Trump's Win Will Change the Supreme Court, but Not 'Automatically'

, The National Law Journal


President-elect Donald Trump said during the last debate in October that if he became president, the U.S. Supreme Court would "automatically" overturn Roe v. Wade, sending the contentious issue of abortion back to the states. But the high court does not make change "automatically"—or quickly.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at

What's being said

  • Henry Betke

    Daniel Arshack if you are a lawyer then "God Help US All" go chase an ambulance... please! Leave this rest adults... Your reality is nothing short of bizarre.

  • Cliff

    Dear Daniel, Please give me a break. Replacing Scalia with a like justice only maintains the former status quo. Considering that President Obama appointed justices Sotomayor (55 in 2009) and Kagan (50 in 2010) -- who were relatively young at the time -- we will be stuck with these extraordinarily Liberal jurists for the rest of our lives and our children‘s through middle age. As much as they promised during confirmation hearings to follow the law, as opposed to allowing their personal ideology from influencing their opinions, in reality we have often seen just the opposite. So, don‘t worry about President Trump‘s nominations. If history is a reliable predictor of the future, the current Republican majority doesn‘t have the unity or fortitude to push the issue and when the pendulum swings back in the Senate the Democrats will dig their heels in deep, play hardball, and Bork any Constitutional Originalist that President Trump may nominate. Too bad and how sad for the Republic.

  • Daniel N. Arshack

    The article misses the greater damage that Trump can do in his effort to leave his mark on the Supreme Court. If you thought that Trump can only appoint one Supreme Court Justice now and then replace them as needed you are wrong. There‘s no requirement of having nine justices on the court. While the U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court, Congress determines how many justices there should be. In 1789, The Judiciary Act established that there should be six justices. Congress raised the number in 1807 to seven; Congress raised that number to nine in 1837 and again in 1863, they raised it to 10. Three yeas later Congress reduced it to 7 justices Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine and despite President Franklin Roosevelt‘s unsuccessful effort in 1937 to raise it to 15 justices, it remains at nine until today. So Trump can nominate one justice now to replace Scalia. And as the existing Justicers pass or retire, he can replace them . But why stop there... a simple Congressional enactment increasing the number to whatever number he wants, 11, 13, 15... and the next thirty years of Supreme Court juris prudence can undo our country‘s advances in civil rights protections, voter rights, women‘s rights, LGBTQ rights, religious freedoms, campaign finance protections (what little protections remain), rights of criminal defendants, environmental protection, trade controls, monopoly controls, banking controls, immigration rights and on and on... There has never been a more focused attack on what civil liberties gains have been achieved though the courts over the course of the last 50 years. We should be proud of what has been achieved for the prepare to start over.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202771915924

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.