Supreme Court of the United States
From LawGuru Wiki
The court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Appointed to serve for life, they can be removed only by resignation, or by impeachment and subsequent conviction. The only Justice ever impeached, Samuel Chase, was not removed from office because he was acquitted by the Senate.
- The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The Supreme Court holds both original and appellate jurisdiction, with its appellate jurisdiction accounting for most of the Court's caseload. The court's original jurisdiction is narrowly focused, as defined in Article III, Section 2 ("In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction"). The court's appellate jurisdiction encompasses "all other cases" within the scope of Article III, but is subject to limitation by acts of Congress and by the discretion of the Court.
The Supreme Court meets in Washington, D.C., in the United States Supreme Court building. The Court is sometimes referred to by the abbreviations SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and USSC (United States Supreme Court). The Court's yearly terms start on the first Monday in October and finish sometime during the following June or July. Each term consists of alternating two week intervals. During the first interval, the court is in session ('sitting') and hears cases, and during the second interval, the court is recessed to consider and write opinions on cases they have heard.
The History of the Supreme Court is generally told in terms of the Chief Justices who have presided over it.
That changed forever during the Marshall Court (1801–1835), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison), and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the Constitutional balance of power between the Federal government (referred to at the time as the "general" government) and the states. But Martin v. Hunter's Lessee showed the limits of that federal power—although the U.S. High Court declared itself supreme over the Virginia state court, it had a difficult time enforcing its judgment in a hostile state. The Marshall Court ended the practice of each judge issuing his opinion seriatim, a remnant of British tradition, and instead one majority opinion of the Court was issued. The Marshall Court also saw Congress impeach a sitting Justice, Samuel Chase, who was acquitted. This impeachment was one piece of the power struggle between the Jeffersonians and the Federalists after the election of 1800 and the subsequent change in power. The failure to remove Chase is thought to signal the recognition by Congress of judicial independence.
The Taney Court (1836–1864) made a number of important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, the Constitution does not so restrain it where lower courts are concerned. However, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, the case which may have helped precipitate the United States Civil War. In the years following the Civil War, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new civil war amendments to the Constitution, and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States). Under the White and Taft courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital), and the Court held that the 14th Amendment applied some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states (Gitlow v. New York).
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation (see United States Supreme Court building) and radically changed its interpretation of the Constitution in order to facilitate the New Deal (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish), giving an expansive reading to the powers of the Federal Government. The Warren Court (1953–1969) made a number of alternately celebrated and controversial rulings expanding the application of the Constitution to civil liberties, leading a renaissance in substantive due process. It held that segregation was unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education), that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), that schools cannot have voluntary prayer (Engel v. Vitale) or, a fortiori, mandatory Bible readings (Abington School District v. Schempp), dramatically increased the scope of the doctrine of incorporation (Mapp v. Ohio; Miranda v. Arizona), read an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment (Bolling v. Sharpe), held that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned (Reynolds v. Sims), and held that the Constitution requires active compliance (Gideon v. Wainwright).
The Burger Court (1969–1986) ruled that abortion was a constitutional right (Roe v. Wade), reached muddled and controversial rulings on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and that the death penalty was unconstitutional (Furman v. Georgia) and then later that it was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) narrowed the focus of the private right of action, the right of labor unions to picket (Lechmere Inc. v. NLRB) and of Roe v. Wade (Planned Parenthood v. Casey) but dramatically circumscribed the ability of states to regulate abortion (Stenberg v. Carhart), gave sweeping meaning to ERISA pre-emption (Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Egelhoff v. Egelhoff) thereby denying plaintiffs access to state court with the consequence of limiting compensation for tort like harm to medical patients covered by employer plans to very circumscribed remedies (Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, CIGNA Healthcare of Texas Inc. v. Calad) and began an instauration of federalism, limiting the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause (United States v. Lopez; United States v. Morrison).
Size of the court
The United States Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court; instead, Congress has the power to fix the number of Justices. Originally, the total number of Justices was set at six by the Judiciary Act of 1789. As the country grew geographically, the number of Justices steadily increased. The court was expanded to seven members in 1807, nine in 1837 and ten in 1863. In 1866, however, Congress wished to deny President Andrew Johnson any Supreme Court appointments, and therefore passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which provided that the next three Justices to retire would not be replaced; thus, the size of the Court would eventually reach seven by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. By the Circuit Judges Act of 1869, the number of Justices was again set at nine (the Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices), where it has remained ever since. President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. The plan failed in Congress and the court changed course (see the switch in time that saved nine). In any case, Roosevelt's long tenure in the White House allowed him to appoint a large number of Justices.
Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices
Per Article II of the United States Constitution, the power to appoint Justices belongs to the President of the United States, acting with the advice and consent of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. However, nominees whose views are perceived as extreme may be blocked by the Senate (see List of Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made"<ref name="purdum">Template:Cite news</ref>.
While the President may nominate anyone (there are no qualifications listed in the Constitution regarding prior legal or judicial experience, nor are there any exclusions of foreign-born nominees), the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for appointment. The confirmation process often attracts considerable attention from special interest groups, many of whom lobby senators to confirm or to reject. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence Thomas's nomination was hampered by allegations of sexual harassment, but the Senate eventually confirmed him by a vote of 52-48.
Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. For example, a nominee may be filibustered. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs debate thereby preventing a final vote on the nominee. It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's name at any time before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination before even a committee hearing had been scheduled, citing her concerns about Senate requests for access to internal White House documents during the confirmation process. Prior to that, President Ronald Reagan in 1987 withdrew the name of Douglas H. Ginsburg soon after the announcement of his nomination because allegations of marijuana use had arisen concerning him.
While the filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee may be an option to bar their confirmation, no nominee for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. As a sitting Associate Justice of the Court, Abe Fortas's nomination to become Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. President Johnson had nominated him to be Chief Justice of the United States after Earl Warren retired.
Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently quick. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved in a month. From the Reagan administration through the current administration of George W. Bush, however, the process took much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasing political role Justices play.
When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, approximately two years). To continue to serve thereafter, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a full term.
The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life. However, Justices may resign, retire into senior status, or be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy arose for the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994 and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death in 2005.
The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is often evaluated with respect to the service of a particular Chief Justice. Thus, for example, the Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (for Chief Justice William Rehnquist).
Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each Justice was required to "ride circuit," or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice, however, encountered opposition from many Justices, who complained about the difficulty of travel. Moreover, several individuals opposed it on the grounds that a Justice could not be expected to be impartial in an appeal if she had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891. Now, the duty of a Supreme Court Justice in this regard is generally limited to hearing emergency petitions in the relevant circuit and some other routine tasks like addressing certain requests for extensions of time. The Justice assigned to a given circuit is known within that circuit as "the Circuit Justice" and may, but in practice almost never does, sit as a judge of that circuit. A Circuit Justice takes precedence over the Chief Judge of the circuit when a Justice decides to sit.
The Chief Justice is usually assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Federal Circuit and the Fourth Circuit (which surrounds the District of Columbia); each Associate Justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.
After Associate Justice Alito's appointment, circuits were assigned as follows:
- For the D.C. Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.
- For the First Circuit, David H. Souter
- For the Second Circuit, Ruth Bader Ginsburg
- For the Third Circuit, David H. Souter
- For the Fourth Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.
- For the Fifth Circuit, Antonin G. Scalia
- For the Sixth Circuit, John Paul Stevens
- For the Seventh Circuit, John Paul Stevens
- For the Eighth Circuit, Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
- For the Ninth Circuit, Anthony M. Kennedy
- For the Tenth Circuit, Stephen G. Breyer
- For the Eleventh Circuit, Clarence Thomas
- For the Federal Circuit, John G. Roberts, Jr.
The circuit assignments frequently, but do not always and need not, reflect the geographic regions where the assigned Justices served as judges or practitioners before joining the Supreme Court. Four of the current Justices are assigned to circuits on which they once sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Souter (First Circuit), Justice Stevens (Seventh Circuit), and Justice Kennedy (Ninth Circuit). Furthermore, Justices Thomas and Ginsburg are assigned to the circuits that include their home states (the Eleventh and Second Circuits, respectively).
The current Justices of the United States Supreme Court, in order of seniority, are:
As of 2006, the average age is 66 years.
Currently, there is only one retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, who announced her intent to retire in 2005 and actually retired in 2006 when Justice Alito was confirmed for her seat.
Seniority and seating
During Court sessions, the Justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right when looking at the bench from the perspective of a lawyer arguing before the Court:
Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy, Stevens (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg and Alito (most junior Associate Justice).
Although seven justices were appointed by Republican presidents and only two by Democratic presidents, the most common characterizations tend to portray the composition as being balanced, whether it is or is not.Template:Fact Popularly, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are generally thought of as the Court's conservative wing, Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing, and Justice Kennedy is considered a moderate conservative, and a swing vote who can determine the outcome of close cases.
Template:Main The Supreme Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home at One First Street Northeast, Washington, DC. The four-story building was designed in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol complex and Library of Congress by architect Cass Gilbert, and is clad in marble quarried chiefly in Vermont. The building includes space for the Courtroom, Justices' chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services such as workshop, stores, cafeteria and a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force, separate from the Capitol Police.
Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment, which forbade the federal courts from hearing cases "commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." However, the Eleventh Amendment is not deemed to apply if a state consents to be sued (see Sovereign immunity). Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may abrogate the states' immunity from lawsuits in certain circumstances. In addition to constitutional constraints, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is also limited by various federal laws. For example, the federal courts may consider "Controversies ... between Citizens of different States" only if the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; otherwise, the case may only be brought in state courts. Template:Further
The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.
The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court's history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are a variety of devices that permit so-called "collateral review" of state cases.
The Supreme Court may only hear actual cases and controversies. It does not hear moot cases or issue advisory opinions. However, the Court may consider some cases, such as Roe v. Wade, that become moot during the judicial process, if it appears that the legal issue involved is likely to arise again but would not be reviewable by the Court under a strict mootness analysis. "Roe" had already had her baby when the case came to the Supreme Court, because judicial activity (trials, appeals and so on) takes much longer than human gestation. Because future abortion cases would face the same time constraints, the Court decided the case in spite of its mootness.
The Supreme Court is not required to hear every case presented to it. In cases that are heard by a three-judge United States district court (a practice that formerly was somewhat common but has been limited to very few cases by legislation in recent years), there is a right of appeal directly to the Supreme Court, although the Court may dispose of these appeals by summary order if it does not believe they are important enough for full briefing and argument. In most instances, however, the party must petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. By custom, certiorari is granted on the vote of four of the nine Justices. In most cases, the writ is denied; the Supreme Court normally only considers matters of national or constitutional importance. If the Court refuses to grant certiorari, it does not comment on the merits of the case; the decision of the lower court stands unchanged as if Supreme Court review had not been requested.
Court reports and citation style
Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. There are two other widely-used reporters: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyer's Edition, corresponding to two privately-published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S.Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyer's Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use parallel citation -- the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyer's Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906).
Checks and balances
The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances.
The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"; however, this quotation is likely apocryphal. State militia in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling.
The Constitution provides that the salary of a Justice may not be diminished during his or her continuance in office. This clause was intended to prevent Congress from punishing Justices for their decisions by reducing their emoluments. Together with the provision that Justices hold office for life, this clause helps guarantee judicial independence. However, as seen above, the President's practice of appointing justices with similar real, perceived or expected ideology can be seen to compromise judicial independence.
- History of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Lists of Supreme Court cases:
- List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Federal government of the United States
- United States Supreme Court building
- case citation
- Judicial interpretation
- Legal research
- Northside Independent School District, a school district near San Antonio, Texas which has named all its high schools after former Justices
- American Bar Association. (2002). "The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How it Works."
- Joan Biskupic and Elder Witt. (1997). Congressional Quarterly’s Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press.
- The Constitution of the United States.
- Kermit Hall, et al. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Harvard Law Review Assn., The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (17th Ed. 2000).
- Peter Irons. (2000). A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.
- Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S.Ct. 338, 50 L.Ed. 497 (1906).
- William Rehnquist (1987). The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf.
- The Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (2005 ed.) (pdf).
- Catherine Hetos Skifos. The Supreme Court Gets a Home
- Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944).
- Charles Warren. (1924). The Supreme Court in United States History. (3 volumes). Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
- Bob Woodward, and Scot Armstrong. (1979). The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. New York: Simon & Schuster.
- The Supreme Court of the United States
- The Court Building
- Garner, Bryan A. Black's Law Dictionary. Deluxe 8th ed. West, 2004. ISBN 0314151990.
- Irons, Peter and Howard Zinn. A People's History of the Supreme Court. New York: Viking, 1999. ISBN 0670870064.
- Rehnquist, William H. The Supreme Court. New York: Knopf, 2001. ISBN 0375409432.
- Urofsky, Melvin and Paul Finkelman. A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. New York: Oxford, 2001. ISBN 0195126378 & ISBN 0195126351.
- Supreme Court of the United States. Official Homepage.
- The Supreme Court Historical Society. Official Homepage.
- Legal Information Institute Supreme Court Collection.
- FindLaw Supreme Court Opinions.
- VLEX Supreme Court Decisions
- Oyez Project Supreme Court Multimedia.
- U.S. Supreme Court Decisions (v. 1+) Justia, Oyez and U.S. Court Forms.
- History of the U.S. Supreme Court website sponsored by New York Life Insurance Company
- Milestone Cases in Supreme Court History.
- Supreme Court Justices.
- Teaching about the United States Supreme Court. ERIC Digest.
- Teaching about Landmark Dissents in United States Supreme Court Cases. ERIC Digest.
- Teaching the Law Using United States Supreme Court Cases. ERIC Digest.
- The Unidimensional Supreme Court.
- Supreme Court Zeitgeist.
- A Roman Catholic Supreme Court Majority
Template:Start U.S. Supreme Court composition Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition court lifespan Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2005-2006 Template:U.S. Supreme Court composition 2006-present Template:End U.S. Supreme Court composition Template:Featured article
Template:USJudiciaries Template:Law of the United States Template:Link FAaf:Hooggeregshof van die VSA de:Oberster Gerichtshof der Vereinigten Staaten es:Suprema Corte de los Estados Unidos eo:Usona Suverena Kortumo fr:Cour suprême des États-Unis d'Amérique it:Corte Suprema degli Stati Uniti he:בית המשפט העליון של ארצות הברית hi:सुप्रीम कोर्ट nl:Hooggerechtshof (VS) ja:アメリカ合衆国最高裁判所 no:Supreme Court of the United States pl:Sąd Najwyższy Stanów Zjednoczonych pt:Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos da América ro:Curtea Supremă de Justiţie a Statelor Unite ale Americii ru:Верховный суд США fi:Yhdysvaltain korkein oikeus simple:Supreme Court of the United States sv:USA:s högsta domstol vi:Tối Cao Pháp Viện Hoa Kỳ chr:United States Supreme Court zh:美国最高法院