Citizens cannot directly overrule decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and has the final say on matters of constitutional interpretation. However, there are a few indirect ways in which citizens can respond to and potentially override Supreme Court decisions over time. These include amending the Constitution, passing new laws, appointing new justices, and utilizing the presidential pardon. While challenging, citizens do have avenues to express disapproval of Supreme Court rulings.
How does the Supreme Court work?
The Supreme Court is composed of nine justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices serve for life unless they resign, retire, or are impeached and removed by Congress. The Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should serve on the court. The number of justices has changed over time, ranging from six to ten. It has been set at nine since 1869.
The Supreme Court acts as the final appellate court for legal disputes that involve questions around the Constitution or federal law. Cases can reach the Supreme Court on appeal from lower courts. The Supreme Court can also take up cases on writ of certiorari, which means the justices choose which appeals to hear each term. The Supreme Court typically agrees to hear cases that have broad public impact or where lower courts disagree on the interpretation of federal law.
Once a case is accepted, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments from both sides. The justices closely question the attorneys and then privately confer and take a preliminary vote. One justice is assigned to write the majority opinion explaining the court’s decision. It takes four votes among the nine justices to accept a case but five votes to render a decision. The justice writing for the majority will aim to get at least five justices to agree with the opinion. Those who disagree can choose to write dissenting opinions.
After reaching a decision, the Supreme Court will issue a written opinion outlining its ruling and legal reasoning. The Constitution established the judiciary as an independent branch of government, so no other branch can overturn Supreme Court decisions. However, the public and government officials can still criticize the Court’s rulings.
How can citizens disagree with the Supreme Court?
While they have no direct way to overturn a Supreme Court decision, there are several avenues citizens can pursue to express disapproval or promote change in response to an unpopular ruling:
Constitutional Amendment
One way to overrule a Supreme Court decision is to amend the Constitution. Article V of the Constitution outlines the amendment process. Amendments can be proposed either by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses or by a Constitutional Convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Ratifying a proposed amendment requires approval from three-fourths of state legislatures or state ratifying conventions.
There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution, including reversals of Supreme Court decisions. For example, the 11th Amendment overturned the Court’s ruling in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) regarding state sovereign immunity. The 16th Amendment authorizing an income tax counteracted the 1895 case of Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. However, getting an amendment through Congress and the states is very difficult, so this approach has succeeded less than 30 times in history.
| Amendment | Supreme Court Case Overturned |
|---|---|
| 11th Amendment | Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) |
| 14th Amendment | Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) |
| 16th Amendment | Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895) |
New Legislation
Another avenue is for Congress to pass new legislation counteracting a Supreme Court decision. For example, after the Court limited the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), Congress considered updating the law’s formula to restore protections thrown out by the Court. Congress can also regulate activity touching on cases indirectly, like approving new campaign finance regulations after the Citizens United ruling allowed unlimited corporate political spending. However, any new laws are still subject to future legal challenges potentially back before the Supreme Court.
Appointing New Justices
The most reliable way to reshape Supreme Court jurisprudence is by appointing new justices. The president nominates justices that must then be confirmed by the Senate. With lifetime tenure, justices can serve for decades and their imprint often long outlasts the presidents who appointed them. For example, presidents Reagan and Bush installed justices who decades later formed the majority decision in Citizens United.
The party controlling the White House and Senate can stock the courts with sympathetic judges over time. Appointing more liberal or conservative successors gradually shifts the Court’s balance on issues. However, there are only nine seats so turnover happens slowly as justices retire or pass away. Additionally, justices do not always rule how presidents expect once on the bench.
Public Opinion and Political Pressure
While not binding, public opinion can sway the Court overtime. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education came about due to changing public attitudes. Justices may hesitate to issue broadly unpopular decisions that undermine their institutional legitimacy. When the Court diverges too far from public consensus, it risks backlash that could enable other branches to assert more control.
Citizens can demonstrate, vote out politicians, or push for judicial reforms in dissent of Supreme Court actions. While isolated protest is unlikely to immediately change Supreme Court courses, justices do not operate in a complete political vacuum. Sustained public pressure and low approval of Court decisions can encourage judicial restraint on some issues going forward.
Presidential Pardons
For criminal cases, the president wields the pardon power to overrule prosecutions and sentences. Presidents can issue pardons or commutations even when convictions have been affirmed by lower federal courts and the Supreme Court. In rare cases, pardon power has been used in response to unpopular Supreme Court holdings.
For example, after the 1918 Debs v. United States decision upholding convictions under the Espionage Act, President Warren Harding later released socialist leader Eugene Debs and other dissenters jailed by the Court’s precedent. However, presidential pardons only apply to federal crimes on a case-by-case basis. They cannot override the Supreme Court’s underlying constitutional interpretations. The pardon power is also subject to political considerations.
Why can’t the Supreme Court be directly overruled?
The Supreme Court was designed as an independent branch of government not directly accountable to public opinion or the other branches. Article III of the Constitution grants federal judges life tenure, subject only to impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Court was made independent to enable impartial judgment upholding the law and Constitution without political interference.
However, the framers feared the Court could become too powerful, so executive and legislative checks were enabled. Presidents nominate and the Senate confirms justices. Congress regulates the Court’s size and jurisdiction. Impeachment by Congress serves as a last resort check. But once judges are appointed, their decisions cannot be directly overturned.
The Court derives its authority from interpreting the Constitution and federal law through binding judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Constitutional supremacy means acts violating the nation’s highest law can be struck down by the judicial branch. This special role requires insulation from direct democratic constraints. Justices do not have to stand for re-election so they can make principled decisions without worrying about popularity.
Of course, Supreme Court justices are not completely immune from public accountability. They can be impeached in extreme circumstances. Presidents and the Senate can reshape the Court through appointments over time. Justices may be mindful of lasting public reaction that could undermine the Court’s credibility. But purposefully, there is no mechanism for citizens, Congress, or the president to immediately veto or alter Supreme Court declarations on matters of legal interpretation.
Examples of controversial Supreme Court decisions
Here are some significant Supreme Court cases that produced widespread public backlash and criticism initially after they were decided:
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
This infamous ruling held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American citizens and had no standing to sue in federal court. The Court also found that Congress could not regulate slavery in federal territories, essentially legalizing it nationwide. The decision heightened tensions over slavery and was a catalyst leading to the Civil War and eventual abolition.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
This case upheld state racial segregation laws for public facilities under the “separate but equal” doctrine. Plessy entrenched legal discrimination that would last over half a century until Brown v. Board of Education reversed course in 1954 following decades of civil rights activism.
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
This WWII case controversially upheld the constitutionality of Japanese internment camps. The Court accepted the violation of Japanese American civil liberties under dubious claims of military necessity. This widely criticized decision was finally overturned in 2018.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Establishing a national right to abortion, Roe remains one of the most divisive Supreme Court cases decades later. Opponents have worked to limit and ultimately overturn Roe through new laws, litigation, and appointments of anti-abortion justices.
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
This recent ruling opened the floodgates to unlimited independent corporate political expenditures based on free speech rights. Citizens United greatly impacted campaign finance regulation and remains unpopular among reform advocates.
DC v. Heller (2008)
Recognizing an individual’s right to gun ownership unconnected with service in a militia, Heller was a landmark Second Amendment case that nullified some firearm restrictions nationwide. It has faced strong opposition from gun control groups.
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court has the final word in legal disputes, citizens have means to express disapproval and promote change in response to controversial decisions. Constitutional amendments, new legislation, presidential appointments, sustained political activism, and public pressure can indirectly move the law in new directions without overruling the Court directly. However, Supreme Court decisions stand as binding unless overturned by the Court itself. By design, the judiciary is insulated from direct democratic overrides so they can neutrally apply the law and Constitution without fear of reprisal. While not absolute, this independence helps strengthen rights that may be unpopular at times but provide enduring legal protections for all.