Supreme Court Power Struggles: How Controversial Rulings Can Be Overturned

Even the most controversial Supreme Court decisions are not untouchable and history shows there are ways to reverse them

Natalie C. Frank, Ph.D August 17, 2025

U.S Supreme Court; Authors Alliance [CC BY 4.0]

WASHINGTON D.C. - The Supreme Court of the United States is often described as the final word on the "law of the land". Its rulings influence culture, shift political debates, and redefine rights in ways that affect generations of Americans. Yet for all its authority, the Court’s decisions are not carved in stone. American history makes it clear: even landmark rulings that start political firestorms can be undone.

From the legalization of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges to the expansion of gun rights in District of Columbia v. Heller, and the decades-long battle over abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Court has issued opinions that have shaken both ends of the political spectrum from the Liberals to the Conservatives. These rulings often feel irrevocable, but the Constitution provides options for altering even Supreme Court rulings, whether through congressional action, amendments, or even the Court reversing itself.

The United States government is built on the ideal of separated powers, with each branch given individual authority. Congress drafts laws, the president enforces them, and the judiciary interprets them. At the top of that judicial branch is the Supreme Court, a body with the unique authority to declare what the Constitution and federal laws truly mean. In practice, this gives the Court the last word. Neither Congress nor the White House can wipe away a ruling with a signature.

But the authors of the Constitution anticipated this problem. They designed a system of checks and balances that ensures even the Supreme Court is not entirely beyond the reach of other branches. Congress, though limited, has multiple avenues to counter or correct the Court when it veers away from legislative intent or public consensus.

One of the most direct ways to counter a Supreme Court decision is through congressional statute. When the Court strikes down all or part of a federal law, Congress can respond by rewriting or adjusting the statute. This tactic does not erase the Court’s ruling, but it often reframes the law in ways that restricts its impact.

A key example comes from FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. in 2000, when the Court ruled that the Food and Drug Administration lacked authority to regulate tobacco. In response, Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009, explicitly granting the FDA that power. In cases like this, legislative authority becomes the counterweight to judicial power, at least until another legal challenge reaches the Court

Among the quickest ways lawmakers can respond is by rewriting legislation the Court has interpreted narrowly. This approach doesn’t challenge the Court’s authority, it just alters the way their decision is carried out.

An example of this is the Congressional action taken after the Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision. In that case, the Court ruled that employees had only 180 days from the actual discriminatory pay decision to file a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decision made it nearly impossible for workers who discovered pay disparities years later to take action. In 2009, Congress intervened with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, resetting the statute of limitations with every new paycheck. By rewriting the law, lawmakers ensured that the Court’s restrictive interpretation would no longer apply going forward.

When the Supreme Court grounds its decision in the Constitution itself, legislation alone is not enough. In those instances, Congress has only one option which is amending the Constitution.

The process is extremely difficult to accomplish by design, requiring supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and approval from three-fourths of the states. Still, history shows it can be done.

For example, the 1895 decision in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., where the Court struck down a federal income tax as being unconstitutional. Almost 20 years later, Congress and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, granting explicit power to levy an income tax without approval by the states. That amendment not only nullified Pollock but permanently expanded federal authority.

Congress also has the ability to restrict what types of cases the Supreme Court can hear. Known as the “Exceptions Clause” under Article III of the Constitution, this provision gives lawmakers authority to limit appellate jurisdiction.

In theory, Congress could bar the Court from hearing appeals on certain laws. Lower courts would still rule, but the justices would be sidelined. While constitutionally valid, this approach has always been contentious. Critics argue it undermines the Court’s role as the final interpreter of federal law and risks fragmenting the legal system.

Beyond legislation and amendments, Congress can shape the Court’s future by influencing its makeup. The most direct option is impeachment or removing a justice for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Although rarely used, it remains a constitutional check.

They can also influence the Court makeup by influencing which candidates are choses to replace retiring justices. They can also block confirmation of justices. In 2016, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would not even consider President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland. McConnell refused to put Garland up for a vote, working to delay the choice until the next election. In fact, he refused to consider any nominee by Obama. Garland's nomination was blocked for longer than any other nominee in U.S. history.

Ultimately, the Republicans managed to delay the nomination long enough for Trump to take office. Trump then nominated Neil Gorsuch who was quickly confirmed. Trump appointed two other Justices to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh who replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy, and Amy Coney Barrett who replaced Ruth Bader Ginsberg after she died, influencing the makeup of the court so that it is now one of the most conservative in U.S. history.

Another, more politically questionable option is altering the size of the Court. The Constitution does not set the number of justices, leaving it to Congress to decide. While the Court has held nine justices since 1869, it has changed size several times throughout history. President Franklin Roosevelt famously proposed adding justices in 1937 as part of his “court-packing plan” to protect New Deal legislation. His effort failed but underscored the high stakes of Court composition. During the Civil War, the Republican packed Congress increased the number of Justices to 10. The Judiciary Act of 1869 returned the court back to 9 Justices.

The Supreme Court does have extraordinary power, but it does not operate unilaterally. Congress has repeatedly shown it can re-establish the balance when judicial rulings conflict with democratic will. Whether through statutory fixes, constitutional amendments, jurisdictional limits, or changes to the Court itself, lawmakers have tools to act.

Perhaps the most dramatic way to overturn a Supreme Court decision is through constitutional amendment. Though rare, amendments carry unmatched permanence. Article V outlines the process: amendments can be proposed by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate or by a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Once proposed, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.

One instance of an amendment that undid a Supreme Court rulings occurred In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. In this case, the Court struck down a federal income tax, declaring it unconstitutional. That decision didn’t stand for long. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, ensuring Congress’s power to levy an income tax and overturning the Court’s interpretation.

The Supreme Court can also overrule its own decisions by reversing them. While this is rare, these reversals are among the most consequential and controversial moments in American legal history. The starkest example remains Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which dismantled the doctrine of “separate but equal” established in Plessy v. Ferguson nearly 60 years earlier.

Such reversals are infrequent because the Court values stability and precedent. Yet when legal reasoning, public values, and political pressures converge, the Court has shown a willingness to repudiate its past rulings. These moments serve as reminders that while the Court’s voice is powerful, it is not immune to change, especially when Justices change. One of the most controversial reversal occurred in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, passed in 1973, ending the right of women to obtain a safe abortion.

History shows that the United States is built on a legal system that can correct decisions but only with adequate support of Congress or the States. Congress, constitutional amendments, and the Court itself each offer avenues for change, though none are quick or easy. That difficulty, however, is part of the design established in the Constitution as a safeguard against rash or reactionary shifts in the nation’s most enduring laws.