{"id":369,"date":"2019-04-24T20:23:29","date_gmt":"2019-04-24T20:23:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/os-amgovernment2e\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=369"},"modified":"2019-08-01T03:18:45","modified_gmt":"2019-08-01T03:18:45","slug":"the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/chapter\/the-supreme-court\/","title":{"raw":"The Supreme Court","rendered":"The Supreme Court"},"content":{"raw":"&nbsp;\r\n\r\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757523093\" class=\"learning-objectives\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757185891\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163757482398\">\r\n \t<li>Analyze the structure and important features of the Supreme Court<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Explain how the Supreme Court selects cases to hear<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Discuss the Supreme Court\u2019s processes and procedures<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/section>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757466568\">The Supreme Court of the United States, sometimes abbreviated SCOTUS, is a one-of-a-kind institution. While a look at the Supreme Court typically focuses on the nine justices themselves, they represent only the top layer of an entire branch of government that includes many administrators, lawyers, and assistants who contribute to and help run the overall judicial system. The Court has its own set of rules for choosing cases, and it follows a unique set of procedures for hearing them. Its decisions not only affect the outcome of the individual case before the justices, but they also create lasting impacts on legal and constitutional interpretation for the future.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757367550\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox examples\">\r\n<h3>watch it<\/h3>\r\nWatch this video to learn more about the Supreme Court.\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/youtu.be\/7sualy8OiKk\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h3 data-type=\"title\">THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755115673\">The original court in 1789 had six justices, but Congress set the number at nine in 1869, and it has remained there ever since. There is one <strong>chief justice<\/strong>, who is the lead or highest-ranking judge on the Court, and eight <strong>associate justices<\/strong>. All nine serve lifetime terms, after successful nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757195571\">The current court is fairly diverse in terms of gender, religion (Christians and Jews), ethnicity, and ideology, as well as length of tenure. Some justices have served for three decades, whereas others were only recently appointed by President Trump. Figure 1 lists the names of the nine justices serving on the Court as of January 2019, along with their year of appointment and the president who nominated them.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<figure id=\"OSC_AmGov_13_04_Appoint\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1557\/2019\/04\/24202323\/OSC_AmGov_13_04_Appoint.jpg\" alt=\"A chart titled \" width=\"975\" height=\"465\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> <strong>Figure 1. <\/strong>This chart shows each of the supreme court justices, when they were appointed, and their political leanings.[\/caption]<\/figure>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757362363\">Currently, there are five justices who are considered part of the Court\u2019s more conservative wing\u2014Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh\u2014while four are considered more liberal-leaning\u2014Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Had the Merrick Garland nomination in March 2016 been allowed to proceed, or had the Democrats retained the presidency in 2016, the replacement for the spots on the court vacated in the wake of the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, or the retirement of \"swing\" vote Anthony Kennedy in July 2018, could have swung many key votes in a moderate or liberal direction. However, with Republican Donald Trump winning the election and the Republicans retaining Senate control, the Court has become more conservative.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<figure id=\"OSC_AmGov_13_04_Justices\"><figcaption><\/figcaption>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"975\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1557\/2019\/04\/24202326\/OSC_AmGov_13_04_Justices.jpg\" alt=\" Image A is of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Image B is of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Image C is of Justice John Roberts.\" width=\"975\" height=\"404\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> <strong>Figure 2.<\/strong> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a) is part of the liberal wing of the current Supreme Court, whereas Justice Brett Kavanaugh (b) represents the conservative wing. Chief Justice John Roberts (c) leads the court as an ardent member of its more conservative wing but has recently expressed concern over partisanship in the wake of the bitter Kavanaugh nomination fight, and may prove to be the new \"swing\" vote on the court.[\/caption]<\/figure>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757189130\" class=\"american government link-to-learning\" data-type=\"note\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox exercises\"><header>\r\n<h3 class=\"os-title\" data-type=\"title\"><span class=\"os-title-label\">LINK TO LEARNING<\/span><\/h3>\r\n<\/header>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757230457\">While not formally connected with the public the way elected leaders are, the <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/29supremecourt\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> nonetheless offers visitors a great deal of information at its official website.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755004992\">For unofficial summaries of recent Supreme Court cases or news about the Court, visit the <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/29oyez\">Oyez website<\/a> or <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/29scotusblog\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">SCOTUS<\/a> blog.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757215516\">In fact, none of the justices works completely in an ideological bubble. While their numerous opinions have revealed certain ideological tendencies, they still consider each case as it comes to them, and they don\u2019t always rule in a consistently predictable or expected way. Furthermore, they don\u2019t work exclusively on their own. Each justice has three or four law clerks, recent law school graduates who temporarily work for him or her, do research, help prepare the justice with background information, and assist with the writing of opinions. The law clerks\u2019 work and recommendations influence whether the justices will choose to hear a case, as well as how they will rule. As the profile below reveals, the role of the clerks is as significant as it is varied.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757367396\" class=\"insider-perspective\" data-type=\"note\">\r\n<div data-type=\"title\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Profile of a United States Supreme Court Clerk<\/h3>\r\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757367550\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757367396\" class=\"insider-perspective\" data-type=\"note\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757285420\">A Supreme Court clerkship is one of the most sought-after legal positions, giving \"thirty-six young lawyers each year a chance to leave their fingerprints all over constitutional law.\"[footnote]Dahlia Lithwick. \"Who Feeds the Supreme Court?\" Slate.com. September 14, 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/jurisprudence\/2015\/09\/supreme_court_feeder_judges_men_and_few_women_send_law_clerks_to_scotus.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/jurisprudence\/2015\/09\/supreme_court_feeder_judges_men_and_few_women_send_law_clerks_to_scotus.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] A number of current and former justices were themselves clerks, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, and former chief justice William Rehnquist.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757556523\">Supreme Court clerks are often reluctant to share insider information about their experiences, but it is always fascinating and informative to hear about their jobs. Former clerk Philippa Scarlett, who worked for Justice Stephen Breyer, describes four main responsibilities:[footnote]\"Role of Supreme Court Law Clerk: Interview with Philippa Scarlett.\" IIP Digital. United States of America Embassy. <a href=\"http:\/\/iipdigital.usembassy.gov\/st\/english\/publication\/2013\/02\/20130211142365.html#axzz3grjRwiG\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/iipdigital.usembassy.gov\/st\/english\/publication\/2013\/02\/20130211142365.html#axzz3grjRwiG<\/a> (March 1, 2016).[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757217775\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Review the cases:<\/strong> Clerks participate in a \"<em data-effect=\"italics\">cert.<\/em> pool\" (short for writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em>, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review) and make recommendations about which cases the Court should choose to hear.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757575739\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Prepare the justices for oral argument:<\/strong> Clerks analyze the filed briefs (short arguments explaining each party\u2019s side of the case) and the law at issue in each case waiting to be heard.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757306877\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Research and draft judicial opinions:<\/strong> Clerks do detailed research to assist justices in writing an opinion, whether it is the majority opinion or a dissenting or concurring opinion.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757309174\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Help with emergencies:<\/strong> Clerks also assist the justices in deciding on emergency applications to the Court, many of which are applications by prisoners to stay their death sentences and are sometimes submitted within hours of a scheduled execution.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757392049\"><em data-effect=\"italics\">Explain the role of law clerks in the Supreme Court system. What is your opinion about the role they play and the justices\u2019 reliance on them?<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section><\/div>\r\n<h3><span style=\"color: #6c64ad; font-size: 1em; font-weight: 600;\">HOW THE SUPREME COURT SELECTS CASES<\/span><\/h3>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section><section id=\"fs-id1163757356993\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757297562\">The Supreme Court begins its annual session on the first Monday in October and ends late the following June. Every year, there are literally thousands of people who would like to have their case heard before the Supreme Court, but the justices will select only a handful to be placed on the <strong>docket<\/strong>, which is the list of cases scheduled on the Court\u2019s calendar. The Court typically accepts fewer than 2 percent of the as many as ten thousand cases it is asked to review every year.[footnote]\"Supreme Court Procedures.\" United States Courts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016).[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757294021\">Case names, written in italics, list the name of a petitioner versus a respondent, as in <em data-effect=\"italics\">Roe v. Wade<\/em>, for example.[footnote]Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).[\/footnote] For a case on appeal, you can tell which party lost at the lower level of court by looking at the case name: The party unhappy with the decision of the lower court is the one bringing the appeal and is thus the petitioner, or the first-named party in the case. For example, in <em data-effect=\"italics\">Brown v. Board of Education<\/em> (1954), Oliver Brown was one of the thirteen parents who brought suit against the Topeka public schools for discrimination based on racial segregation.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757278556\">Most often, the petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to grant a <strong>writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em><\/strong>, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review. Once a writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em> (<em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>. for short) has been granted, the case is scheduled on the Court\u2019s docket. The Supreme Court exercises discretion in the cases it chooses to hear, but four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case. This is called the <strong>Rule of Four<\/strong>.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757580664\">For decisions about <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>., the Court\u2019s Rule 10 (Considerations Governing Review on Writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">Certiorari<\/em>) takes precedence.[footnote]\"Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari.\" Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Adopted April 19, 2013, Effective July 1, 2013. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/ctrules\/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/ctrules\/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf<\/a>.[\/footnote] The Court is more likely to grant <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em> when there is a conflict on an issue between or among the lower courts. Examples of conflicts include (1) conflicting decisions among different courts of appeals on the same matter, (2) decisions by an appeals court or a state court conflicting with precedent, and (3) state court decisions that conflict with federal decisions. Occasionally, the Court will fast-track a case that has special urgency, such as <em data-effect=\"italics\">Bush v. Gore<\/em> in the wake of the 2000 election.[footnote]Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757280981\">Past research indicated that the amount of interest-group activity surrounding a case before it is granted <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert.<\/em> has a significant impact on whether the Supreme Court puts the case on its agenda. The more activity, the more likely the case will be placed on the docket.[footnote]Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright. 1988. \"Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,\" American Political Science Review 82: 1109\u20131128.[\/footnote] But more recent research broadens that perspective, suggesting that too much interest-group activity when the Court is considering a case for its docket may actually have diminishing impact and that external actors may have less influence on the work of the Court than they have had in the past.[footnote]Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, and Christopher Zorn. 2012. \"Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited.\" Presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Institutions and Lawmaking, Emory University. <a href=\"http:\/\/polisci.emory.edu\/home\/cslpe\/conference-institutions-law-making\/2012\/papers\/caldeira_wright_zorn_cwzpaper.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/polisci.emory.edu\/home\/cslpe\/conference-institutions-law-making\/2012\/papers\/caldeira_wright_zorn_cwzpaper.pdf<\/a>.[\/footnote] Still, the Court takes into consideration external influences, not just from interest groups but also from the public, from media attention, and from a very key governmental actor\u2014the solicitor general.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757465723\">The <strong>solicitor general<\/strong> is the lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court: He or she decides which cases (in which the United States is a party) should be appealed from the lower courts and personally approves each one presented. Most of the cases the solicitor general brings to the Court will be given a place on the docket. About two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases involve the federal government.[footnote]\"About the Office.\" Office of the Solicitor General. The United States Department of Justice. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/osg\/about-office-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/osg\/about-office-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016).[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757281603\">The solicitor general determines the position the government will take on a case. The attorneys of his or her office prepare and file the petitions and briefs, and the solicitor general (or an assistant) presents the oral arguments before the Court.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<figure id=\"OSC_AmGov_13_04_Verrilli\"><figcaption><\/figcaption>\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"525\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1557\/2019\/04\/24202328\/OSC_AmGov_13_04_Verrilli.jpg\" alt=\"Image A is of Justice Thurgood Marshall. Image B is of Noel Francisco.\" width=\"525\" height=\"354\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/> <strong>Figure 3.<\/strong> Thurgood Marshall (a), who later served on the Supreme Court, was appointed solicitor general by Lyndon Johnson and was the first African American to hold the post. Noel Francisco (b) was the forty-seventh solicitor general of the United States, starting his term of office in September 2017.[\/caption]<\/figure>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757210022\">In other cases in which the United States is not the petitioner or the respondent, the solicitor general may choose to intervene or comment as a third party. Before a case is granted <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert.<\/em>, the justices will sometimes ask the solicitor general to comment on or file a brief in the case, indicating their potential interest in getting it on the docket. The solicitor general may also recommend that the justices decline to hear a case. Though research has shown that the solicitor general\u2019s special influence on the Court is not unlimited, it remains quite significant. In particular, the Court does not always agree with the solicitor general, and \"while justices are not lemmings who will unwittingly fall off legal cliffs for tortured solicitor general recommendations, they nevertheless often go along with them even when we least expect them to.\"[footnote]Ryan C. Black and Ryan J. Owens. \"Solicitor General Influence and the United States Supreme Court.\" Vanderbilt University. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vanderbilt.edu\/csdi\/archived\/working%20papers\/Ryan%20Owens.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.vanderbilt.edu\/csdi\/archived\/working%20papers\/Ryan%20Owens.pdf<\/a> (March 1, 2016).[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757218900\">Some have credited Donald B. Verrilli, the solicitor general under President Obama, with holding special sway over the five-justice majority ruling on same-sex marriage in June 2015. Indeed, his position that denying homosexuals the right to marry would mean \"thousands and thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their states ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationships\" became a foundational point of the Court\u2019s opinion, written by then-Justice Anthony Kennedy.[footnote]Mark Joseph Stern., \"If SCOTUS Decides in Favor of Marriage Equality, Thank Solicitor General Don Verrilli,\" Slate.com. April 29, 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/blogs\/outward\/2015\/04\/29\/don_verrilli_solicitor_general_was_the_real_hero_of_scotus_gay_marriage.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.slate.com\/blogs\/outward\/2015\/04\/29\/don_verrilli_solicitor_general_was_the_real_hero_of_scotus_gay_marriage.html<\/a>.[\/footnote] With such power over the Court, the solicitor general is sometimes referred to as \"the tenth justice.\"<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/section><section id=\"fs-id1163757368744\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h3 data-type=\"title\">SUPREME COURT PROCEDURES<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757580986\">Once a case has been placed on the docket, <strong>briefs<\/strong>, or short arguments explaining each party\u2019s view of the case, must be submitted\u2014first by the petitioner putting forth his or her case, then by the respondent. After initial briefs have been filed, both parties may file subsequent briefs in response to the first. Likewise, people and groups that are not party to the case but are interested in its outcome may file an <strong><em data-effect=\"italics\">amicus curiae<\/em><\/strong> (\"friend of the court\") brief giving their opinion, analysis, and recommendations about how the Court should rule. Interest groups in particular can become heavily involved in trying to influence the judiciary by filing <em data-effect=\"italics\">amicus<\/em> briefs\u2014both before and after a case has been granted <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>. And, as noted earlier, if the United States is not party to a case, the solicitor general may file an <em data-effect=\"italics\">amicus<\/em> brief on the government\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755284466\">With briefs filed, the Court hears <strong>oral arguments<\/strong> in cases from October through April. The proceedings are quite ceremonial. When the Court is in session, the robed justices make a formal entrance into the courtroom to a standing audience and the sound of a banging gavel. The Court\u2019s marshal presents them with a traditional chant: \"The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! [Hear ye!] All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!\"[footnote]\"The Court and its Procedures.\" Supreme Court of the United States. May 26, 2015.[\/footnote] It has not gone unnoticed that the Court, which has defended the First Amendment\u2019s religious protection and the traditional separation of church and state, opens its every public session with a mention of God.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757302326\">During oral arguments, each side\u2019s lawyers have thirty minutes to make their legal case, though the justices often interrupt the presentations with questions. The justices consider oral arguments not as a forum for a lawyer to restate the merits of his or her case as written in the briefs, but as an opportunity to get answers to any questions they may have.[footnote]\"Supreme Court Procedures.\" United States Courts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016).[\/footnote] When the United States is party to a case, the solicitor general (or one of his or her assistants) will argue the government\u2019s position; even in other cases, the solicitor general may still be given time to express the government\u2019s position on the dispute.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757313411\">When oral arguments have been concluded, the justices have to decide the case, and they do so in <strong>conference<\/strong>, which is held in private twice a week when the Court is in session and once a week when it is not. The conference is also a time to discuss petitions for <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em>, but for those cases already heard, each justice may state his or her views on the case, ask questions, or raise concerns. The chief justice speaks first about a case, then each justice speaks in turn, in descending order of seniority, ending with the most recently appointed justice.[footnote]\"Supreme Court Procedures.\" United States Courts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016).[\/footnote] The judges take an initial vote in private before the official announcement of their decisions is made public.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757318615\">Oral arguments are open to the public, but cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so the only picture we get is one drawn by an artist\u2019s hand, an illustration or rendering. Cameras seem to be everywhere today, especially to provide security in places such as schools, public buildings, and retail stores, so the lack of live coverage of Supreme Court proceedings may seem unusual or old-fashioned. Over the years, groups have called for the Court to let go of this tradition and open its operations to more \"sunshine\" and greater transparency. Nevertheless, the justices have resisted the pressure and remain neither filmed nor photographed during oral arguments.[footnote]Jonathan Sherman. \"End the Supreme Court's Ban on Cameras.\" New York Times. 24 April 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/04\/24\/opinion\/open-the-supreme-court-to-cameras.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/04\/24\/opinion\/open-the-supreme-court-to-cameras.html<\/a>.[\/footnote]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/section><section id=\"fs-id1163757403018\" class=\"summary\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<h2>Summary<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755399290\">A unique institution, the U.S. Supreme Court today is an interesting mix of the traditional and the modern. On one hand, it still holds to many of the formal traditions, processes, and procedures it has followed for many decades. Its public proceedings remain largely ceremonial and are never filmed or photographed. At the same time, the Court has taken on new cases involving contemporary matters before a nine-justice panel that is more diverse today than ever before. When considering whether to take on a case and then later when ruling on it, the justices rely on a number of internal and external players who assist them with and influence their work, including, but not limited to, their law clerks, the U.S. solicitor general, interest groups, and the mass media.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\r\n<h3>Try It<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/15949\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/15950\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/15951\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/15952\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section><section id=\"fs-id1163757614232\" class=\"review-questions\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757187773\" data-type=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757528836\" data-type=\"problem\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>THINK IT OVER<\/h3>\r\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757614232\" class=\"review-questions\" data-depth=\"1\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757187773\" data-type=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757528836\" data-type=\"problem\">\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li id=\"fs-id1163757184920\">What do the appointments of the Supreme Court\u2019s two newest justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, reveal about the changing selection process for the high court?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section><\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n<div data-type=\"glossary\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox key-takeaways\">\r\n<h3>Glossary<\/h3>\r\n<div data-type=\"glossary\">\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163755073846\">\r\n \t<dt><em data-effect=\"italics\">Amicus Curiae<\/em><\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757186995\">literally a \"friend of the court\" and used for a brief filed by someone who is interested in but not party to a case<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757186141\">\r\n \t<dt>Associate Justice<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757302490\">a member of the Supreme Court who is not the chief justice<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757384482\">\r\n \t<dt>Brief<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163755115274\">a written legal argument presented to a court by one of the parties in a case<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757322321\">\r\n \t<dt>Chief Justice<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757241695\">the highest-ranking justice on the Supreme Court<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757211403\">\r\n \t<dt>Conference<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757309177\">closed meeting of the justices to discuss cases on the docket and take an initial vote<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757527275\">\r\n \t<dt>Docket<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757447429\">the list of cases pending on a court\u2019s calendar<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757182421\">\r\n \t<dt>Oral Argument<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757287895\">words spoken before the Supreme Court (usually by lawyers) explaining the legal reasons behind their position in a case and why it should prevail<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163755116888\">\r\n \t<dt>Rule of Four<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757288474\">a Supreme Court custom in which a case will be heard when four justices decide to do so<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757290995\">\r\n \t<dt>Solicitor General<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757367033\">the lawyer who represents the federal government and argues some cases before the Supreme Court<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757194304\">\r\n \t<dt>Writ of C<em data-effect=\"italics\">ertiorari<\/em><\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163757186466\">an order of the Supreme Court calling up the records of the lower court so a case may be reviewed; sometimes abbreviated <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>.<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757523093\" class=\"learning-objectives\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h3>Learning Outcomes<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757185891\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163757482398\">\n<li>Analyze the structure and important features of the Supreme Court<\/li>\n<li>Explain how the Supreme Court selects cases to hear<\/li>\n<li>Discuss the Supreme Court\u2019s processes and procedures<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757466568\">The Supreme Court of the United States, sometimes abbreviated SCOTUS, is a one-of-a-kind institution. While a look at the Supreme Court typically focuses on the nine justices themselves, they represent only the top layer of an entire branch of government that includes many administrators, lawyers, and assistants who contribute to and help run the overall judicial system. The Court has its own set of rules for choosing cases, and it follows a unique set of procedures for hearing them. Its decisions not only affect the outcome of the individual case before the justices, but they also create lasting impacts on legal and constitutional interpretation for the future.<\/p>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757367550\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<div class=\"textbox examples\">\n<h3>watch it<\/h3>\n<p>Watch this video to learn more about the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" id=\"oembed-1\" title=\"Supreme Court of the United States Procedures: Crash Course Government and Politics #20\" width=\"500\" height=\"281\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/7sualy8OiKk?feature=oembed&#38;rel=0\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h3 data-type=\"title\">THE STRUCTURE OF THE SUPREME COURT<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755115673\">The original court in 1789 had six justices, but Congress set the number at nine in 1869, and it has remained there ever since. There is one <strong>chief justice<\/strong>, who is the lead or highest-ranking judge on the Court, and eight <strong>associate justices<\/strong>. All nine serve lifetime terms, after successful nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757195571\">The current court is fairly diverse in terms of gender, religion (Christians and Jews), ethnicity, and ideology, as well as length of tenure. Some justices have served for three decades, whereas others were only recently appointed by President Trump. Figure 1 lists the names of the nine justices serving on the Court as of January 2019, along with their year of appointment and the president who nominated them.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"OSC_AmGov_13_04_Appoint\">\n<div style=\"width: 985px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1557\/2019\/04\/24202323\/OSC_AmGov_13_04_Appoint.jpg\" alt=\"A chart titled\" width=\"975\" height=\"465\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 1. <\/strong>This chart shows each of the supreme court justices, when they were appointed, and their political leanings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757362363\">Currently, there are five justices who are considered part of the Court\u2019s more conservative wing\u2014Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh\u2014while four are considered more liberal-leaning\u2014Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Had the Merrick Garland nomination in March 2016 been allowed to proceed, or had the Democrats retained the presidency in 2016, the replacement for the spots on the court vacated in the wake of the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016, or the retirement of &#8220;swing&#8221; vote Anthony Kennedy in July 2018, could have swung many key votes in a moderate or liberal direction. However, with Republican Donald Trump winning the election and the Republicans retaining Senate control, the Court has become more conservative.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"OSC_AmGov_13_04_Justices\"><figcaption><\/figcaption><div style=\"width: 985px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1557\/2019\/04\/24202326\/OSC_AmGov_13_04_Justices.jpg\" alt=\"Image A is of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Image B is of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Image C is of Justice John Roberts.\" width=\"975\" height=\"404\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 2.<\/strong> Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a) is part of the liberal wing of the current Supreme Court, whereas Justice Brett Kavanaugh (b) represents the conservative wing. Chief Justice John Roberts (c) leads the court as an ardent member of its more conservative wing but has recently expressed concern over partisanship in the wake of the bitter Kavanaugh nomination fight, and may prove to be the new &#8220;swing&#8221; vote on the court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757189130\" class=\"american government link-to-learning\" data-type=\"note\">\n<div class=\"textbox exercises\">\n<header>\n<h3 class=\"os-title\" data-type=\"title\"><span class=\"os-title-label\">LINK TO LEARNING<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/header>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757230457\">While not formally connected with the public the way elected leaders are, the <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/29supremecourt\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court<\/a> nonetheless offers visitors a great deal of information at its official website.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755004992\">For unofficial summaries of recent Supreme Court cases or news about the Court, visit the <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/29oyez\">Oyez website<\/a> or <a href=\"https:\/\/openstax.org\/l\/29scotusblog\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">SCOTUS<\/a> blog.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757215516\">In fact, none of the justices works completely in an ideological bubble. While their numerous opinions have revealed certain ideological tendencies, they still consider each case as it comes to them, and they don\u2019t always rule in a consistently predictable or expected way. Furthermore, they don\u2019t work exclusively on their own. Each justice has three or four law clerks, recent law school graduates who temporarily work for him or her, do research, help prepare the justice with background information, and assist with the writing of opinions. The law clerks\u2019 work and recommendations influence whether the justices will choose to hear a case, as well as how they will rule. As the profile below reveals, the role of the clerks is as significant as it is varied.<\/p>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757367396\" class=\"insider-perspective\" data-type=\"note\">\n<div data-type=\"title\">\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Profile of a United States Supreme Court Clerk<\/h3>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757367550\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757367396\" class=\"insider-perspective\" data-type=\"note\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757285420\">A Supreme Court clerkship is one of the most sought-after legal positions, giving &#8220;thirty-six young lawyers each year a chance to leave their fingerprints all over constitutional law.&#8221;<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Dahlia Lithwick. &quot;Who Feeds the Supreme Court?&quot; Slate.com. September 14, 2015. http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/jurisprudence\/2015\/09\/supreme_court_feeder_judges_men_and_few_women_send_law_clerks_to_scotus.html.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-1\" href=\"#footnote-369-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a> A number of current and former justices were themselves clerks, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, and former chief justice William Rehnquist.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757556523\">Supreme Court clerks are often reluctant to share insider information about their experiences, but it is always fascinating and informative to hear about their jobs. Former clerk Philippa Scarlett, who worked for Justice Stephen Breyer, describes four main responsibilities:<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Role of Supreme Court Law Clerk: Interview with Philippa Scarlett.&quot; IIP Digital. United States of America Embassy. http:\/\/iipdigital.usembassy.gov\/st\/english\/publication\/2013\/02\/20130211142365.html#axzz3grjRwiG (March 1, 2016).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-2\" href=\"#footnote-369-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757217775\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Review the cases:<\/strong> Clerks participate in a &#8220;<em data-effect=\"italics\">cert.<\/em> pool&#8221; (short for writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em>, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review) and make recommendations about which cases the Court should choose to hear.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757575739\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Prepare the justices for oral argument:<\/strong> Clerks analyze the filed briefs (short arguments explaining each party\u2019s side of the case) and the law at issue in each case waiting to be heard.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757306877\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Research and draft judicial opinions:<\/strong> Clerks do detailed research to assist justices in writing an opinion, whether it is the majority opinion or a dissenting or concurring opinion.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757309174\"><strong data-effect=\"bold\">Help with emergencies:<\/strong> Clerks also assist the justices in deciding on emergency applications to the Court, many of which are applications by prisoners to stay their death sentences and are sometimes submitted within hours of a scheduled execution.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757392049\"><em data-effect=\"italics\">Explain the role of law clerks in the Supreme Court system. What is your opinion about the role they play and the justices\u2019 reliance on them?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<h3><span style=\"color: #6c64ad; font-size: 1em; font-weight: 600;\">HOW THE SUPREME COURT SELECTS CASES<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757356993\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757297562\">The Supreme Court begins its annual session on the first Monday in October and ends late the following June. Every year, there are literally thousands of people who would like to have their case heard before the Supreme Court, but the justices will select only a handful to be placed on the <strong>docket<\/strong>, which is the list of cases scheduled on the Court\u2019s calendar. The Court typically accepts fewer than 2 percent of the as many as ten thousand cases it is asked to review every year.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Supreme Court Procedures.&quot; United States Courts. http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1 (March 1, 2016).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-3\" href=\"#footnote-369-3\" aria-label=\"Footnote 3\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[3]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757294021\">Case names, written in italics, list the name of a petitioner versus a respondent, as in <em data-effect=\"italics\">Roe v. Wade<\/em>, for example.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-4\" href=\"#footnote-369-4\" aria-label=\"Footnote 4\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[4]<\/sup><\/a> For a case on appeal, you can tell which party lost at the lower level of court by looking at the case name: The party unhappy with the decision of the lower court is the one bringing the appeal and is thus the petitioner, or the first-named party in the case. For example, in <em data-effect=\"italics\">Brown v. Board of Education<\/em> (1954), Oliver Brown was one of the thirteen parents who brought suit against the Topeka public schools for discrimination based on racial segregation.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757278556\">Most often, the petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to grant a <strong>writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em><\/strong>, a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review. Once a writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em> (<em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>. for short) has been granted, the case is scheduled on the Court\u2019s docket. The Supreme Court exercises discretion in the cases it chooses to hear, but four of the nine justices must vote to accept a case. This is called the <strong>Rule of Four<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757580664\">For decisions about <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>., the Court\u2019s Rule 10 (Considerations Governing Review on Writ of <em data-effect=\"italics\">Certiorari<\/em>) takes precedence.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari.&quot; Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Adopted April 19, 2013, Effective July 1, 2013. http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/ctrules\/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-5\" href=\"#footnote-369-5\" aria-label=\"Footnote 5\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[5]<\/sup><\/a> The Court is more likely to grant <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em> when there is a conflict on an issue between or among the lower courts. Examples of conflicts include (1) conflicting decisions among different courts of appeals on the same matter, (2) decisions by an appeals court or a state court conflicting with precedent, and (3) state court decisions that conflict with federal decisions. Occasionally, the Court will fast-track a case that has special urgency, such as <em data-effect=\"italics\">Bush v. Gore<\/em> in the wake of the 2000 election.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-6\" href=\"#footnote-369-6\" aria-label=\"Footnote 6\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757280981\">Past research indicated that the amount of interest-group activity surrounding a case before it is granted <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert.<\/em> has a significant impact on whether the Supreme Court puts the case on its agenda. The more activity, the more likely the case will be placed on the docket.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright. 1988. &quot;Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,&quot; American Political Science Review 82: 1109\u20131128.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-7\" href=\"#footnote-369-7\" aria-label=\"Footnote 7\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[7]<\/sup><\/a> But more recent research broadens that perspective, suggesting that too much interest-group activity when the Court is considering a case for its docket may actually have diminishing impact and that external actors may have less influence on the work of the Court than they have had in the past.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, and Christopher Zorn. 2012. &quot;Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited.&quot; Presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Institutions and Lawmaking, Emory University. http:\/\/polisci.emory.edu\/home\/cslpe\/conference-institutions-law-making\/2012\/papers\/caldeira_wright_zorn_cwzpaper.pdf.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-8\" href=\"#footnote-369-8\" aria-label=\"Footnote 8\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[8]<\/sup><\/a> Still, the Court takes into consideration external influences, not just from interest groups but also from the public, from media attention, and from a very key governmental actor\u2014the solicitor general.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757465723\">The <strong>solicitor general<\/strong> is the lawyer who represents the federal government before the Supreme Court: He or she decides which cases (in which the United States is a party) should be appealed from the lower courts and personally approves each one presented. Most of the cases the solicitor general brings to the Court will be given a place on the docket. About two-thirds of all Supreme Court cases involve the federal government.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;About the Office.&quot; Office of the Solicitor General. The United States Department of Justice. http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/osg\/about-office-1 (March 1, 2016).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-9\" href=\"#footnote-369-9\" aria-label=\"Footnote 9\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757281603\">The solicitor general determines the position the government will take on a case. The attorneys of his or her office prepare and file the petitions and briefs, and the solicitor general (or an assistant) presents the oral arguments before the Court.<\/p>\n<figure id=\"OSC_AmGov_13_04_Verrilli\"><figcaption><\/figcaption><div style=\"width: 535px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1557\/2019\/04\/24202328\/OSC_AmGov_13_04_Verrilli.jpg\" alt=\"Image A is of Justice Thurgood Marshall. Image B is of Noel Francisco.\" width=\"525\" height=\"354\" data-media-type=\"image\/jpeg\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 3.<\/strong> Thurgood Marshall (a), who later served on the Supreme Court, was appointed solicitor general by Lyndon Johnson and was the first African American to hold the post. Noel Francisco (b) was the forty-seventh solicitor general of the United States, starting his term of office in September 2017.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757210022\">In other cases in which the United States is not the petitioner or the respondent, the solicitor general may choose to intervene or comment as a third party. Before a case is granted <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert.<\/em>, the justices will sometimes ask the solicitor general to comment on or file a brief in the case, indicating their potential interest in getting it on the docket. The solicitor general may also recommend that the justices decline to hear a case. Though research has shown that the solicitor general\u2019s special influence on the Court is not unlimited, it remains quite significant. In particular, the Court does not always agree with the solicitor general, and &#8220;while justices are not lemmings who will unwittingly fall off legal cliffs for tortured solicitor general recommendations, they nevertheless often go along with them even when we least expect them to.&#8221;<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Ryan C. Black and Ryan J. Owens. &quot;Solicitor General Influence and the United States Supreme Court.&quot; Vanderbilt University. http:\/\/www.vanderbilt.edu\/csdi\/archived\/working%20papers\/Ryan%20Owens.pdf (March 1, 2016).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-10\" href=\"#footnote-369-10\" aria-label=\"Footnote 10\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[10]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757218900\">Some have credited Donald B. Verrilli, the solicitor general under President Obama, with holding special sway over the five-justice majority ruling on same-sex marriage in June 2015. Indeed, his position that denying homosexuals the right to marry would mean &#8220;thousands and thousands of people are going to live out their lives and go to their deaths without their states ever recognizing the equal dignity of their relationships&#8221; became a foundational point of the Court\u2019s opinion, written by then-Justice Anthony Kennedy.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Mark Joseph Stern., &quot;If SCOTUS Decides in Favor of Marriage Equality, Thank Solicitor General Don Verrilli,&quot; Slate.com. April 29, 2015. http:\/\/www.slate.com\/blogs\/outward\/2015\/04\/29\/don_verrilli_solicitor_general_was_the_real_hero_of_scotus_gay_marriage.html.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-11\" href=\"#footnote-369-11\" aria-label=\"Footnote 11\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[11]<\/sup><\/a> With such power over the Court, the solicitor general is sometimes referred to as &#8220;the tenth justice.&#8221;<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757368744\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h3 data-type=\"title\">SUPREME COURT PROCEDURES<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757580986\">Once a case has been placed on the docket, <strong>briefs<\/strong>, or short arguments explaining each party\u2019s view of the case, must be submitted\u2014first by the petitioner putting forth his or her case, then by the respondent. After initial briefs have been filed, both parties may file subsequent briefs in response to the first. Likewise, people and groups that are not party to the case but are interested in its outcome may file an <strong><em data-effect=\"italics\">amicus curiae<\/em><\/strong> (&#8220;friend of the court&#8221;) brief giving their opinion, analysis, and recommendations about how the Court should rule. Interest groups in particular can become heavily involved in trying to influence the judiciary by filing <em data-effect=\"italics\">amicus<\/em> briefs\u2014both before and after a case has been granted <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>. And, as noted earlier, if the United States is not party to a case, the solicitor general may file an <em data-effect=\"italics\">amicus<\/em> brief on the government\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755284466\">With briefs filed, the Court hears <strong>oral arguments<\/strong> in cases from October through April. The proceedings are quite ceremonial. When the Court is in session, the robed justices make a formal entrance into the courtroom to a standing audience and the sound of a banging gavel. The Court\u2019s marshal presents them with a traditional chant: &#8220;The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! [Hear ye!] All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!&#8221;<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;The Court and its Procedures.&quot; Supreme Court of the United States. May 26, 2015.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-12\" href=\"#footnote-369-12\" aria-label=\"Footnote 12\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[12]<\/sup><\/a> It has not gone unnoticed that the Court, which has defended the First Amendment\u2019s religious protection and the traditional separation of church and state, opens its every public session with a mention of God.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757302326\">During oral arguments, each side\u2019s lawyers have thirty minutes to make their legal case, though the justices often interrupt the presentations with questions. The justices consider oral arguments not as a forum for a lawyer to restate the merits of his or her case as written in the briefs, but as an opportunity to get answers to any questions they may have.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Supreme Court Procedures.&quot; United States Courts. http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1 (March 1, 2016).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-13\" href=\"#footnote-369-13\" aria-label=\"Footnote 13\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[13]<\/sup><\/a> When the United States is party to a case, the solicitor general (or one of his or her assistants) will argue the government\u2019s position; even in other cases, the solicitor general may still be given time to express the government\u2019s position on the dispute.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757313411\">When oral arguments have been concluded, the justices have to decide the case, and they do so in <strong>conference<\/strong>, which is held in private twice a week when the Court is in session and once a week when it is not. The conference is also a time to discuss petitions for <em data-effect=\"italics\">certiorari<\/em>, but for those cases already heard, each justice may state his or her views on the case, ask questions, or raise concerns. The chief justice speaks first about a case, then each justice speaks in turn, in descending order of seniority, ending with the most recently appointed justice.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"&quot;Supreme Court Procedures.&quot; United States Courts. http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1 (March 1, 2016).\" id=\"return-footnote-369-14\" href=\"#footnote-369-14\" aria-label=\"Footnote 14\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[14]<\/sup><\/a> The judges take an initial vote in private before the official announcement of their decisions is made public.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757318615\">Oral arguments are open to the public, but cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so the only picture we get is one drawn by an artist\u2019s hand, an illustration or rendering. Cameras seem to be everywhere today, especially to provide security in places such as schools, public buildings, and retail stores, so the lack of live coverage of Supreme Court proceedings may seem unusual or old-fashioned. Over the years, groups have called for the Court to let go of this tradition and open its operations to more &#8220;sunshine&#8221; and greater transparency. Nevertheless, the justices have resisted the pressure and remain neither filmed nor photographed during oral arguments.<a class=\"footnote\" title=\"Jonathan Sherman. &quot;End the Supreme Court's Ban on Cameras.&quot; New York Times. 24 April 2015. http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/04\/24\/opinion\/open-the-supreme-court-to-cameras.html.\" id=\"return-footnote-369-15\" href=\"#footnote-369-15\" aria-label=\"Footnote 15\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757403018\" class=\"summary\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<h2>Summary<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163755399290\">A unique institution, the U.S. Supreme Court today is an interesting mix of the traditional and the modern. On one hand, it still holds to many of the formal traditions, processes, and procedures it has followed for many decades. Its public proceedings remain largely ceremonial and are never filmed or photographed. At the same time, the Court has taken on new cases involving contemporary matters before a nine-justice panel that is more diverse today than ever before. When considering whether to take on a case and then later when ruling on it, the justices rely on a number of internal and external players who assist them with and influence their work, including, but not limited to, their law clerks, the U.S. solicitor general, interest groups, and the mass media.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\n<h3>Try It<\/h3>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"lumen_assessment_15949\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/load?assessment_id=15949&#38;embed=1&#38;external_user_id=&#38;external_context_id=&#38;iframe_resize_id=lumen_assessment_15949\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:400px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"lumen_assessment_15950\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/load?assessment_id=15950&#38;embed=1&#38;external_user_id=&#38;external_context_id=&#38;iframe_resize_id=lumen_assessment_15950\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:400px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"lumen_assessment_15951\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/load?assessment_id=15951&#38;embed=1&#38;external_user_id=&#38;external_context_id=&#38;iframe_resize_id=lumen_assessment_15951\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:400px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"lumen_assessment_15952\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assessments.lumenlearning.com\/assessments\/load?assessment_id=15952&#38;embed=1&#38;external_user_id=&#38;external_context_id=&#38;iframe_resize_id=lumen_assessment_15952\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:400px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757614232\" class=\"review-questions\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757187773\" data-type=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757528836\" data-type=\"problem\">\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>THINK IT OVER<\/h3>\n<section id=\"fs-id1163757614232\" class=\"review-questions\" data-depth=\"1\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757187773\" data-type=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163757528836\" data-type=\"problem\">\n<ul>\n<li id=\"fs-id1163757184920\">What do the appointments of the Supreme Court\u2019s two newest justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, reveal about the changing selection process for the high court?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<div data-type=\"glossary\">\n<div class=\"textbox key-takeaways\">\n<h3>Glossary<\/h3>\n<div data-type=\"glossary\">\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163755073846\">\n<dt><em data-effect=\"italics\">Amicus Curiae<\/em><\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757186995\">literally a &#8220;friend of the court&#8221; and used for a brief filed by someone who is interested in but not party to a case<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757186141\">\n<dt>Associate Justice<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757302490\">a member of the Supreme Court who is not the chief justice<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757384482\">\n<dt>Brief<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163755115274\">a written legal argument presented to a court by one of the parties in a case<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757322321\">\n<dt>Chief Justice<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757241695\">the highest-ranking justice on the Supreme Court<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757211403\">\n<dt>Conference<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757309177\">closed meeting of the justices to discuss cases on the docket and take an initial vote<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757527275\">\n<dt>Docket<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757447429\">the list of cases pending on a court\u2019s calendar<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757182421\">\n<dt>Oral Argument<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757287895\">words spoken before the Supreme Court (usually by lawyers) explaining the legal reasons behind their position in a case and why it should prevail<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163755116888\">\n<dt>Rule of Four<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757288474\">a Supreme Court custom in which a case will be heard when four justices decide to do so<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757290995\">\n<dt>Solicitor General<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757367033\">the lawyer who represents the federal government and argues some cases before the Supreme Court<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163757194304\">\n<dt>Writ of C<em data-effect=\"italics\">ertiorari<\/em><\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163757186466\">an order of the Supreme Court calling up the records of the lower court so a case may be reviewed; sometimes abbreviated <em data-effect=\"italics\">cert<\/em>.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-369\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>American Government 2e. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: OpenStax. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/nY32AU8S@5.1:xJJkKaSK@5\/Preface\">https:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/nY32AU8S@5.1:xJJkKaSK@5\/Preface<\/a>. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em>. <strong>License Terms<\/strong>: Download for free at http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/9d8df601-4f12-4ac1-8224-b450bf739e5f@5.1<\/li><\/ul><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">All rights reserved content<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Supreme Court of the United States Procedures: Crash Course Government and Politics #20. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: CrashCourse. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7sualy8OiKk&#038;list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H&#038;index=20\">https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7sualy8OiKk&#038;list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H&#038;index=20<\/a>. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em>All Rights Reserved<\/em>. <strong>License Terms<\/strong>: Standard YouTube license<\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section><hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/><div class=\"footnotes\"><ol><li id=\"footnote-369-1\">Dahlia Lithwick. \"Who Feeds the Supreme Court?\" Slate.com. September 14, 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/jurisprudence\/2015\/09\/supreme_court_feeder_judges_men_and_few_women_send_law_clerks_to_scotus.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.slate.com\/articles\/news_and_politics\/jurisprudence\/2015\/09\/supreme_court_feeder_judges_men_and_few_women_send_law_clerks_to_scotus.html<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-1\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-2\">\"Role of Supreme Court Law Clerk: Interview with Philippa Scarlett.\" IIP Digital. United States of America Embassy. <a href=\"http:\/\/iipdigital.usembassy.gov\/st\/english\/publication\/2013\/02\/20130211142365.html#axzz3grjRwiG\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/iipdigital.usembassy.gov\/st\/english\/publication\/2013\/02\/20130211142365.html#axzz3grjRwiG<\/a> (March 1, 2016). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-2\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-3\">\"Supreme Court Procedures.\" United States Courts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-3\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 3\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-4\">Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-4\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 4\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-5\">\"Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari.\" Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Adopted April 19, 2013, Effective July 1, 2013. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/ctrules\/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/ctrules\/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-5\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 5\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-6\">Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-6\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 6\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-7\">Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright. 1988. \"Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,\" American Political Science Review 82: 1109\u20131128. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-7\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 7\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-8\">Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, and Christopher Zorn. 2012. \"Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited.\" Presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Institutions and Lawmaking, Emory University. <a href=\"http:\/\/polisci.emory.edu\/home\/cslpe\/conference-institutions-law-making\/2012\/papers\/caldeira_wright_zorn_cwzpaper.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/polisci.emory.edu\/home\/cslpe\/conference-institutions-law-making\/2012\/papers\/caldeira_wright_zorn_cwzpaper.pdf<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-8\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 8\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-9\">\"About the Office.\" Office of the Solicitor General. The United States Department of Justice. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/osg\/about-office-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/osg\/about-office-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-9\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 9\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-10\">Ryan C. Black and Ryan J. Owens. \"Solicitor General Influence and the United States Supreme Court.\" Vanderbilt University. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.vanderbilt.edu\/csdi\/archived\/working%20papers\/Ryan%20Owens.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.vanderbilt.edu\/csdi\/archived\/working%20papers\/Ryan%20Owens.pdf<\/a> (March 1, 2016). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-10\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 10\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-11\">Mark Joseph Stern., \"If SCOTUS Decides in Favor of Marriage Equality, Thank Solicitor General Don Verrilli,\" Slate.com. April 29, 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/blogs\/outward\/2015\/04\/29\/don_verrilli_solicitor_general_was_the_real_hero_of_scotus_gay_marriage.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.slate.com\/blogs\/outward\/2015\/04\/29\/don_verrilli_solicitor_general_was_the_real_hero_of_scotus_gay_marriage.html<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-11\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 11\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-12\">\"The Court and its Procedures.\" Supreme Court of the United States. May 26, 2015. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-12\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 12\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-13\">\"Supreme Court Procedures.\" United States Courts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-13\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 13\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-14\">\"Supreme Court Procedures.\" United States Courts. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1<\/a> (March 1, 2016). <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-14\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 14\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><li id=\"footnote-369-15\">Jonathan Sherman. \"End the Supreme Court's Ban on Cameras.\" New York Times. 24 April 2015. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/04\/24\/opinion\/open-the-supreme-court-to-cameras.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2015\/04\/24\/opinion\/open-the-supreme-court-to-cameras.html<\/a>. <a href=\"#return-footnote-369-15\" class=\"return-footnote\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 15\">&crarr;<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":45325,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"cc\",\"description\":\"American Government 2e\",\"author\":\"OpenStax\",\"organization\":\"\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/nY32AU8S@5.1:xJJkKaSK@5\/Preface\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"Download for free at http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/9d8df601-4f12-4ac1-8224-b450bf739e5f@5.1\"},{\"type\":\"copyrighted_video\",\"description\":\"Supreme Court of the United States Procedures: Crash Course Government and Politics #20\",\"author\":\"\",\"organization\":\"CrashCourse\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=7sualy8OiKk&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtOfse2ncvffeelTrqvhrz8H&index=20\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"arr\",\"license_terms\":\"Standard YouTube license\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-369","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":336,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45325"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2164,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/369\/revisions\/2164"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/336"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/369\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=369"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=369"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-tompkinscortland-amgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}