Over the past 8 years, the federal judiciary system has changed drastically. Landmark rulings, overturning past precedents, and a dramatic shift in the makeup of justices in the Supreme Court have significantly changed the judiciary system as a whole. This Brief explores how this change in composition has affected the judiciary system and policy action and will for years to come.

Changes in Composition:

Over the past 8 years, the judiciary system has undergone a drastic change in its composition. For some context, 8 years ago, the Supreme Court was made up of 5 conservative justices and 4 liberal justices. However, the death of Justice Scalia early in 2017 caused a hole, leaving a perfect balance of 4 liberal and 4 conservative justices throughout that year. Then President Trump replaced him with a new conservative judge, making a 5:4 ratio of conservatives to liberals. Today, the court is dominated by 6 conservative judges, including the Chief Justice, who usually votes with other conservatives. While the two-judge difference might not feel that big to us, it makes a huge difference. The composition of the courts makes an impact on how the Supreme Court does its job, interpreting the laws. With a more conservative base, the court is likely to take a strict interpretation of the constitution and its limits, favoring and rationalizing decisions consistent exactly with the constitution. Whereas liberal courts are likely to take a broader interpretation of the constitution, using a rationale based on societal factors. When put into practice, these two styles clash significantly, creating and breaking barriers for policy change.

 Change in Retirement Trends:

One major factor that makes changes in Court composition so important is that Supreme Court justies have lifetime appointments. Once justices are appointed, they get to serve for however long they want.  Some justices are choosing to never step down, a sentiment that is becoming ever more frequent. One perfect example is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. After fighting cancer twice, she had the opportunity to step down in 2013 and 2014 when President Obama could have replaced her with another liberal judge; however, she decisively chose not to and died while in office. Because she never stepped down, her death became a an avenue for Presieent Trump to add a conservative to the court.

Composition Among Terms:

At the heart of Supreme Court  composition changes and appointments is the Senate Judiciary Committee. While many Americans might see Senate confirmation as a formality that doesn’t change much, politics happen here that further polarize the court. For example, in 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee, namely Mitch McConnell, its Republican chair at the time, held up President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment of Merrick Garland, citing “lame duck term” timing and saying the people should be able to decide with their next choice for president. This came under heavy scrutiny for essentially denying the powers of the president for Mitch McConnell’s own political alignment. Soon after, McConnell ushered the confirmation of Donald Trump’s new appointee, Neil Gorsuch

It’s also important to note that the Supreme Court is the only branch of the federal court not bound by ethics considerations. 8 of the current Supreme Court justices have faced ethical accusations, such as undisclosed financial benefits and transactions and  incentives to alter decision-making by spouses. This lack of a binding code of conduct further allows justices to act in compliance with their political party, rather than their professional opinions.

It’s important for Americans to remember that there are multiple levels to the federal judiciary system. Less than 1% of total federal judiciary cases get heard by the Supreme Court, and of the 8000 petitions that make it to the Supreme Court, less than 100 are heard for oral arguments. While all the focus may be on the Supreme Court nominations, these lower-tier appointments make up the bulk of citizens’ interactions with the legal system. Joe Biden set a record for these nominations since the Carter administration, with his 235 appointments compared to President Trump’s 226.

However, major judicial decisions are still made by the Supreme Court, decisions that affect cases related to  civil and reproductive rights, presidential immunity, and the amount of money allowed in politics. These landmark cases have become more a reflection of political platforms rather than  equity and judicial precedent.