A Synopsis of Each Era of the Supreme Court

Today we will be going back in time and exploring each era of the Supreme Court, and examining major cases that each era dealt with. It is important to see how the courts opinion has shifted and changed over the years in preparation for major cases that the court will be settling soon, such as the upcoming case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth Courts

During the tenure of each of these Chief Justices, the court dealt mostly with rules and procedures concerning the court, and establishing basic precedents, such as the ability for citizens to hold multiple forms of citizenship in Talbot v. Janson under Rutledge. These courts also ruled over multiple small cases involving judicial review, including West v. Barnes, Chisholm v. Georgia, and Hylton v. United States. This era of the Supreme Court had no landmark cases decided in it, only missing the famous Marbury v. Madison by 2 years. This particular era should be best known as the foundation era, where the court had to solidify what the rules and terms of Article III are. One major event dealt with by this era of the court was its slow abandonment of seriatim opinion writing in favor of per curiam opinions, since Chief Justice Ellsworth did not prefer this style of court writing (However, Justice Marshall would fully implement this style). This style of writing is still being used today by the Supreme Court.

The Marshall Court

Justice John Marshall’s time as chief justice on the court dealt with over 1,100 decisions in the span of 34 years. His time leading the court lead to the writing style of per curiam becoming adopted, expanded the power of the federal government, and decided the important cases of Marbury v. Madison (which firmly solidified the court’s power of judicial review), McCulloch v. Maryland (affirmed implied powers of the federal government and federal supremacy over the states), Fletcher v. Peck (the first time the court ruled that a state law was unconstitutional), and Gibbons v. Ogden (ruled that only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce). The legacy in the court left behind by Marshall is perfectly summed up by one of his associate justices, Justice Story: “Whoever succeeds Marshall will have a most painful and discouraging duty. He will follow a man who cannot be equalled…”

The Taney Court

What the Taney Court is most well known for is its decision in the case Dred Scott v. Sanford. This case is regarded by most as one of the worst decisions ever made in the Supreme Court's history, and is still hotly debated by scholars today. The Dred Scott case held that the federal government had no authority to stop the spread of slavery into territories of the US, stating that, " [negros] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” Nonetheless, the Taney Court still made other decisions in its time. Another infamous decision involving slaves was Prigg v. Pennsylvania, where the court held that if a slave in one state is to escape into another state, then the state hosting the slave may not bar the slave owner from recollecting his slave. These cases, and others made by the Taney Court, made them very politically unpopular and frustrated abolitionists. However, the Taney Court was more in favor of federal and judicial restraint than its predecessor. In Luther v. Borden, the Taney Court held, in a case of a local political dispute over immunity of property destruction, that, "the powers given to the courts by the Constitution are judicial powers and extend to those subject, only, which are judicial in character, and not to those which are political.”

The Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts

The court under Chase immediately saw changes from the opinions and procedures of its predecessor. Unlike Justice Taney, Chase was against slavery, and he allowed the first African-American attorney to argue in the Supreme Court. Chase’s legacy consists of mostly large Civil War related cases, such as Texas v. White (which dealt with unionism and the possible ability for states to revolt), Hepburn v. Griswold (declared that the Legal Tender Act of 1862 was unconstitutional), and presiding over the impeachment of trial of former president Andrew Johnson. Justice Waite would be next in this era, spurring a very productive court, with over 3,470 cases being decided in under 14 years. Under Waite, the US experienced a shift once more in the role of the federal government in its society, and court decisions of racial discrimination. In Munn v. Illinois, Waite stated that, “...the government regulates the conduct of its citizens one towards another, and the manner in which each shall use his own property, when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good.”  Lastly, Justice Fuller’s time on the court decided one of the most well known cases in judicial and civil rights history: Plessy v. Ferguson. His court also ruled on United States v. E. C. Knight Co. (found that sugar refining operations in one state were not subject to current antitrust laws), and Gonzales v. Williams (declared that Puerto Ricans are not aliens). Fuller’s court was a continuation of limitations on governmental policies, the beginning of antitrust litigation, and planting the seed for roughly under a century’s worth of civil rights cases.

The White and Taft Courts

This era of the court can be mostly summarized with two words: labor regulations. The early 1900’s were a keystone in American work standards, and the court had a load of cases on said work standards. One notable labor law case is Wilson v. New, where the constitutionality of the Adamson Act, a law which mandated a maximum of 8 hours per day for railroad workers work, was sustained. Another important cases decided under White was Guinn v. United States, where “grandfather clauses” under both Oklahoma and Maryland laws were nullified under the basis that these laws were,  "repugnant to the Fifteenth Amendment and therefore null and void." The White Court also upheld the Selective Service Act of 1917, in response to WW1. The Taft Court also had its fair share of labor regulatory cases. In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., the court, in an 8-1 decision, struck down a tax created by Congress to end child labor, upholding the same opinion on the matter as the White Court. The Taft court was very much in favor of limiting congressional and federal regulatory power in labor and commerce. One such example of this is Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, where the court struck down a law creating a minimum wage for women in D.C. Another very important decision made in the Taft Court was a case involving individual rights. The Taft Court held in the case Gitlow v. New York, that the Bill of Rights extends to state governments, and is not solely meant for the federal government. This was the first large example of the “incorporation doctrine” of the Bill of Rights.

The Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts

Under Justice Hughes, tensions in the court were starting to grow stronger, as there was a large fundamental divide between the conservative majority and the liberal minority. But, this was also a time when the court believed in upholding civil rights for individuals. In Near v. Minnesota, the Hughes Court ruled that prior restraint of the press is unconstitutional as it violates freedom of speech and the press. However, the court was much more divided on economic issues, such as United States v. Butler, where the court barely was able to get Justice Hughes to strike down the Agricultural Adjustment Act as unconstitutional. Around this time, FDR’s court packing scheme was announced and had tried to get passed. This caused some justices on the court to vote and act completely differently than they previously had to try to appease FDR. In addition, 8 of the 9 justices from 1937-1943 had resigned, giving the president the ability to pack the court full of pro-New Deal justices. The court even went as far as reversing their decision in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital. After Hughes stepped down, Justice Stone was made the chief justice of the court. Stone only served for 5 years, and only ruled on 2 major cases, and one landmark case. Ex parte Quirin was the first major case Stone ruled on as chief justice that allowed Nazi saboteurs to be tried in military tribunals. His second major case would be International Shoe Co. v. Washington, where the court ruled that corporations are subject to a state's jurisdiction if it is to have minimum contact with said state. When Justice Stone passed away, Justice Vinson took over as the leader of the court. During his tenure as chief justice, his court ruled on a variety of cases. Two important civil rights cases were McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, and Sweatt v. Painter. These both dealt with the “separate but equal" doctrine and both ruled that facilities must be kept truly equal. An important economic case Vinson ruled over was Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where the court halted then-president Harry Truman’s steel industry seizure.

The Warren Court

The Warren Court turned out to be a much more socially liberal court than anyone had expected, causing a major shift in the court's previous views on certain social issues, and how the public's opinion changed on these issues. In its most notable case, Brown v. Board of Education, the Warren Court laid an extremely large precedent for discriminatory intolerance, and public opinion on civil rights. Once the court had ordered schools to be desegregated, even though the court's precedent contradicted this decision, the public and officials started focusing more on civil rights issues, which paved the way for true legal and social equality. Among other cases decided by the Warren Court, Gideon v. Wainwright (establishing that all criminal defendants are entitled to public counsel) was one of the most important cases in the Supreme Court’s history, even in its simplicity and obviousness. The Warren Court also ruled over Miranda v. Arizona, which ruled that when under arrest, people have a right to have their criminal rights read and explained to them, and it established the term “Miranda Rights".

The Burger Court

When Justice Burger entered the court, many believed that he would go and reverse many of the Warren Era decisions as a conservative, but to everyone's surprise, Burger expanded upon many of Warren’s decisions and idea. One of the Burger court's first cases, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, was an attempt to further desegregate schools and help out black families. The Burger court also helped keep individual rights, such as the 4th amendment, from being infringed on in United States v. District of Columbia. The Burger court also voided every death penalty law in Furman v. Georgia and then reinstate said laws only 4 years later in Gregg v. Georgia. But the most popular case from this court is Roe v. Wade, as it is one of the most controversial decisions ever made by the court, still being debated by legal scholars, politicians, and civilians 44 years later. The court ruled over the age long debate of abortion and ruled that it was legal and couldn’t be denied. As the Burger Court made civil rights progress and work, they also were enthusiasts of checks and balances, as seen in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha when they ruled legislative veto's are unconstitutional, stating, "Because the action of the House of Representatives was legislative, but did not conform to the mode of action specifically stated by the Constitution for legislative action; it is therefore invalid, unenforceable, and not binding."

The Rehnquist Court

The Rehnquist Court was one of the first courts in some time to be more conservative oriented, and it was most notable for Bush v. Gore (the case that helped settle the 2000 election), the impeachment trial of former president Bill Clinton, and United States v. Lopez (ruled that a federal gun free zone law had little impact on interstate commerce, therefore it was unconstitutional). During the time of Rehnquist, the court ruled against federal expansions in areas like commerce and welfare for the first time since before the late 1930’s. The Rehnquist Court also reaffirmed abortion rights in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, but Rehnquist himself was angered at this decision and Roe v. Wade. He sought to convince his fellow justices that stare decisis does not apply to cases that were wrongly decided, and that Roe v. Wade should be overruled. Rehnquist himself continuously tried to push for more democratic and federalist court rulings, like in Romer v. Evans (ruled on the constitutionality of a Colorado state amendment dealing with homosexual discrimination), where he dissented and said that, “it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means.”

The Roberts Court

The first major case heard by the Roberts Court was Gonzales v. Oregon, where the court held that the US Attorney General can not prohibit physicians from prescribing drugs to assisted suicide patients. The most popular case decided by the Roberts Court, however, was Obergefell v. Hodges, which decided that marriage, even for gay couples, is a fundamental right, and that no person can be barred from it. Another major case decided under Roberts was Morse v. Frederick, in which the court said that a student advocating drug use at a school sponsored event did not have the right to do so. The Roberts Court also got tangled in the legal healthcare manifest known as The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Roberts Court upheld the Obamacare individual mandate, stating that it was a tax and not a penalty. The Roberts Court can best be known as an era of judicial history in which federal power was greatly expanded, alongside major cases dealing with individual liberty. This particular era has and will greatly affect the political climate of the United States, and how we as a society face new political challenges. Justice Roberts is still relatively young, and still the chief justice of the court, so we have quite a long road left to walk with his court. We also will likely see the retirement of justices Kennedy and Ginsburg in the near future, meaning that court opinion could soon change drastically...