DESIGN. ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF U.S. SUPREME COURT BUILDING

 

The completed Supreme Court Building, circa 1935.

How Architect Cass Gilbert and Chief Justice William Howard Taft Gave the Supreme Court a Temple of Its Own 

On the east side of the United States Capitol, a broad flight of marble steps rises toward sixteen Corinthian columns and a promise carved in stone: Equal Justice Under Law. 

The words are among the most familiar in Washington, yet the building beneath them is comparatively young. The United States Supreme Court did not occupy a permanent home until 1935—nearly a century and a half after the Court first convened. 

Before then, the nation’s highest tribunal was an architectural tenant. It met briefly in New York and Philadelphia and, after the federal government settled in Washington, moved among several rooms in the Capitol. From 1860 onward, the justices heard arguments in the Capitol’s former Senate Chamber, an elegant but increasingly inadequate space for a judiciary claiming equal standing with Congress and the presidency. 

William Howard Taft

The man who determined to change that was Chief Justice William Howard Taft. 

Taft remains the only American to have served both as president of the United States and chief justice of the Supreme Court. He regarded the Court’s borrowed quarters as cramped, inconvenient and symbolically undignified. Congress had its Capitol. The president had the White House. The judiciary, Taft believed, deserved an independent home of comparable consequence. 

His campaign succeeded in 1928, when Congress established a commission to oversee construction of a Supreme Court building. The following year, architect Cass Gilbert received the commission. Gilbert was already among the country’s most prominent architects. He had designed New York’s Woolworth Building, the Minnesota State Capitol and several important federal structures. 

Cass Gilbert

For the Supreme Court, however, he was asked to create something more than an office building. Taft wanted architecture that would convey the dignity, permanence and authority of the law. Neither man lived to see the result. Taft died in 1930. Gilbert died in 1934, a year before the building opened. The work was completed by Cass Gilbert Jr. and associate architect John R. Rockart during the tenure of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. 

A Roman Temple on Capitol Hill 

Gilbert’s design drew upon the architecture of ancient Rome, but it avoided the decorative exuberance associated with some Beaux-Arts monuments. The Supreme Court would be imposing, but not flamboyant. Its authority would come from proportion, symmetry and disciplined classical form. 

The west façade, facing the Capitol, resembles a monumental Roman temple. A ceremonial staircase rises from the marble plaza to a deep portico supported by sixteen Corinthian columns. Above them, a triangular pediment filled with allegorical sculpture crowns the entrance. The central block is flanked by lower, quieter wings. 

This arrangement allowed the building to possess the necessary grandeur without overwhelming the smaller houses and institutional buildings of Capitol Hill. 

From across First Street, the portico holds its own against the Capitol while remaining visually subordinate to it. The effect is deliberate. Congress may occupy the larger building, but the Court stands apart from it—architecturally independent and facing its legislative counterpart across an open plaza. 

Gilbert’s classicism was not intended merely to imitate antiquity. To early-20th-century Americans, Greek and Roman forms suggested order, reason, civic virtue and the durability of republican government. The building’s columns and pediments gave physical form to an ideal: that law should rise above political fashion and endure beyond any one generation of judges or lawmakers. 

American Law Carved in American Stone 

Although Roman in inspiration, the building is emphatically American in its materials. A steel frame supports an exterior faced primarily with white Vermont marble. Georgia marble lines the four interior courtyards, while Alabama marble appears in the corridors and entrance halls. 

Offices were finished with quarter-sawn American white oak used for doors, floors and paneling. The choice of materials gave the Court both national character and visual unity. 

Light reflects from the exterior marble, causing the building to change subtly with the weather. In strong sun it can appear almost brilliant; beneath Washington’s winter skies it becomes gray, severe and suitably judicial. 

Inside, Gilbert arranged a ceremonial progression from the entrance to the courtroom. Visitors pass through the Great Hall, where paired rows of marble columns support a coffered ceiling. The long space functions almost like a processional nave, directing the eye and the visitor toward the courtroom doors. 

For all the grandeur surrounding it, the courtroom itself is relatively intimate. Taft had admired the proportions of the Court’s former chamber in the Capitol, and Gilbert preserved something of that closeness. 

The room was designed for concentration rather than spectacle. Lawyers stand only a short distance from the bench, and the justices sit close enough to interrupt, question and challenge them directly. 

Behind the public spaces, Gilbert carefully separated offices, conference rooms and working areas from visitor circulation. Privacy and quiet were essential. The building had to function not only as a national monument but also as the daily workplace of a small and unusually powerful institution. 

Sculpture Notes: 

Sculpture forms part of the building’s argument. At the base of the west staircase sit two monumental marble figures by sculptor James Earle Fraser. To the left is Contemplation of Justice, a seated woman holding a figure of Justice in one hand while resting the other upon a book of law. 

To the right is Authority of Law, a powerful male figure holding a tablet and sword. They are not decorative afterthoughts. Together they embody two qualities upon which a judicial system depends: reflection and enforcement, thought and authority. 

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW—THE WEST PEDIMENT. The west pediment (above) extends the theme through allegorical figures representing justice, wisdom, history and legal tradition.  Sculptor Robert I. Aitken placed Liberty Enthroned at the center of the Supreme Court’s western pediment, holding the scales of justice and guarded by the figures of Order and Authority. The six figures surrounding them represent Council and Research, but they are also portraits of men associated with the Court and its building: Chief Justices William Howard Taft, John Marshall and Charles Evans Hughes; architect Cass Gilbert; Senator Elihu Root; and Aitken himself. 

On the opposite side of the building, the east façade bears another inscription: The two inscriptions create a dialogue across the structure. One promises equality beneath the law; the other insists that justice protects freedom. Between them stands the institution charged with interpreting both principles. The Court has often been described as an American “temple of justice,” and Gilbert’s building makes the phrase literal. Its staircase, colonnade, inscriptions and sculpture transform a functioning government office into a civic monument. 

Finally, a Permanent Address 

In December 1933, the West Portico is recognizable, but scaffolding surrounds the Corinthian-style columns and the sculptured pediment in front remains an exposed steel framework.

The cornerstone was laid on October 13, 1932, during the depths of the Great Depression. Construction continued as unemployment and economic hardship reshaped the country beyond the building site. 

The Supreme Court Building was completed on April 4, 1935, at a cost of approximately $9.4 million—slightly less than the $9.74 million authorized by Congress. The savings were returned to the U.S. Treasury.

It opened to visitors during the summer, and on October 7, 1935, the justices took their seats there for the first time. Its completion gave the judiciary what Taft had sought: a permanent address and an architectural identity distinct from the other branches of government. 

Nearly a century later, the building remains one of Washington’s clearest statements of classical civic architecture. It is monumental without being theatrical, richly finished without appearing lavish and symbolic without surrendering its practical purpose. 

Cass Gilbert designed the Court to appear permanent, rational and removed from the turbulence of daily politics. 

History has shown that the institution within is rarely so serene. Arguments decided in its courtroom have altered elections, expanded and restricted rights, reshaped the balance of federal power and stirred generations of public protest. 

The marble promises constancy. The law inside continues to change. 

Flanking the west-front steps of the U.S. Supreme Court Building are two monumental 1935 sculptures by James Earle Fraser. To the left, Contemplation of Justice depicts a seated woman studying a small figure of blindfolded Justice holding scales, while resting her arm upon a book of law—an image of judgment shaped by reflection and reason. To the right, Authority of Law portrays a powerful male figure holding a tablet of laws and a sheathed sword, symbolizing the strength required to enforce the Court’s decisions. Together, the sculptures express the balance at the center of American justice: careful deliberation on one side, lawful authority on the other. Illustration was narrowed by photoshop for space limitations.

AMERICANA / GUIDE TO HOW THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES ITS CASES

An Essay via TheConversation.com 

GUEST BLOG / By Paul M. Collins, Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, University of Massachusetts/Amherst--Each June, the nation turns its attention to the U.S. Supreme Court as it hands down some of its most consequential decisions. 

 Long before a landmark Supreme Court ruling dominates the headlines, it is shaped by a highly structured legal process, much of which takes place out of public view. This procedure involves strict gatekeeping rules, a series of private conferences, written briefs, oral arguments and, finally, the announcement of an opinion. 

 As a legal and Supreme Court scholar, I know that understanding how the nation’s highest court actually makes policy requires stepping into this exceptionally regulated, sometimes hidden routine. It is through this process that the court evaluates, and eventually decides, increasingly high-stakes cultural and political battles. 

 Here’s how it all unfolds: 

 The agenda-setting process The Supreme Court is a reactive institution. This means that it must wait for individuals, businesses, governments and the like to bring cases to the court before it can issue a ruling. 

 The way this most commonly works is that the party who loses in a lower court files a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. This is a legal document that outlines why the court should review the case. The party who won in the lower court can file a brief in opposition, arguing that the lower court made the right decision and therefore the case does not warrant Supreme Court review. 

Sometimes, interest groups weigh in by filing amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs. Amicus briefs help signal that a case has broad national importance. The court is more likely to review cases accompanied by amicus briefs. 

 In recent years, the high court has received about 4,000 of these petitions per term, and it decides less than 80 cases. 

This means the odds of getting the court to hear any given case are quite small – about 2%. To handle the large volume of petitions, the justices rely heavily on their law clerks. These are young lawyers – typically only a few years out of law school – who write short memos for the justices recommending that they grant or deny each petition. 

 On most Fridays throughout their term, the justices meet to discuss these petitions. This is a private conference with only the nine justices in attendance. Here, the court employs a rule of four: It takes the votes of four out of the nine justices to agree to review a case. 

 Following the conference, the court releases its list of cases granted and denied certiorari, known as the orders of the court. 

For cases denied certiorari, the lower court decision stands. 

Cases granted certiorari move onto the merits stage. 

 Legal briefs and oral arguments 

The primary way the parties to a case try to persuade the justices is through their legal briefs. The petitioner, who lost in the lower court, tries to convince the justices that the lower court made some sort of legal error that should be reversed. The respondent, the lower court winner, argues that the lower court decision was correct and should be affirmed. 

 Interest groups, businesses and other interested entities that aren’t parties to the case can weigh in through a second type of amicus curiae brief. These briefs often highlight the public policy implications of a case, and they provide a way for these groups to pursue their ideological goals. 

 In recent terms, there has been an average of about 16 amicus briefs per case. And some cases see more than 100 amicus briefs, such as in Obergefell v. Hodges, the court’s 2015 same-sex marriage case, which had 148 briefs. 

After briefing, oral arguments take place. Most oral arguments take an hour, with the time divided evenly between the petitioner and respondent. During oral arguments, the justices pepper the attorneys with questions and frequently preview how they might vote in the case. 

 Conference and votes 

A few days after oral arguments, the justices meet again in a private conference to discuss cases and cast preliminary votes. The chief justice speaks first, followed by the rest of the court in order of seniority. 

 A majority forms in this conference, although the justices are free to change their votes until the opinion is announced, and occasionally do so. 

 Perhaps most importantly, a justice in the majority is assigned to draft the majority opinion. If the chief justice is in the court’s majority, the chief makes the opinion assignment. The chief justice can assign the opinion to another justice in the majority or to himself. If the chief justice is in the minority, the most senior justice in the majority makes the opinion assignment. 

 Majority opinions typically go through a series of revisions, as justices bargain and negotiate over its content. They do this by providing written feedback to the majority opinion author. If a justice in the court’s initial majority grows unhappy with the content of the draft opinion, they can defect by joining the minority. 

 In addition to the majority opinion, justices may write concurring and dissenting opinions. Concurring opinions are written by justices in the majority and are often used to highlight a different legal basis for the court’s decision. Dissenting opinions are written by justices who are in the minority and disagree with the outcome of the case and the majority’s reasoning. 

 Releasing opinions 

The final step is the public release and announcement of the court’s opinions. This occurs on a rolling basis throughout the court’s term – from October to late June or early July – but the most important cases usually come down in June. 

 During opinion announcement, the majority opinion author usually reads a summary of the court’s opinion. On rare occasions, dissenting justices may read from their opinions. Reading a dissent from the bench signals that a justice is particularly unhappy with the majority’s decision. 

 For instance, on June 29, 2023, Justice Sonia Sotomayor read from her fiery dissent in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College. In that opinion, Sotomayor criticized the court’s majority for effectively ending affirmative action in college admissions. According to Sotomayor, affirmative action programs are constitutional because they help to achieve the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of racial equality by mitigating the enduring effects of racial discrimination. 

 The blockbuster rulings that dominate the news cycle each June are not sudden flashes of judicial willpower. They are the product of a lengthy and carefully structured process in which thousands of petitions are screened, less than 80 cases are argued, and draft opinions are negotiated and refined behind closed doors. By the time a decision is announced from the bench, it reflects months of legal argument, deliberation and compromise. 

 Understanding that process helps demystify the court and reveals how nine unelected justices can shape the meaning of the Constitution and, in turn, influence the everyday lives of millions of Americans.