Hear about the 1962 Supreme Court case so divisive that it caused a justice's breakdown.

In recent decades, Supreme Court nominations have grown increasingly contentious and partisan

This video examines the historical shift from bipartisan, civil confirmation hearings to the deeply divisive process seen today. It focuses on the 1987 nomination of Robert Bork, the most recent nominee to be rejected, as an important moment in this transformation.

Explore the most impactful Supreme Court cases in US history

Browse by constitutional topic to explore key rulings, their historical impact, and the legal principles they established. Each case includes a summary of the decision, along with notable excerpts from majority and dissenting opinions.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

John Marshall presided over more than 1,100 Supreme Court decisions

During his 34-year tenure, the Marshall court issued 1,129 decisions, including 1,042 unanimous rulings. Marshall authored more than 500 majority opinions—over half of the court's total output during his tenure as chief justice.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

John Marshall inherited a marginal and largely inactive Supreme Court

By 1801, the court had little institutional authority or public standing. Its first three chief justices served only 11 years combined, and in its first decade, the court decided only 63 cases—none of which struck down a federal or state law.

Hear leading experts on constitutional law discuss the legacy and impact of Marshall

In this podcast, constitutional scholars Michael Gerhardt (University of North Carolina) and Kevin Walsh (University of Richmond) analyze Marshall's 34-year tenure, assessing his role in establishing judicial review, expanding federal power, and shaping the court's institutional authority.

Hear a narrative account of Justice John Marshall's 'simple' upbringing and his major impact on the American republic.

A 2013 Supreme Court case weakened federal oversight of redistricting

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, reducing federal oversight of voting laws—including redistricting—and allowing changes to take effect without prior approval.

A 1986 Supreme Court ruling prohibited race-based jury strikes, but racial imbalance in jury selection persists

Batson v. Kentucky banned prosecutors from excluding jurors on the basis of race, but critics say it backfired. Prosecutors often use race-neutral pretexts to remove potential jurors that judges rarely reject, and some courts have never found a violation of the ruling.

Watch 2 Supreme Court justices debate how the Constitution should be interpreted

In a 2009 conversation, former Justices Antonin Scalia and Stephen G. Breyer lay out competing approaches to constitutional interpretation: Scalia's textualist, strict constructionism versus Breyer's evolutionary view of the Constitution in practice.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.

Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

This podcast explores how Chief Justice John Marshall avoided a direct clash with President Jefferson by denying William Marbury his commission—while simultaneously declaring that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws—cementing judicial review, and expanding the Supreme Court's authority.

Cases during John Marshall's tenure defined the principles of federal Indian law

During Marshall's tenure, three landmark rulings—Johnson v. M'Intosh, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and Worcester v. Georgia—established foundational doctrines of federal Indian law, defining tribal sovereignty, limiting state authority, and placing primary responsibility for Native affairs in the federal government.

John Marshall strengthened the Supreme Court and national authority

As chief justice, John Marshall established the principle of judicial review. He reinforced federal supremacy in key cases, defining the Supreme Court as a powerful arbiter between states and the national government under the US federal system.

Watch a news clip from the evening of 'the Saturday Night Massacre'

On Oct. 20, 1973, President Nixon ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox—prompting the resignations of Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy AG William Ruckelshaus. This NBC News Special Report shows the immediate aftermath of the decision.

Read the majority opinion that established judicial review

In his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a written constitution is "paramount law" and that courts must refuse to enforce statutes that conflict with it. He declared that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

Court-packing is the attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices to shift the balance

Because the Constitution leaves the court's size to Congress, presidents have periodically sought to expand or reshape it. This explainer examines past efforts—including Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 plan—and why court-packing remains so controversial.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

Watch the breaking news report of the revelation that brought down the Nixon presidency

In August 1974, following a unanimous Supreme Court ruling, the White House released the "smoking gun" tape—revealing Nixon's role in the cover-up. Watch the CBS News report from Aug. 5, 1974, detailing the fallout from the release of the tapes.

Experience famous images from the Watergate scandal, the defining US political crisis of the early 1970s

Take a deep dive into the constitutional foundations of judicial review

In this episode of "This Constitution," the hosts take a law-focused approach to judicial review—examining its roots in Article III and the supremacy clause, its development through Marbury v. Madison, and the ongoing constitutional debates about whether the court's power strengthens or strains American democracy.

The 2025-26 Supreme Court docket is poised to reshape presidential power

As the Supreme Court begins a new term, several major cases could define the scope of presidential authority. The court may rule on President Trump's efforts to control state National Guard units, fire independent officials, impose tariffs, and cut congressionally mandated federal spending.

Plessy v. Ferguson legalized segregation until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it

In 1896, the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, enabling decades of discrimination. This explainer traces how Brown later ruled school segregation unconstitutional and reshaped civil rights law.

Roe v. Wade recognized a constitutional right to abortion until Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned it

For decades, the Supreme Court shaped abortion access through constitutional rulings, from Roe's recognition of a right to abortion to Dobbs' returning regulatory power to the states. This explainer tracks key cases, impacts, and current justices' views.

Explore biographies of every justice who has served on the Supreme Court

This archive traces the whole history of the Supreme Court of the United States through detailed biographies of every justice, outlining their backgrounds, appointments, and the legal eras and decisions they helped shape.

'What each of us must come to realize is that our intent always comes through.'

- First African American Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993)

Supreme Court justices serve for life

The Constitution grants Supreme Court justices lifetime appointments to shield them from electoral politics and outside pressure, a design meant to preserve judicial independence but now widely debated due to longer lifespans and partisan balances of the court.

The powers of the judicial branch have expanded since the nation's founding

Initially, the Supreme Court was seen as the weakest branch, lacking "the power of the sword or the purse," as Alexander Hamilton noted in *Federalist No. 78*. This podcast explores the political conflicts and pivotal decisions that transformed the court into the powerful constitutional authority it is today.

See who appointed the Supreme Court's 116 throughout its history.

An adultery and poisoning case examined whether federal treaty power supersedes state law

This Radiolab podcast unpacks Bond v. United States, where a local love-triangle assault became a federal case under an international treaty—forcing the Supreme Court to confront a founding question: How far can federal power reach into crimes traditionally handled by the states?

Wine was often served at the Marshall court

Marshall was known for his love of alcohol. In the early 1800s, justices (loosely) maintained a rule that they could drink only when it was raining. On a sunny day, Marshall is said to have declared, "Somewhere in our broad jurisdiction it must surely be raining."

Meet the 9 justices currently serving on the US Supreme Court.

The separation of powers is a pivotal component of the US Constitution

Explore how the three branches interact through the Supreme Court case of US v. Alvarez. The Supreme Court first struck down a law, then Congress and the president later revised it—illustrating how judicial review can reshape legislation and executive action.

The Bakersfield Sound challenged the music's creeping respectability

As country music leaned towards the slick Nashville Sound in the 1950s, several artists operating outside that city reacted with rougher sounds more reminiscent of honky tonk and early rock ‘n’ roll. It came to be known as the Bakersfield Sound, reflecting the California agricultural region.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan sought to expand the Supreme Court—and failed

Frustrated by Supreme Court rulings against the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed expanding the court in 1937. The failed plan triggered fierce backlash and is regarded as the last serious presidential attempt to alter the court's size for ideological ends.

Photography and video are prohibited in the Supreme Court—but artists are not

Because cameras are banned inside the Supreme Court of the United States, courtroom artists document proceedings through sketches. This exhibition features works from 1964 to today, capturing the human drama of landmark cases and shaping how Americans visualize justice.

Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall clashed over national power and states' rights

Distant cousins Jefferson and Marshall advanced opposing constitutional visions—Jefferson favoring states' rights and local majorities, while Marshall defended broad federal authority and judicial review. Through decisions such as McCulloch v. Maryland, Marshall advanced national supremacy over state resistance.

True crime content can influence the justice system

The 2014 podcast "Serial" inspired national doubt about the outcome and quality of a 1999 Baltimore murder case, resulting in overturned convictions (that were then reinstated). The series "In the Dark," whose second season pored over the murder trials of a Black Mississippi man, revealed crucial testimony was recanted, provided evidence of racial discrimination in jury selection, and was cited in case filings.

The Supreme Court extended the ban on discriminatory jury strikes to include gender in 1994

In J.E.B. v. Alabama, the court ruled 6-3 that using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on sex violates the Equal Protection Clause, building on its 1986 Batson decision banning race-based strikes.

A Mississippi man was tried six times for the same crime, each time before an all-white or nearly all-white jury

This podcast investigates how prosecutor Doug Evans systematically struck Black jurors across decades of cases. The team built a database of every jury strike Evans made over 20 years, uncovering a racial pattern that was later cited by the Supreme Court when it overturned Curtis Flowers' conviction in 2019.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

Watch scholars debate Supreme Court term limits

In a debate from 2017, legal scholars from across the political spectrum spar over whether justices should serve fixed terms. The discussion highlights bipartisan concerns about judicial independence, accountability, and the risks of lifetime tenure.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once called states 'laboratories of democracy'

Louis Brandeis argued that federalism allows states to experiment with new policies without committing the entire nation, thereby allowing successful ideas to spread while limiting the risks of failure.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

State supreme court justices almost never serve for life

Unlike US Supreme Court justices, 99% of state supreme court justices face term limits, reselection, or mandatory retirement ages. Since 1970, they've averaged 13 years on the bench—half the tenure of their federal counterparts.

The Dred Scott decision denied African Americans citizenship, upheld slavery, and marked the first use of judicial review since Marbury v. Madison

This page explores the case, providing information on Dred Scott and his case before the Supreme Court. Explore the implications of one of the most critical cases in the history of the court.

Can courts end partisan gerrymandering?

This podcast explored whether courts can rein in partisan map-drawing, focusing on North Carolina's 2023 redistricting battle, the Moore v. Harper case, and the controversial "independent state legislature" theory.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established the framework courts use to evaluate presidential war powers

When Truman seized US steel mills during the Korean War, the Supreme Court ruled that he had overstepped his authority. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion held that presidential power is strongest when Congress authorizes action, uncertain when Congress is silent, and weakest when Congress explicitly refuses authorization.