What Is the Supreme Court and How Powerful Has It Become?

The Supreme Court of the United States has become the most consequential policymaking institution in American government — not because it was designed that way, but because the elected branches have consistently failed to do their jobs.

When Congress cannot legislate, courts fill the vacuum. When the president pushes the limits of executive authority, courts draw the lines. When society disagrees about fundamental values, the court is called to decide.

In 2022-2024, the court's 6-3 conservative supermajority made this power explicit in a sequence of decisions that reshaped American law in ways that would have required decades of congressional action to achieve.

The 6-3 Court: How It Got Here

The current court's composition reflects three key moments:

Justice Scalia's death and the Merrick Garland blockade (2016): When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to hold hearings on President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, for nearly a year — until after the 2016 election. This was an unprecedented departure from Senate norms. Trump won the 2016 election and nominated Neil Gorsuch to the seat.

Brett Kavanaugh's contentious confirmation (2018): Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court's swing vote. His confirmation process included sexual misconduct allegations by Christine Blasey Ford, a contentious hearing, and ultimately a narrow confirmation.

Amy Coney Barrett's rushed confirmation (2020): Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died 46 days before the 2020 election. McConnell, having blocked Garland's nomination for nearly a year citing the election being too close, moved immediately to confirm Barrett — in direct contradiction to the stated principle used to justify blocking Garland. Barrett was confirmed in October 2020, eight days before the election.

The result: a 6-3 conservative supermajority that can produce conservative outcomes even if the three most moderate conservatives (Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) occasionally break with the others.

The Decision Cascade: 2022-2024

Dobbs (2022): Reversed Roe v. Wade. Eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion. Returned the issue to states. The most significant reversal of constitutional precedent since Brown v. Board of Education reversed Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954.

Bruen (2022): Expanded Second Amendment rights. Created a new "history and tradition" test that has led lower courts to strike down multiple gun regulations.

Students for Fair Admissions (2023): Ended race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities. Overruled Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), which had permitted limited consideration of race in admissions.

Biden v. Nebraska (2023): Blocked the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan. Applied the "major questions doctrine" — requiring explicit congressional authorization for agency actions of major economic significance — in a way that significantly limits executive regulatory authority.

Loper Bright (2024): Overruled Chevron v. NRDC (1984), which had required courts to defer to agencies' reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Now courts decide statutory meaning for themselves. This has significant implications for every federal agency and every regulation based on agency interpretation.

Trump v. United States (2024): Held that former presidents have presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. The extent of this immunity is to be determined in further proceedings, but the ruling has practical effect of shielding many presidential actions from criminal accountability.

The Ethics Problem

The Supreme Court's institutional legitimacy depends on public trust. That trust has declined sharply.

ProPublica reporting revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas received undisclosed gifts, luxury travel, real estate transactions, and tuition payments for family members from Harlan Crow, a wealthy Texas Republican donor, over more than two decades. The estimated total value runs into the millions.

Justice Samuel Alito received luxury fishing trips from Paul Singer, a hedge fund manager whose interests had cases before the Court.

Unlike lower federal court judges, Supreme Court justices are not bound by the Code of Conduct for US Judges. The court has historically regulated itself through voluntary compliance with norms. Whether those norms have been followed is now seriously contested.

Congress passed a Supreme Court ethics bill requiring disclosure of gifts. Critics across the political spectrum argued it lacked genuine enforcement mechanisms.

What Reform Would Look Like

Term limits (18 years): Would apply to future justices, producing a vacancy every two years and eliminating the strategic importance of deaths and retirements. Has broad bipartisan public support. Requires either a constitutional amendment (difficult) or statutory change (which some argue is unconstitutional).

Expanding the court: Democrats have proposed adding 4 seats to create a 13-member court. Critics call it "packing." Supporters note Republicans effectively shifted the court through Garland's blockade and Barrett's rushed confirmation. Requires only an act of Congress. Has not had majority support in the Senate.

Jurisdiction stripping: Congress can limit what cases the Supreme Court can hear. Historically used; rarely invoked in modern era. Could theoretically remove specific categories of cases from Supreme Court review.

All of these require political will that currently doesn't exist. The court's power, for now, remains unchecked by the branches that have the tools to check it.