Supreme Court Undergoes Significant Constitutional Shifts Over Two Decades

Why it matters locally: The shifts in constitutional law, particularly regarding abortion rights and affirmative action, directly affect Minnesota residents. The overturning of Roe v. Wade led to a constitutional amendment in Minnesota guaranteeing abortion access, and changes to affirmative action policies impact university admissions for students across the state.

Washington D.C. — The Supreme Court has redefined significant aspects of constitutional law over the last two decades, altering legal interpretations that had been stable for many years. Legal professionals who completed their constitutional law studies around 2005, prior to the end of the Rehnquist court era, learned legal principles that largely do not align with current rulings. At that time, the Constitution recognized a right to abortion, allowed universities to consider race in admissions for diversity, applied the *Lemon* test to religious establishment cases, and protected independent agency members from presidential removal. None of these four interpretations accurately reflect current law, according to legal analysts. Additionally, the Second Amendment, which the court had not interpreted since 1939 in *United States v. Miller*, became the subject of six major cases following *District of Columbia v. Heller* in 2008. Changes in the court's composition initiated these shifts. Between 1994 and 2005, the Supreme Court maintained a period of stability. However, the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement in 2005 marked the beginning of the Roberts court. Four new justices joined the court within five years, and another four joined between 2016 and 2022. Today, Justice Clarence Thomas remains as the only member from the Rehnquist court. These compositional changes led to significant legal reorientations. *Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization* overruled *Planned Parenthood v. Casey* and *Roe v. Wade*. *Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College* determined that race-conscious university admissions policies violate the equal protection clause, effectively overruling *Grutter v. Bollinger*. Decisions including *Kennedy v. Bremerton School District*, *Carson v. Makin*, and *Mahmoud v. Taylor* reconfigured the court’s religious clauses jurisprudence. Free speech jurisprudence also shifted, with justices becoming more open to government regulation of speech platforms in cases like *Moody v. NetChoice*. *Trump v. Slaughter* concluded a decade-long challenge to *Humphrey’s Executor v. United States* (1935). The court also addressed new Second Amendment cases, including *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen*, *Wolford v. Lopez*, *United States v. Rahimi*, and *United States v. Hemani*. Additionally, the court heard several cases involving former President Trump, such as *Trump v. United States*, which expanded presidential immunity, *Trump v. Barbara*, which invalidated a presidential birthright citizenship order, and *Trump v. Cook*, which reaffirmed the Federal Reserve's independence. Despite these recent developments, a substantial portion of constitutional law has remained consistent. The historical narrative of American constitutional law, spanning nearly 250 years, forms a stable foundation. Foundational cases from the Marshall court, including *Marbury v. Madison*, *McCulloch v. Maryland*, and *Gibbons v. Ogden*, continue to serve as canonical rulings. Decisions related to slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, such as *Dred Scott v. Sandford* and the *Slaughter-House Cases*, also remain central to understanding constitutional development. Interpretations from the Progressive Era, regarding Congress's powers under the commerce and necessary and proper clauses in cases like *United States v. E.C. Knight Co.* and *Hammer v. Dagenhart*, and the scope of liberty under the due process clause in cases including *Lochner v. New York* and *Buck v. Bell*, form another consistent part of the constitutional narrative. The New Deal court's expansion of federal power, exemplified by *NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.* and *Wickard v. Filburn*, and World War II-era cases on presidential power such as *Korematsu v. United States* and *Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer*, also maintain their historical significance. The Warren court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, introduced landmark changes with cases like *Brown v. Board of Education*, *Loving v. Virginia*, and *Griswold v. Connecticut*, which remain foundational. The constitutional canon, encompassing cases from 1789 to 1969, largely endures. Recent shifts primarily affect cases from the last 50 years, representing approximately 20% of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.