Supreme Court's Influence Examined by Long-Running Program

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's decisions, particularly on issues of criminal justice, directly influence the legal landscape and the administration of justice in Alabama, impacting state courts, law enforcement, and correctional facilities.

Since the Supreme Court established its authority of judicial review in the 1803 case of *Marbury v. Madison*, the court has served as the final arbiter of constitutionality. This position enables the court to ultimately determine the laws governing American life, impacting national priorities. For 70 of the 220 years since the Supreme Court asserted its jurisdiction, the PBS program "The Open Mind" has provided a platform for discourse on the court. The series, founded in 1956, has covered topics ranging from segregation and discrimination to privacy rights and the Patriot Act. It has also explored court decisions on issues such as monopolies and social media account blocking. The program has featured guests including Justice Stephen Breyer, Judge Robert Bork, Circuit Judges Robert Katzmann and Richard Posner, and legal scholars such as Derrick Bell and Martha Minow. Upcoming, the program will host SCOTUSblog founder Amy Howe and executive editor Zachary Shemtob. Their discussion will address the Supreme Court's current 6-3 ideological majority, potential reforms, ethical standards, and the possibility of court expansion. Insights from the series' long history suggest several observations about the court's evolution. Judicial shifts can occur gradually and then rapidly. When "The Open Mind" began, Chief Justice Earl Warren's court was in its early years, leading to a period of liberal jurisprudence. Subsequent eras, including the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts, saw shifts, with originalism gaining prominence over Living Constitutionalism. Episodes from the past 25 years document this ideological swing from a liberal to a conservative majority. Another recurring theme has been the presence of cameras in the courtroom. This topic was frequently explored by the program's founder, who viewed it as essential for public engagement with the judiciary. While the Supreme Court now provides live audio of oral arguments, the question of camera access remains. The host considers whether increased public access could have fostered sustained interest in the court's function. The current social media environment, the host notes, often sees clips used to support specific viewpoints rather than to facilitate consensus. The period of the program's coverage has also aligned with an increase in criminal prosecutions and incarceration rates in the United States. The country has become the most incarcerated nation per capita among developed countries. Although the court has issued a limited number of decisions directly on this issue, the fact that one-third of American families have a loved one affected by the justice system has implications for both federal and state law. The program has explored facets of contemporary justice reform through episodes featuring national figures like Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson, as well as local and state reformers. Topics included the death penalty, life sentences, and probation and parole. The composition of the court, the host observed, is influenced by the health of individual justices, and by which president and Senate majority leader are in power at the time of vacancies. Three of the newest justices received appointments during President Donald Trump's first term. An anecdote from the 1990s recounts a meeting between the host and Justice Breyer, arranged by the host's grandfather. Justice Breyer, who had previously been interviewed by the program's founder as a circuit court chief judge, provided the host with an autographed pocket U.S. Constitution.