Celebrating Two Centuries of Benchmark History

By Heather Phillips 30/06/2026 4 min read 2 views

The Supreme Court celebrated the nation’s 250th anniversary with “Semiquincentennial Minutes,” educational spots embedded in recent court sessions. These moments offer historical context to current cases, similar to the “Bicentennial Minutes” from the mid-70s.

Historical Lessons from the Bench

Justice Elena Kagan kicked off the series on June 11 in Abouammo v. United States. The case concerned the proper venue for federal criminal prosecutions. Kagan noted that venue mattered to the nation’s founding members, who opposed British laws that tried colonists in England rather than their home colonies. This practice was mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Another Semiquincentennial Minute came in United States v. Heman.

These educational moments vary by case. Some justices use them to highlight historical context, while others focus on the evolution of legal principles. Others might use the opportunity to address the public’s curiosity about the workings of the court.

On June 27, the court had a busy morning. The guest box featured Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s parents. D. John Sauer led his office contingent into the courtroom. Civil rights veteran Sherilynn Ifill, now at Howard University law school, arrived and took a seat in the front row of the bar section and listened intently.

The court had announced that Justice Samuel Alito’s three opinion announcements last Thursday accounted for his absence, but officials said little else.

The Chief Justice announced orders. Barrett detailed the holding that federal election-day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days after.

Barrett’s decision was a loss for leading advocate Paul Clement and Sauer, who argued in support of the challengers’ position. Among her points was that “early voting would be at risk” if the challengers’ view prevailed. Some had predicted after oral argument that the decision might go the other way.

Elena Kagan next announced the decision in Chatrie v. United States. The majority held that police conducted a search under the Fourth Amendment when they acquired a Virginia man’s cellphone location data from Google. She explained the wide relevance of this case to the courtroom gallery.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had a concurrence, joined by Sotomayor. Gorsuch had an opinion concurring in the judgment. Alito had the dissent, joined in parts by Thomas and Barrett.

The Chief Justice announced that he had the opinion of the court in two related cases, Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook. The Chief Justice discussed the framers’ decision to vest executive power in just one person, the president.

The Power of the Executive Branch

The Chief Justice expanded on his historical lesson, discussing the power of independent agencies like the FTC. He turned to James Madison’s views of executive power and the Decision of 1789 confirming the removal power. The key precedent at issue was Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which the Chief Justice concluded “has not stood the test of time.” He spent considerable time addressing several points made by “the dissent,” signaling that an oral dissent was coming.

Sotomayor began reading from her dissent. “In recent years, this court has strongly increased its absolutist view of presidential power,” she said, a theory that is “deeply misguided.” The justice discussed the Revolutionary War Debt Commission, suggesting it was an early example of federal agencies with limited presidential removal power.

Sotomayor went on for nearly 17 minutes, calling the result “profoundly destabilizing” and saying the court was “creating an Executive Branch that Congress never dreamed of establishing and that it now has little hope of ever reining in.” Still, she said that she, along with Elena Kagan and Jackson, “respectfully dissent.” The Chief Justice offered no immediate rebuttal.

The court then turned to Trump v. Cook, with the Chief Justice discussing the origins of the Federal Reserve system. He noted that Kavanaugh and Jackson had filed concurring opinions, and that Thomas had a dissenting opinion. Alito had a dissent joined by Gorsuch, and Barrett had her own dissenting opinion. The Chief Justice emphasized the significance of Alexander Hamilton in the discussion.