 13 judicial districts. The Act also
created the position of U.S. Attorney General and assigned the power to nominate Supreme
Court justices to the President of the United States with the approval of the Senate.

Lacking any specific direction from the Constitution, the new U.S. Judiciary spent its first
decade as the weakest of the three branches of government. Early federal courts failed to issue
strong opinions or even take on controversial cases. The Supreme Court was not even sure if it
had the power to consider the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This situation
changed drastically in 1801 when President John Adams appointed John Marshall of Virginia to
be the fourth Chief Justice. Confident that nobody would tell him not to, Marshall took clear and
firm steps to define the role and powers of both the Supreme Court and the judiciary system. The
Supreme Court, under John Marshall, defined itself with its historic 1803 decision in the case of
Marbury v. Madison. In this single landmark case, the Supreme Court established its power to
interpret the U.S. Constitution and to determine the constitutionality of laws passed by congress
and the state legislatures.
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court needs to be a person that can bring together a
group of people to one decision. Historically, a rare few Justices have been able to use their
extraordinary political skills to build bridges and meaningfully influence the court's direction.
The most notable example is Earl Warren, who was able to convince restless colleagues to unite
behind his unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education overturning the doctrine of
separate but equal and declaring segregated public schools unconstitutional. William Brennan,
Warren's top lieutenant, also used his clever diplomatic skills to help guide the court through
some very difficult moments, as when he forged unanimity behind the decision forcing President
Richard Nixon to turn over the White House tape recordings that would ultimately lead to
Nixon's resignation.
But the impact of interpersonal or political skills is overstated. Chief Justice John Roberts
entered with high expectations that his much-admired interpersonal skills would create greater

cohesiveness at the court. He even set this as a goal. But the ideological differences on the high
bench are too big to be linked by personality. The Roberts Court has split predictably 5-4 on
almost all the hot-button issues. And Roberts himself has become more hard-edged and divisive,
as his views on issues of race and executive power have clashed repeatedly with those of the
court's liberal wing.
Many people do not realize that the Supreme Court uses court cases to set precedent for
any future debates on a topic. They interpret a case and then issue a decision and that decision is
then applied to voting rights, civil rights, womens rights, free speech, or any other subject up for
debate. Here are some of the most influential cases:
Craig v. Boren: was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme
Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an
intermediate standard of judicial review. Oklahoma passed a statute prohibiting the sale of
"nonintoxicating" 3.2 percent beer to males under the age of 21, but allowed females over the
age of 18 to purchase it. The statute was challenged as Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection violation by Curtis Craig, a male who was over 18 but under 21, and by an Oklahoma
vendor of alcohol. The Court held that the gender classifications made by the Oklahoma statute
were unconstitutional because the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a
substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it.
Georgia v. Randol: is a case where in the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search
warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the
search while another resident objects. Husbands estranged wife gave police permission to search
the residence for items of drug use after husband, who was also present, had unequivocally

refused to give consent. The husband was indicted for possession of cocaine, and the trial court
denied his motion to suppress the evidence as products of a warrantless search unauthorized by
consent. In a 5-3 opinion written by Justice David Souter, the Court held a co-resident could
refuse consent to a police search, even if another resident consented.
Berghuis v. Thompkins: is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the
Court considered the position of a suspect who understands his or her right to remain
silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware he or she has the right to remain silent, but does not
explicitly invoke or waive the right. The Court held that unless and until the suspect actually
stated that he was relying on that right, his subsequent voluntary statements could be used in
court and police could continue to interact with (or question) him. On June 1, 2010, by a vote of
5-4, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit's decision. In the Opinion of the Court, written
by Justice Kennedy, the Court ruled that Thompkins' silence during the interrogation did not
invoke his right to remain silent and that he had waived his right to remain silent when he
knowingly and voluntarily made a statement to police.
To me the Supreme Court is one of the most respected branches of our government today
and they continue to rule on controversial topics every year. One of the hardest things to do is
interpret laws and in this ever-changing society it is increasingly difficult. The Supreme Court
has a lot of responsibility and I think they make great decisions most of the time on the subjects
nobody wants to talk about.