Supreme Court and Public Policy

Role and Impact

The Supreme Court’s foremost role is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, making it instrumental in shaping public policy through its rulings.
Its judicial review power can overrule actions of Congress or the President if deemed unconstitutional. It can therefore block or modify government policies.
Its decisions establish legal precedents, which lower courts are bound to follow, significantly impacting future policy-making and legal interpretations.

Noteworthy cases like Brown v. Board of Education have resulted in substantial changes to American public policy, upholding equal educational opportunities for all races.
Roe v. Wade, by guaranteeing women’s reproductive rights, radically impacted health and societal policies.
The judgment in Obergefell v. Hodges revolutionised policy towards LGBT rights by ensuring the recognition of same-sex marriage nationwide.

The Supreme Court’s influence on public policy often reflects the ideological balance of the court, with more conservative or liberal Justices leading different policy trajectories.
With changes in the Court’s composition, policy directions may shift, reflecting the ideological preferences of new Justices.
For example, with a conservative majority, the court may favour policies that limit government intervention, uphold law enforcement prerogatives, and prioritise individual freedoms.

Despite its significant power, the Court’s influence on public policy is restrained by the principles of stare decisis (respect for precedent) and justiciability (whether a matter is appropriate for court review).
The Supreme Court cannot create policy; it can only review the constitutionality of policies made by the legislative or executive branches.
It is contingent on other branches for enforcement of its rulings, limiting its direct power to implement policy changes.

The Supreme Court’s influence over public policy often leads to accusations of judicial activism – the perception that Justices are making law, not just interpreting it.
Critics argue that the unelected Justices can unduly affect policies impacting millions, challenging the democratic principles of accountability and representation.
Others claim that ideological divisions lead to politicisation of the court, undermining its role as an impartial institution in charge of interpreting the Constitution.