Introduction The debates concerning the legitimacy and necessity of the Supreme Court were very actual during the whole history of the Court. In my essay I am going to analyses the main aspects why the legitimacy of the Supreme Court has always been undermined, trying to evaluate the extent to which the particular aspect is influential on the decision making process. Moreover with the help of the most landmark Supreme Court decisions, I will try to illustrate the necessity of the Supreme Court. In conclusion I will try to sum up the results I have got from the analyses and make a final statement whether the Supreme Court is a legitimate and necessary instrument. Origins The Supreme Court is the only federal judicial authority the establishment of which derives directly from the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution represents in itself a contract of the American people that guarantees personal freedom and fulfils that promise through the establishment of a democratic government in which those who write and interpret the law must obey it as well. According to the Constitution of the United States the Supreme Court plays a key role in system of government of the United States. Judicial power is revealed in Article III. It states that "the judicial power of the United States by the Supreme Court and lower courts will from time to time be established by Congress." Constitution establishes the Court as an independent judicial body whose decisions are insulated from the influence of public opinion and equal branches of government. Instead, the Court is limited by the principle of fidelity to the law. The Constitution obliges the Court to adjudicate disputes, regardless of who the parties are, according to the Constitution and duly enacted laws. Throughout the history of the Supreme Court its role was to state the law and to define the powers of the government. "Certainly, the role of judicial department is to determine what the law says " - declared in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall. In his famous decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) he set three principles that formed the basis of American constitutional law. First, the Constitution itself is above the ordinary laws, including those passed by Congress and signed by the president. Second, the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution and determine „what the law is." And thirdly, the Court invalidate laws that, in his opinion, contrary to the Constitution. By that time no one could ignore the Supreme Court decisions. Even President Franklin Roosevelt fumed, when the Court ruled unconstitutional key parts of his "New Deal" for economic recovery. The role of the Supreme Court as a guarantor of fairness and legality champion firmly entrenched in American life and around. Legitimacy Despite historically being a highly respected institution, the relatively great discretionary power and the consistency of the Supreme Court might raise a several questions towards the presumption of “fairness” or “legitimacy” in the Court’s operation. Relying on the well-known principle of American democracy it would seem rather unusual to rest so much power in the hands of nine unelected judges. They can overturn laws - federal operating states and local - that were accepted by the people and their representatives. Moreover the obvious connection of Court judges to politics raised debates whether political preferences of judges have an effect on their decision making. Each of these presumption if proven, might cause a great concern towards the Supreme Court’s illegitimacy, therefore it is worth to analyse them one by one. The Structure of the Court High social prestige of the Supreme Court judges, their relative political independence and invulnerability is largely predetermined by the fact that the judges themselves, using the constitutional principle of tenure, tend to turn their positions into lifelong. Any vacancies which appear in the Supreme Court are mainly due to the death of judges and much less as a result of voluntary resignation from the post. Filling of the periodically arising vacancies in the Supreme Court - is a complex political process, to which the U.S. ruling circles have always attached great importance, because their task is to ensure not only functional suitability but a reliable political class of judges. This creates rather unfair system of “employment” which prevents other talented and professional lawyers and judges to get their place in the Supreme Court. Fresh minds and ideas always bring positive changes in every organization or court, and the Supreme Court is not an exception. Moreover, when the person is relatively sure that his position is safely secured, might start to play unfair and in his decision making rely not on the principle of fairness but on his own interests. However in contrast it might be argued, that such an important institution like the Supreme Court needs only highly professional lawyers, but as