A Primer · Understanding SCOTUS Opinions
Everything you need to understand the case explainers in this series, and not much more.
Most social work students will never take a constitutional law class, but most will work inside the systems the Supreme Court has shaped. This page gives you the foundational knowledge to understand how SCOTUS works and its current makeup. No prior legal knowledge required.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the country's highest court. There is no appeal from a SCOTUS decision. If you win at the Supreme Court, you win. If you lose, you lose. There is no further court to ask. Other branches can sometimes change the situation through new laws or constitutional amendments, but as a matter of judicial process, SCOTUS is the end of the road.
The Court has nine members called Justices. One is the Chief Justice of the United States, the other eight are Associate Justices. They sit in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., across the street from the Capitol. They serve for life, or until they retire, resign, or are impeached and removed from office. Impeachment of a Justice has happened exactly once in American history and that Justice was not removed, so in practice "for life" means until they choose to leave or they die.
The Court was created by Article III of the Constitution, but the Constitution does not say how many Justices it must have. Congress sets the number. The first Court in 1789 had six members. It has been nine since 1869. There are occasional proposals to add more, often called "court packing" proposals, but the number nine has held for over 150 years.
The Court hears cases between October and June or July each year. This is called the Court's "term." A term is named for the year it begins, so the cases decided in spring 2024 are part of "October Term 2023" or "OT 2023." That is why you sometimes see two years on a case.
The current Court, sometimes called "the Roberts Court" because John Roberts is the Chief Justice, has been seated in its present composition since Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in June 2022. The nine Justices below are the ones deciding cases for the foreseeable future, barring retirements, deaths, or rare other departures.
Each Justice was nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate. By tradition, Justices are referred to by the President who appointed them when discussing their ideological leanings, but the actual record is more complicated than that shorthand suggests. Justices can and do surprise the Presidents who appoint them.
Chief Justice
The 17th Chief Justice. Often the swing vote on closely divided cases. Generally conservative but with a strong institutionalist streak, which sometimes leads him to vote with the liberals to preserve the Court's reputation.
Associate Justice
The longest-serving member of the current Court. The most originalist Justice, meaning he interprets the Constitution according to its meaning at the time it was written. Often writes separately to advocate for revisiting older precedents.
Associate Justice
A consistent conservative voice. Has written some of the Court's most consequential recent opinions, including the 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Known for sharply worded dissents when in the minority.
Associate Justice
The first Latina Justice. A former prosecutor and federal trial judge before joining the Court. Frequently writes dissents on criminal procedure and civil rights cases that draw on her experience with the practical workings of the legal system.
Associate Justice
Former dean of Harvard Law School and U.S. Solicitor General. Never served as a judge before joining the Court, which is unusual. Known for clear, accessible writing and for occasionally finding common ground with the conservative wing.
Associate Justice
Filled the seat vacant since Justice Scalia's death in 2016. A textualist in the Scalia tradition. Has surprised some observers by siding with liberal Justices on Native American law and some criminal procedure cases.
Associate Justice
Replaced Justice Kennedy, who had been the Court's swing vote for years. Generally conservative but sometimes joins Roberts in moving toward the middle on procedural and institutional questions. His confirmation was one of the most contested in modern history.
Associate Justice
Confirmed just eight days before the 2020 election after the death of Justice Ginsburg. A former Notre Dame law professor and originalist. Has shown some independence from the Court's most conservative wing on procedural and federalism questions.
Associate Justice
The first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. A former federal public defender and trial judge. Has written prominently on criminal procedure, voting rights, and the administrative state, often in dissent on the current Court.
The Constitution gives the President the power to nominate Justices and the Senate the power to confirm them. That is the entire formal process. A President nominates someone. The Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings. The full Senate votes. A simple majority is enough to confirm. Once confirmed, the new Justice is sworn in and begins work.
In practice, the process has become deeply political. Confirmation hearings now stretch over multiple days and produce significant media attention. Senate votes increasingly fall along party lines. Recent confirmations have been close, and one nominee in 2016, Merrick Garland, never received a hearing at all because the Senate majority refused to consider any nominee in a presidential election year. The same Senate majority did consider and confirm Amy Coney Barrett during the 2020 election year. The rules around confirmation are mostly Senate norms rather than constitutional requirements, and norms can shift.
Once a Justice is confirmed, the formal protections of the office are substantial. The Constitution guarantees Justices hold their positions "during good Behaviour," which in practice means for life unless they choose to retire, die in office, or are impeached and removed by Congress. The Constitution also forbids Congress from reducing a Justice's salary while they are in office, which is meant to insulate Justices from political pressure.
There is no mandatory retirement age. Some Justices have served into their 80s. The decision of when to leave the Court is the Justice's own. Many Justices time their retirements to allow an ideologically aligned President to choose their replacement, though some have done the opposite or have been unable to do so.
A case at SCOTUS has usually been to several other courts first. The Supreme Court is almost never the first court to hear a dispute. Understanding the path matters because by the time the Court rules, the case has often been litigated for years, and the Court's decision affects not just the parties but every similar case across the country.
The case starts in a trial court, either state or federal depending on the issue. This is where evidence is presented, witnesses testify, and the initial decision is made. Most cases that ever reach SCOTUS started here and lost.
The losing party can appeal. In the state system, this goes to an intermediate appellate court, then potentially to the state's highest court. In the federal system, it goes to one of the thirteen U.S. Courts of Appeals (called "circuits"). The appellate court reviews the trial court's legal rulings, usually without taking new evidence.
The losing party at the appellate level can ask the Supreme Court to hear the case by filing a petition for certiorari, usually shortened to "cert petition." This is the funnel point. The Court receives roughly 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions per year. It grants fewer than 100.
The Justices meet in private conferences and discuss the cert petitions. A case is granted review if at least four Justices vote to take it. This is called the Rule of Four. The Court does not have to explain why it takes or refuses a case, and usually does not.
Once cert is granted, the parties file written legal arguments called briefs. Outside groups can also file amicus curiae briefs presenting their views. Major cases can attract dozens of amicus briefs from organizations, states, and former government officials.
Lawyers for each side appear before the nine Justices and answer questions. Each side typically gets 30 minutes, though the Justices often interrupt with far more questions than the time formally allows. Oral arguments are recorded and posted on the Court's website the same day.
After argument, the Justices meet privately to discuss the case and take an initial vote. The most senior Justice in the majority assigns who will write the opinion. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he assigns. If not, the senior Associate Justice in the majority assigns.
The assigned Justice and their law clerks draft the opinion. Other Justices may draft concurrences or dissents. Drafts circulate among the Justices, who can suggest changes or switch their votes. This can take months.
When the opinion is ready, the Court announces the decision from the bench. The opinion is posted on the Court's website. From that moment, the decision is the law of the land. Most decisions come out between April and June.
The Funnel: From Petition to Decision
One of the most common misconceptions about the Supreme Court is that it can review any case anyone wants reviewed. It cannot. The Court has limited jurisdiction and only takes cases that meet specific criteria. Understanding what kinds of cases the Court hears, and what it explicitly does not do, prevents a lot of confusion about why your client's family court matter is not going to end up at SCOTUS.
What the Court Does
What the Court Does Not Do
When the Court decides a case, it produces an "opinion." But that single word covers several different things, and the distinctions matter for how the decision will be applied later. Reading an opinion intelligently means knowing which parts are binding law and which parts are commentary by individual Justices.
Binding law
The opinion joined by at least five of the nine Justices. This is the law of the land. Lower courts must follow it. When people say "the Supreme Court ruled," this is what they mean.
Persuasive, not strictly binding
When the Justices agree on the outcome but cannot agree on the reasoning, an opinion may have fewer than five votes for any single rationale. Lower courts try to apply it but are not strictly bound by all of its reasoning. Troxel v. Granville is an example.
Agreement with caveats
A Justice who agrees with the result but wants to write separately, either to emphasize a point or to disagree with the majority's reasoning while still reaching the same conclusion. Not binding, but influential concurrences can shape how the majority opinion is later read.
Disagreement on the record
A Justice who disagrees with the majority. Dissents are not law, but they can be powerful. Some dissents have eventually become majority opinions in later cases as the Court changes composition or rethinks an issue.
By the court, unsigned
A short opinion attributed to the Court as a whole, not signed by any individual Justice. Often used for unanimous or near-unanimous decisions on relatively straightforward questions.
The version released first
The version of the opinion released on decision day. It is the official text but can be revised slightly before final publication in the U.S. Reports, the bound volumes where Supreme Court decisions are formally recorded.
Every Supreme Court case has a standard citation format. Once you can read it, you can find the case in seconds. The format looks intimidating but contains only four pieces of information. Here is one of the cases from this series, broken down piece by piece.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 386 (2017)
Case Name
Endrew F. v. Douglas County
The petitioner is listed first, the respondent second. "v." stands for "versus."
Volume
580
The volume number in the official reporter. SCOTUS opinions are bound in volumes called U.S. Reports.
Reporter · Page
U.S. 386
The opinion appears in the United States Reports starting at page 386. "U.S." identifies the reporter.
Year Decided
2017
The year the Court issued the decision. Helps you place the case in time relative to other rulings.
A few things people frequently believe about the Supreme Court are not quite right. Some of these are simple oversimplifications, others are misunderstandings that get in the way of actually using SCOTUS decisions in practice.
Myth
"Justices represent the President who appointed them."
Reality
Justices are not representatives of any President or party. They have lifetime tenure precisely so they can decide cases without political pressure. Justices have surprised the Presidents who appointed them many times, and the historical record is full of conservative appointees who became more moderate over time, and vice versa.
Myth
"The Supreme Court has the final word on what the Constitution means."
Reality
The Court has the final word in a particular case, but constitutional meaning has been revised over time as the Court itself changes. Decisions can be overturned by later decisions, by constitutional amendment, or by Congress writing a new law. "Settled law" is rarely as settled as it sounds.
Myth
"If the Court rules a certain way, the situation changes immediately on the ground."
Reality
A SCOTUS ruling is the start of a long implementation process, not the end. Lower courts must apply the ruling to specific cases. State agencies must change policies. Caseworkers must adjust practices. The gap between a Court decision and on-the-ground change can be years, and sometimes the change never fully arrives.
Myth
"A 5-4 decision is less binding than a 9-0 decision."
Reality
Legally, they are the same. A majority is a majority. The vote count is not a measure of the decision's authority. That said, a unanimous decision is harder to overturn later because there is no dissent on record arguing the other way.
Myth
"The Supreme Court can take any case it wants."
Reality
The Court has limited jurisdiction defined by the Constitution and federal statutes. It can only hear cases that involve federal law, the Constitution, or specific other categories. A case has to come to the Court through the proper channels. SCOTUS cannot reach down and grab a state criminal case that does not raise a federal issue.
This is where the abstract becomes concrete. A Supreme Court decision can feel like distant news. But the chain from the bench to your office is shorter than it looks. Here is how a SCOTUS decision actually reaches a social worker.
Step 01
The Court announces its decision. The opinion is published. Legal commentators, news outlets, and law firms read it and start writing about what it means.
Step 02
Federal trial and appellate courts working on similar cases now have new binding precedent to apply. Cases pending on appeal may be sent back for reconsideration. New cases get filed citing the new ruling.
Step 03
Departments like HHS, Education, and Justice analyze the decision and issue guidance documents to states and to their own staff explaining what the agencies think the ruling requires.
Step 04
State child welfare departments, mental health systems, education agencies, and Medicaid programs revise their policies to comply. This is often where the lag is longest. Some states move quickly, others take years.
Step 05
Staff training materials, intake forms, casework protocols, and decision-making tools are revised. Workers receive in-service training on the new requirements. The decision becomes part of the institutional knowledge of the agency.
Step 06 · You
A worker in an office somewhere in the country handles a case and follows the procedure the decision requires. The worker may not know the case name. They may not know the decision exists. But the work they do reflects the ruling the Court issued years earlier. That worker may be you.