Impact of Court Decisions The Supreme Court's decisions potentially affect many people and in fact have considerable effects. The extent to which the Court does have impact—direct and indirect, short‐run and long‐term—indicates its importance in the American political system (see
Political Process). The extent of compliance, when people intentionally conform behavior to the dictates of a Court ruling, may indicate the legitimacy accorded the Court by those potentially affected. Likewise, people's noncompliance, their refusal to follow a Supreme Court ruling, and their evasion of the ruling—giving it technical obedience but avoiding its spirit or rationale—are ways in which the public, unable to vote on acceptance of the Court's rulings, holds the Court accountable.
The terms
impact and
compliance, although theoretical concepts, point to important aspects of what the Court is able to accomplish. Compliance, for example, cannot occur unless people know of a ruling, indicating the importance of how they learn about judicial rulings. Sometimes people, giving credence to the Court, try to do what they believe the Court ultimately will require; this is anticipatory compliance. Impact is broader than compliance. It includes effects not only of decisions mandating certain action but also the effects of permissive rulings, those that do not require adoption of certain policy, such as one allowing six‐person rather than the traditional twelve‐person juries (see
Trial by Jury). And there are effects not only from individual rulings but also from sets of rulings, in which the Court reinforces its initial pronouncements, as it did repeatedly after approving the right to an
abortion. The Court can have impact not only when it issues a ruling with full opinion but also by refusing to review a case—in a way, by not acting. There are many factors playing a part in the Court's impact. One is the self‐interest of those affected; another is the state of public opinion and of existing policy; and a third is the extent to which officials attempt to implement the Court's rulings.
Since the nation's beginning, the Supreme Court has shaped American life. Chief Justice John
Marshall's decisions, for example, helped develop a strong central government and national economy. Somewhat later, the Court spurred sectional division with
Scott v. Sandford (1857) and helped solidify racial separation with
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) (see
Race and Racism). The Court's decisions have a potential effect on many people. At times, the Court's decrees are carried out: school prayers cease and criminal suspects are warned of their rights. But at other times, noncompliance results: school prayers continue to be said and improper searches do not abate. Some rulings are welcomed and willingly enforced; many others are carried out with indifference. Particularly if we look beyond such controversial topics as school prayer and search and seizure, there is a high degree of compliance with the Court's rulings. However, resistance has led to overturning the Court's rulings, most dramatically when the Constitution itself is amended, as it was to eliminate
slavery (
Thirteenth Amendment) and to allow an
income tax (
Sixteenth) and the vote for eighteen‐year‐olds (
Twenty‐sixth). (See
Constitutional Amending Process.) After the Court interprets a statute, legislators frequently rewrite the laws to retain their earlier intent. Thus, as a policy maker, the Court does not have the final word: the law is “what the Court says it is” but only after all others have had their say.
Court rulings can sweep broadly in their effects—on Congress, whose internal operations and districts were affected by the Court and many of whose legislative outputs have been invalidated; on the presidency, where the impact has generally been to legitimate the president's actions, particularly in time of
war and with respect to
foreign affairs; on the states, where the greatest effect has occurred because the Court has been far more willing to strike down state than national legislation; on the economy; on
public opinion; and on civil liberties and civil rights.
Impact is not simply a matter of the Court speaking and others responding. Responses reach the Court through its awareness of its surroundings or because people bring cases challenging those responses, producing a continuing dialogue between the Supreme Court and other political actors. A visible example is the appearance before the Court of legislation regulating abortion and the Court's frequent rulings on the subject. Resistance to the Court's rulings, as in efforts to limit availability of abortion, may be seen as illegitimate—because we should obey the Supreme Court's rulings as “the law of the land.” However, if the Supreme Court is to be at least somewhat responsive to those it will affect, resistance and the new cases it spawns help make the Court aware of its effects. It is also true that the Court's legitimacy may increase the extent to which its decisions are followed.
See also
Separation of Powers.
Stephen L. Wasby
