Key Supreme Court Cases to Know and Understand

When writing any essay on the Supreme Court it is imperative that you make reference to recent cases. Here are three you should know:

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Obergefell v. Hodges saw the Supreme Court determine that states could not deny gay couples the right to marry or refuse to recognise their marriage.

Obergefell was a 5-4 decision, most notable because it rested on the swing justice, Anthony Kennedy, siding with the liberal justices.

Kennedy cited the Due Process Clause, which says that all citizens have the right to life, liberty and property and the Equal Protection Clause which says that all citizens must be treated equally before the law. He made reference to previous cases such as Loving v. Virginia which said that inter-racial marriage was constitutional. He thereby inferred that if the constitution protected the right of inter-racial marriage, it protected the right of same sex marriage also.

The 4 justices in the minority were not impressed. Chief Justice, John Roberts, said that the decision was ‘an act of will and not legal judgement…it has no basis in the Constitution, or this courts precedents’. Roberts is known to believe in judicial restraint and as such he was annoyed with what he saw as an activist decision, one whereby the justices in the majority sought to change America, a right that Roberts believes should reside with elected politicians.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 2023​

In 2023, the US Supreme Court effectively ended affirmative actions programmes in America. The case, Students for Fair Admissions v President and Fellows of Harvard College, was brought forward by a group of Asian American students who argued that they had been discriminated against in favour of white students. ​​

The Supreme Court agreed with them in a 6-3 decision with all the conservative justices in the majority and all of the liberals in the minority.​

​In the majority opinion, Justice Roberts wrote that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies “without regard to any difference of race, of colour, or of nationality” and thus must apply to every person. As such, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it”.

​In dissent, Brown Jackson wrote, “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colour-blindness for all’ by legal fiat (authorisation”.

The decision was met with dismay by President Biden who claimed that ‘this is not a normal court’. Thus demonstrating that the court can be a far more powerful influence on US society that the President. ​

​The decision was also notable because of the number of interest groups who sought to influence proceedings. The case was brought by Students for Fair Admissions, a group set up by the conservative strategist, Edward Blum, also the founder of  he Project on Fair Representation. Both of these groups have been created to argue against and end affirmative action programmes. Interest groups came forward to state their support for both sides before the court, with the court receiving thirty-three amicus briefs in support of SFFA, and sixty in support of Harvard. The case is therefore interesting because it shows the power of interest groups to bring a case to the Supreme Court. It also demonstrates that interest groups exist on both sides and can cancel one another out. At the end of the day, what mattered most were the views of the Supreme Court justices, which at this time is decidedly conservative.

Dobbs v Jackson (2022) case

Dobbs v Jackson is perhaps the most important Supreme Court of the last 15 years. The decision concerned Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks. In Dobbs v Jackson, the Supreme Court decided that the US Constitution did not grant the right to an abortion overturning the precedent set by Roe v Wade and stating that the right to an abortion should be determined by individual states.

Dobbs demonstrated how the court is a political rather than just a judicial body. Here, we saw unelected justices determine the answer to a political question, whether abortion was a constitutional right. By determining that it was not a right, the court have become a political body.

A second point to make is about the power of the President. President Trump was fortunate that he was able to select three Supreme Court justices in his four years as president. Most notably, Trump, replaced the staunch liberal, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, just two months prior to the 2016 election, with the conservative Amy Coney Barrett. In doing so Trump was able to ensure that the court became more conservative. This demonstrated that in selecting justices, a President who serves only 4 years can in fact have a much more longer lasting influence on the politics of America.

Another point to make is about the influence of pressure and interest groups. Prior to the oral arguments in the Dobbs case, interest groups submitted 140 amicus curiae briefs, demonstrating their attempts to influence the Supreme Court justices.

A final point to make is what the decision says about the ideology of the court. The court is clearly now more conservative. However, what was most interesting was the decision taken by the Chief Justice, John Roberts. Roberts believes in judicial restraint. He does not believe the court should take actions which undermine elected bodies or which overturn precedents set by previous courts. He followed this same restraint when dealing with Dobbs v Jackson. Roberts agreed that Mississippi’s 15-week ban was not unconstitutional. However, he said that this should not mean that Roe v Wade is overturned. An important point to make about the court therefore is that though it has become more conservative, it still believes in restraint and John Roberts as the Chief Justice is at the heart of trying to ensure this.