The Most Powerful Court in the World: A History of the Supreme Court of the United States

by Stuart Banner

An authoritative, even-handed, and accessible history of the Supreme Court of the United States, the most powerful court in the world and the final arbiter of the world's oldest constitution.

Will abortion be legal? Should people of the same sex be allowed to marry? May colleges prefer black applicants over white ones? These are among the most bitterly contested issues in the United States today. We answer these questions, and many more, by presenting them to nine lawyers--the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. No other nation commits so many important questions to its highest court.

Stuart Banner's The Most Powerful Court in the World is an authoritative history of the United States Supreme Court from the Founding era to the present. Not merely a history of the Court's opinions and jurisprudence, it is also a rich account of the Court in the broadest sense--of the sorts of people who become justices and the methods by which they are chosen, of how the Court does its work, and of its relationship with other branches of government. It is about how the Court acquired so much power, how it has retained its power in the face of repeated challenges and criticisms, and what it has done with its power over the years. Rather than praising or criticizing the Court's decisions, Banner makes the case that one cannot fully understand the decisions without knowing about the institution that produced them.

Offering a fresh analytical window into today's contentious debates about the Court--debates that often rest on dubious ideas about the Court's history--The Most Powerful Court in the World helps readers see cases through the justices' eyes.

Genres: Law, History, Nonfiction, American History, Audiobook

672 pages, Hardcover

Published November 4, 2024

Reviews

[Caleb Ringger]

Banner's tightly buttoned, careful biography of the Supreme Court gives a bluntly honest and nonpartisan assessment of what has changed, and what has largely stayed the same, across the Court's 236 year history. It's highly digestible, never dry (by the standards of legal history), and jam-packed with memorable anecdotes. Anyone seeking to understand the Supreme Court as an institution, not merely as the nine people who occupy its seats today, should read this book.

I should mention that I happened to be reading this book during the tail end of my first-semester Constitutional Law class at law school. For what it's worth, I think I can attest that Banner does not sacrifice fidelity to fact while still writing primarily for popular audiences. This book supplemented my classroom learning by synthesizing the broad themes of historical and modern American jurisprudence and fixing them in their proper political and social context.

But I guess if I flunk my exams next week, I'll have to come back and edit this review.

Rating: A-

[Stephen Ditman · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.9 stars. Controversies regarding the Supreme Court today are remarkably similar to controversies occurring since the early 1800’s.

[John Kennedy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stuart Banner, former law clerk for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, has written a comprehensive, illuminating, and even-handed historical review of what has been the most powerful court in the world since the late 1700s. Banner recounts how the court has retained its power in the face of repeated challenges, dealing with controversial political questions from the beginning.
In the early years, all the justices lived in Washington, D.C. year-round and confirmation hearings were conducted behind closed doors. These men were expected to also work as part-time circuit judges, traveling at their own expense.
Initially, justices tended to have earlier served as elected politicians. Until the Civil War, Southerners (and slaveholders) maintained a majority on the bench, thus refusing to place curbs on the few cases regarding slavery that appeared on the docket. The court routinely ruled that Blacks, as well as Native Americans, possessed no rights whatsoever. The court is largely responsible for dismantling the congressional civil rights granted to Blacks after the Civil War, and for upholding Jim Crow regulations for nearly a century afterward.
No Senate hearings were held for justice confirmations before 1916, the first year U.s. senators were directly elected. Public hearings didn't become standard until the late 1940s. For the first century, virtually all appointees were white Protestant men.
The early years featured many cases involving technical issues that had no national ramifications. Until 1925, the Supreme Court accepted virtually every case requested of them, with quick opinions issued and few dissents made. But Chief Justice William Howard Taft pushed the idea of the modern court, that justices should have the power to choose which cases to hear and no longer be consumed with humdrum matters.
In the 1920s, for the first time, the court started deciding cases in favor of individual rights rather than in favor of the government. Justices transformed into active participants shaping the law. That brought a wave of criticism deeming the court undemocratic: a group of nine lawyers with lifetime appointments nullifying statutes enacted by elected representatives. Following the founding of the ACLU and NAACP in the early 20th century, the court began carving out personal rights to free speech and protections for criminal defendants.
With Franklin D. Roosevelt naming eight justices during his long presidency, the court turned liberal. But much animosity between the justices took place during the Truman presidency. A still-record 80% dissent opinion rate occurred in 1952.
Starting in the early 1960s, the court was at its most liberal, banning organized prayer in public school and crafting a constitutional right to abortion where none existed. Many consider 1973's Roe v. Wade the most egregious example of raw judicial power in history. Subsequently, judicial appointments have been colored by whether the nominee affirms or rejects Roe.
Ten straight Republican appointments starting in the Nixon years didn't result in an immediate counterrevolution. As happened with Eisenhower earlier, some of Nixon's, Regan's and George H.W. Bush's appointments turned out to be more moderate than expected.
Geographic and religious balance no longer are important on the court. By 2010, all the justices were either Catholic or Jewish. Gender and racial diversity are more important now. But the justices have become less diverse educationally. All sitting justices now graduated from Harvard or Yale.

[Ali Can · Rating 4 out of 5]

My intention in buying this book was to read a comprehensive and objective history United States Supreme court, and I could definitely say that this book was exactly that. It is obviously difficult to write about one of the cornerstone institutions of the American Republic, and doing that in 600 pages or so is even more difficult. The author accomplished a phenomenal job in capturing judicial history without making it read like a texbook. I was also amazed by the objectivity in his writing in the sense that I would have never guessed that he clerked for O’connor as he even shares details about O’Connor’s reluctance to step down if Gore was to be elected. My only let down from this book is that, the author could have explored some landmark cases a little more, for example roe vs wade easily takes space over 10-20 pages, I wish he had written more about early 20th century cases about anti trust law. Most of the cases talked about in the book relate towards important civil rights cases(not just the cases from 60s), which makes the book lack cases about corporations. I’m not saying that civil rights cases are not important as they are supremely important, but I wish the book included more information about anti trust cases or cases which included big corporations more.

[Urey Patrick · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent history of the institution, the justices, and the evolving ways they have influenced law, society and government from inception to present day. This is not a legal discourse, analyzing cases and principles, although the author does make excellent use of brief case explanations to illustrate his points along the way. This is superb history, superbly researched and presented. The author clearly sympathizes with the liberal trends in Supreme Court evolution that "found" new rights and coverages in the Constitution derived more from personal political imperatives than legal objectivity, but does not argue for them. It is more a background theme. Amusingly, in the modern era when the Court returned to a more conservative, limited view, he expresses some surprise that the conservative justices did not exploit their political preferences to overturn all those of the prior liberal Court. Perhaps conservative jurisprudence involves striving to avoid exactly such things? Anyway - the book is compelling, interesting and well worth reading. History well done!

[Christian Lemon · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Court buff, this is one of the best books on the court that I've read. As opposed to being written purely chronologically, the book tells the story of the court through trendlines in a really interesting way that I would recommend, especially if you have a broad knowledge of court history. It delve overwhelming into any specific case, the tells the story more wholistically and how the periods of the court interact with one another.

It may not be the best book for someone with no knowledge of the court and its history as I think it assumes a little background knowledge on some of the more major cases. That said, it was packed with nuggets that as a fan of court history, I loved.

I read a library copy, but plan to buy my own copy to keep in my personal library and come back to.

[Richie Valdes · Rating 5 out of 5]

Other books on the Supreme Court are typically dry and factual and also break up the discussion by chief justices, which aren’t natural delineations of decisions because the composition of the court can change dramatically while the chief justice is the same. Banner does a good job of making the history of the SC a good, readable narrative. He also breaks up the chapters/discussions by topic (how the court handled slavery or the lead up to the civil war or during the civil war or reconstruction the world wars etc). This made it easy to follow the progression of courts decisions. Highly recommend if you have even a slight history nerd bent or interest in the court.

[Kurtis Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dutifully researched and refreshingly non partisan. I learned so much about the nuanced and misunderstood history of the US Supreme Court. Though I do not have a legal background I found the author generally wrote about historical cases in a digestible manner in addition to providing political and historical context. Recommend for anyone seeking an objective historical view of the most powerful court in the world.

[Paul Sarbaugh · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a real page turner. One comes away with an appreciation of the public service idealism of the justices of the court. Its coverage of the early history of the institution shows what a demanding vocation they were called to serve. Controversial decisions from Dred Scott to abortion are covered in full detail with the historical context fully explored.

[david s hershberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Articulate Comprehensive and Insighful

Wonderful insights into the way the court has been chosen as well how political it has been The writing is clear and non legalistic. Perfect for both lawyers and non lawyers.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

A terrific book to understand the development of the Supreme Court and how it works from behind the scenes.

[Edward Weiner · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is beautifully written. It is a history book. Not a law book. If you are interested in American history and current political issues, this is the book to read.

[Marklutherlawoffice · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book about the history of the Supreme Court. Well written. A good guide to the cases that shaped our country.

[Sean Keating · Rating 4 out of 5]

Detailed book on the history of the Supreme Court. Even in the 1700s the court was politically divided.