Supreme Court

As they narrow the number of cases on the “Discuss List,” the justices use several standards to determine whether or not a case is “justiciable.” First and foremost, the Court must decide if it has jurisdiction in a case. If it does not, it will not hear the case. The Court has heard less than two hundred original jurisdiction cases in its entire history. The Court will also generally refuse to rule on “political questions,” cases that it believes are better addressed through the regular political process by other branches of government. Cases in which no real controversy or dispute exists will also be rejected by the Court — it will not address hypothetical questions. Similarly, the person or persons who bring cases before the Court must have “standing.” They must be able to show that they have sustained “injury in fact,” that is, that they have been harmed in some real way. An individual who knows someone who is wrongfully imprisoned does not have standing to sue for his or her release; only the imprisoned individual would have standing.

As noted, the Court did not play a significant role in interpreting and applying the Constitution in its first several years of existence. In fact, it was not until 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, that the Court declared an act of Congress “unconstitutional.”

Since that time, the Court has gone through periods in which it was very “active,” declaring dozens of congressional enactments invalid. During the time that Chief Justices Earl Warren (1953– 1969) and Warren Burger (1969–1986) sat on the Court, fifty-nine laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president were declared unconstitutional and, therefore, not laws at all.