The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary and holds immense power in interpreting laws and determining their constitutionality. However, there are a few institutions and mechanisms that sit above the Supreme Court and can override or supersede its decisions.
Congress
Congress has the power to amend the Constitution, which would override Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution. For example, after the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that racial segregation was constitutional under the “separate but equal” doctrine, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to outlaw segregation and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect minority voting rights. These acts superseded the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings.
Constitutional Amendments
Amendments to the Constitution, if ratified by three-fourths of the states, can also override Supreme Court decisions by changing the Constitution itself. The 14th Amendment in 1868 overturned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that slaves were not citizens. More recently, the 26th Amendment in 1971 gave 18-year-olds the right to vote, overriding the Supreme Court’s ruling a year earlier in Oregon v. Mitchell that Congress could not compel states to extend voting rights to 18-year-olds in state and local elections.
Court Packing
Congress can potentially “pack” the Supreme Court by changing the number of justices who sit on the Court. By increasing the number of justices and allowing the current President to appoint new justices, the ideological balance of the Court shifts. While rare, court packing has occurred at key moments in history to override the Court on major issues. For example, after striking down several New Deal laws in 1935-1936, FDR threatened to pack the Court, leading it to uphold subsequent New Deal laws.
Jurisdiction Stripping
Congress can pass laws to limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over certain issues and cases. While the Court retains judicial review over all federal laws, Congress can sometimes curb its power over contentious issues like abortion rights. In the late 1960s, Congress passed laws to strip Court jurisdiction after controversial rulings on topics like the Pledge of Allegiance and student prayer.
Executive Actions
In rare cases, Presidents can issue executive orders or take actions that effectively override Supreme Court decisions. For instance, after the Court ruled tribal lands were not sovereign in Worcester v. Georgia (1832), President Jackson reportedly said “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” and proceeded to ignore it. However, overt defiance of Court rulings by the executive branch undermines the rule of law.
State Nullification
Historically, the idea of “state nullification” declared that states have the power to void federal laws and Supreme Court decisions. While no longer accepted in practice, the idea played a role in the “nullification crisis” of 1832 when South Carolina tried to nullify federal tariffs. The Supreme Court rejected nullification in Ableman v. Booth (1859).
Subsequent Supreme Court Decisions
The Supreme Court can also override its own past decisions by making a new ruling that reverses precedent. Famous examples include Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson on school segregation, and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) on laws banning homosexual conduct.
International Law
Though rare, international treaties and laws endorsed by the U.S. can potentially override Supreme Court decisions. For example, decisions by international human rights bodies are considered persuasive but not formally binding under domestic law. Nonetheless, they indicate evolving norms that the Court may eventually adopt.
Conclusion
While the Supreme Court sits at the apex of the American judiciary, its rulings are not absolute. Congress, constitutional amendments, executive actions, new Supreme Court rulings, and international law provide alternative avenues to override or supersede the Court’s power of judicial review. However, undermining the Court’s legitimacy can be a double-edged sword, so these measures are only used sparingly when the Court significantly diverges from dominant legal and social norms.