United States | The Supreme Court

Slowing down

Why, when it comes to justices, nine are better than eight

Eight ain’t great
|WASHINGTON, DC

WITH five votes, the late Justice William Brennan liked to tell his clerks, “you can do anything around here”. The rule still applies after the death in February of Antonin Scalia. But with only eight justices remaining, the magic number of five is now harder to come by. Twice since Mr Scalia’s death the Supreme Court has performed the judicial equivalent of throwing up its hands. In a small case concerning banking rules and in an important one challenging the future of public-sector unions, the justices issued one-sentence per curiam (“by the court”) rulings: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court.” A tie in the high court means that the ruling in the court below stands. But these non-rulings do not bind other lower courts, and the judgment has no value as a precedent. A tie, in short, leaves everything as it was and as it would have been had the justices never agreed to hear the case in the first place.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline “Slowing down”

The war within: A special report on the Arab world

From the May 14th 2016 edition

Discover stories from this section and more in the list of contents

Explore the edition
Portrait of US President Donald Trump sat in shadow during a cabinet meeting at the White House.

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

He is beating his own record for rapidly annoying American voters

The Democrat donkey with a light bulb inside his head ans loads of people working in his brain.

Can Progressives learn to make progress again?

In the political wilderness, Democrats are asking themselves how they lost their way


Tracking Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown

And why that is increasingly hard to do


America’s progressives should love standardised tests

New evidence in a long-running argument

Abortion becomes more common in some US states that outlawed it

Shield laws have profound implications for how federalism works

Will the Supreme Court empower Trump to sack the Fed’s boss?

A case that tests the president’s power to dismiss officials has implications for the central bank