AO1: Supreme Court's main role is to be guardian of the Constitution - including rights AO2: The power of judicial review established in Marbury v Madison allows the Supreme Court to interpret whether or not rights have been protected and rule actions unconstitutional at all levels of government AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Supreme Court can deal with issues Congress is reluctant to consider AO2: The Supreme Court can rule on cases brought by individuals and groups who believe their rights have been infringed - this is often related to issues where Congress has been unable to agree or has not attempted to legislate e.g. gun rights, freedom of speech AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Supreme Court can and will declare congressional and presidential actions unconstitutional to protect rights AO2: The system of checks and balances allows the Supreme Court to interpret whether congressional or presidential actions may breach rights and declare them unconstitutional e.g. Trump's attempts to reverse DACA AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Supreme Court can uphold congressional and presidential actions to protect/extend rights - this includes individual rights and states' rights AO2: Similarly, the Supreme Court can rule congressional and presidential actions ARE constitutional if they are challenged by individuals or groups e.g. Trump v Hawaii, Obamacare although some provisions were ruled unconstitutional AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Judicial activism can be used AO2: The Supreme Court has the right to choose whether or not to hear cases - and so can exercise judicial activism in choosing to deliberate on cases that may infringe rights e.g. Dobbs v Women's Health Organisation AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court

AO1: Supreme Court cannot be proactive AO2: While an activist court can choose to hear cases related to rights, the Supreme Court cannot raise its own cases and must wait until issues have been referred to it - so cannot be proactive in seeking out potential infringement of rights cases AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may not have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitution AO2: The Supreme Court cannot legislate or amend the Constitution and can only interpret what has been codified - and may in fact disagree with earlier rulings made and overturn them e.g. Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation overturned Roe v Wade, Citizens United v FEC overturned McConnell v FEC AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may not have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Congress has arguably done more AO2: Legislation by Congress has enshrined rights, whereas Supreme Court rulings may be reversed or overturned by new Congressional legislation e.g. Respect for Marriage Act was passed in anticipation of Obergefell v Hodges being overturned AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may not have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court as Congress has been more effective AO1: States' rights have been upheld at the expense of individual rights AO2: Recent rulings have arguably upheld states' constitutional rights at the expense of individual rights e.g. Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organisation (abortion) AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may not have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court AO1: Arguably, the upholding of rights is dependent on the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court AO2: The ideological makeup of the Supreme Court may affect whether or not rights are upheld - a more conservative court may be more likely to uphold states' rights over individual rights, although arguably this is also upholding constitutional rights AO3: This suggests that civil and constitutional rights may not have been successfully upheld by the Supreme Court when considering the rights of the individual