GREENFIELD — Should the U.S. Supreme Court consist of more than nine justices? Should the justices serve terms, as opposed to lifetime appointments? Should it even exist at all?
These are some of the questions addressed by Rory Little, a UC Law San Francisco professor and part-time Greenfield resident, during a free program at the Greenfield Public Library on Friday afternoon. Little spent time explaining the history and purpose of the court that is often a source of frustration for Americans, depending on their political leanings.
“It was designed to answer certain questions,” Little told guests. “I would rather have them than not have them — it’s better than nothing.”
Little joined the UC Law San Francisco faculty in 1994 following a 12-year career as a practicing litigator, prosecutor, criminal defense and appellate lawyer. He instituted and has chaired the Hastings Faculty Committee on judicial clerkships for many years.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution. Its first meeting was scheduled for New York City (then the nation’s capital) on Feb. 1, 1790, but a lack of a quorum delayed the official opening until the following day. Little explained there were six members on the court until it was discovered that this was a bad idea because it would result in ties.
He said he feels life tenure is best, as it gives justices the freedom and independence to vote without fear of political repercussions. Little has some fairly unique connections to the court, as he attended high school in New Jersey with Justice Samuel Alito’s future wife, Yale Law School with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and once served as clerk for Justice William Brennan Jr.
He mentioned the SCOTUS building is currently under renovation. The Supreme Court was not provided with a building of its own until 1935. The idea for a separate building was first suggested by William Howard Taft, the only person to have been both president and chief justice. Taft secured funding in 1929, and the building was completed during President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration.
Little also explained the court’s demographics. He said Alito and Clarence Thomas — the longest-serving current member and the second Black justice in history, respectively — make up the conservative bloc, while Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson make up the liberal wing. However, Little noted that the votes of Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. are more difficult to predict.
Sotomayor is the court’s first Hispanic justice and Jackson is the first Black woman to serve on the court. This is the first time the court has consisted of four women.
Although the court has a reputation for rendering decisions that are contentious and highly partisan, Little said a slight majority of cases are decided unanimously.
Little mentioned that Thomas, arguably the court’s most conservative member, has had his seat for 34 years and will never retire. He also said Alito’s tenure irks him because he often rules on criminal defense cases, yet worked only as a prosecutor before his nomination.
“He can’t imagine what a criminal defense would do,” Little said.
Little explained that Barrett, a devout Catholic with seven children, was appointed specifically so the court could overturn Roe v. Wade — which it did in 2022, 20 months after Barrett was sworn in, thus ending the constitutional right to abortion. He added that he thinks the Supreme Court will rule against President Donald Trump’s efforts to end birthright citizenship.
Little said justices have a pretty sweet gig — high salary, life tenure and summers off. The chief justice earns a $320,700 salary, while the eight associate justices make $306,600 each. The court generally hears oral arguments in about 60 to 80 cases per year.
Little recommended scotusblog.com, oyez.org, supremecourt.gov and Georgetown University Law Center Professor Steve Vladeck’s Substack, stevevladeck.com, for anyone who wants to learn more about the Supreme Court and its happenings. He also recommended Harry Litman’s podcast, “Talking Feds,” for those who are interested in criminal law and litigation.