In Defense of “Public Reason”: Supreme Court Justice William Johnson

For those of us who gravitate toward rebels and upstarts, Supreme Court Justice William Johnson has uncommon appeal, if only because he was the first member of the federal Bench to kick up his heels in a sustained, effective, and deliberate way. In 1954, Johnson's only biographer, Donald Morgan, proclaimed him “the first dissenter,” ¹ a force for democratization in the style of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, the man who persuaded Chief Justice John Marshall to compromise on the question of unitary opinions and institutionalize (if not applaud) publication of concurring or dissenting departures from the majority's official reasoning.     

The History of the Per Curiam Opinion: Consensus and Individual Expression on the Supreme Court

Readers of Supreme Court opinions have become so accustomed in recent years to the multiple concurrences and dissents that accompany important opinions that it is difficult to recall that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. It is only in the past century that the Court's traditional balance of the institutional and the personal has shifted from an insistence on presenting what Learned Hand termed "monolithic solidarity" to the world. That insistence began with Chief Justice Marshall's determination that the Court should resolve its cases, not seriatim, with each Justice writing separately, but instead in a single, unified opinion. The resulting culture of the Court, one that discouraged both dissenting and concurring opinions as assaults on this unified front, persisted from Marshall's day into the 1930s.3 The Court in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries thus deliberately submerged the idea of a personal voice in the fiction of a collective voice, one that spoke for the institution rather than for the Justice who served as its designated scribe.     

Rufus W. Peckham and the Pursuit of Economic Freedom

It is striking that Rufus W. Peckham has received so little scholarly attention and remains without a biography. He was, of course, the author of Lochner v. New York (1905), ¹ one of the most famous and contested decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Moreover, Peckham wrote important opinions dealing with contractual freedom, anti‐trust law, eminent domain, dormant commerce power, and the Eleventh Amendment. Indeed, Owen M. Fiss maintains that Peckham and David J. Brewer were intellectual leaders of the Fuller Court, “influential within the dominant coalition and the source of the ideas that gave the Court its sweep and direction.” Even when they did not prevail, Fiss observed, Peckham and Brewer “set the terms for the debate.” ²     

The crucifix as a symbol of secular Europe: The surprising semiotics of the European Court of Human Rights (Respond to this article at http://www.therai.org.uk/at/debate)

In March of 2011, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled counter to current trends found in many European courts and legislatures as the ECHR affirmed the right of the Italian state to display crucifixes on the walls of its public school classrooms. Those who succeeded in arguing for the presence of crucifixes in Italian classrooms did so not by advocating for the now entrenched human right of the freedom of religious expression, but by suggesting that the crucifix was, in fact, not only a religious sign but also a cultural and historical one. The crucifix, according to many of the religious and governmental claimants to the case, is a symbol that stands not just for Christianity but also for “tolerance” and, therefore, as a sign of secularism. The petitions heard in the Court, its decision, and the concurring opinions are revealing of the ambiguity of the categories of religion and secularism in Europe today. In this article I use the ECHR ruling to explore the lack of agreement surrounding the distinction between the religious and the secular and the implications this shifting boundary holds for different     

Courting the Right: Richard Nixon's 1968 Campaign against the Warren Court

When you look at what the United States Supreme Court has done to hamper law enforcement and realize the difficulties the police now have in getting convictions in the first place, I wonder if we truly have representative government anymore. ¹ The main emphasis is on demagogic appeal; crime is the communism issue of 1968. This is the extent to which apparently there is a new Nixon. ²     

John J. Parker and the Beginning of the Modern Confirmation Process

Ideological concerns' dominance of the Supreme Court confirmation process has certainly become routine, especially in the form of issue-driven interest groups' influence over the agenda for Senate debates. More significantly, the Senate normally focuses on what Laurence Tribe has called “the net impact of adding [a] candidate to the Court” ¹ in terms of steering the Court toward adherence to a particular judicial philosophy, such as originalism ² or pragmatism, ³ or toward a specific outlook on a given constitutional issue. And when the President nominates someone with prior judicial experience, the candidate's decisions, as well as his or her prior speeches or other public activities, become fair game as supposed indications of his or her fitness for service on the Court.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

“The good that Presidents do is often interred with their Administrations. It is their choice of Supreme Court Justices that lives after them.” ¹ This was the assessment offered by one leading opinion journal more than seven decades ago, after President Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Professor Felix Frankfurter to the Supreme Court to fill the opening occasioned by the death of Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo. Because vacancies on the Court not only are infrequent but also occur at irregular intervals, the comment illustrates the reality that selection of Justices is among the most important and consequential responsibilities that fall to any chief executive.     

The Supreme Court in Times of Hot and Cold War: Learning from the Sounds of Silence for a War on Terrorism

Justice William J. Brennan once remarked that the Court has never fully developed a jurisprudence of national security. It is simply too episodic, he said. ¹ Our present Chief Justice would, it would seem, largely agree, though his own research shows some greater willingness for the Court to superintend—at least after the fact ² —the actions of the executive in times of war or similar crisis. My assignment in this essay was to ask the question slightly differently; namely, has the posture of the Court differed in times of hot or cold war, and if so, how has it differed? As will be evident momentarily, that question is less helpful to our present circumstance than it might seem. Why? Because, frankly, we are in neither a hot nor cold war, but something quite different ³ —something that has the potential to be not only hot, but blistering, and something which will likely never be fully appreciated as having gone truly cold.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

Change at the Supreme Court may be most visible and frequent in the progression of statutory and constitutional questions the Justices resolve collectively, but it may also be equally highlighted by an individual Justice's decision. This reality became plainly apparent in a letter that Justice John Paul Stevens sent to the White House on April 9, 2010, just eleven days shy of his 90^th birthday: “My dear Mr. President: Having concluded that it would be in the best interests of the Court to have my successor appointed and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of the Court's next Term, I shall retire from regular active service as an Associate Justice … effective the next day after the Court rises for the summer recess this year.” ¹ His statement was dated almost a year after Justice David Souter dispatched a similar notice to President Obama on May 1, 2009, announcing his intention to leave the Bench. Thus, for the fifth time in as many years, the machinery of executive nomination and senatorial advice and consent for the High Court churned again.     

The Life and Career of Justice Robert H. Jackson

Robert H. Jackson was one of the most influential Justices of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century. His tenure on the Court ran from 1941 to his death in 1954, and during that time he participated in landmark cases involving the programs implemented by Roosevelt's New Deal to rescue the country from Depression, having previously served the administration in other roles. He authored a memorable dissent in United States v. Korematsu, the notorious Japanese internment case. ¹ He is also remembered for the role he served as the chief American prosecutor before the International Military Tribunal that tried Nazi leaders after World War II. In some ways, Jackson's fierce independence and the lessons he learned growing up in a small town were the ideal training for the demands and competitiveness of the nation's highest Court. That Jackson's words and beliefs still have relevance in the twenty‐first century is evidenced by the fact that both recent Supreme Court appointees quoted him during the confirmation hearings. ² In this essay, I will examine how Jackson's life experiences influenced his legal career and informed his jurisprudence, and to what extent Jackson lived up to his own vision of the role of a Supreme Court Justice.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

A well‐established fact of American government is the unpredictability of vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court. Representatives and Senators face voters every two and six years, respectively. A President serves for four years and may be reelected only once. Justices, however, do not sit for fixed terms and in effect enjoy life tenure. After his inauguration as the forty‐third president in January 2001, George W. Bush had no opportunity to make a High Court appointment until he was well into his second term when, on July 1, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her intention to leave the Bench. ¹ By contrast, the forty‐fourth President encountered his first High Court vacancy much sooner, and in his first term, as Justice David Hackett Souter notified the Obama White House on May 1, 2009, of his intention to retire from “regular active service as a Justice” when the Court recessed for the summer. ²     

Herbert Brownell,Jr.: The “Hidden Hand”1 in the Selection of Earl Warren and the Government's Role in Brown v. Board of Education

There are, of course, many heroes behind the Supreme Court's most famous and, some would argue, most significant case of the 20^th Century: Brown v. Board of Education. ² Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the decision and is credited with convincing the other Justices to make it unanimous. Thurgood Marshall and Robert L. Carter argued important aspects of the case for the NAACP and championed a legal strategy that brought it to the High Court. Few, however, would readily name Herbert Brownell, Jr. as one of the heroes. Yet, as Attorney General, Brownell was President Eisenhower's chief adviser on judicial appointments when he put Warren on the Court, and Brownell led the Justice Department in supporting the notion that segregation of public schools violated the Constitution.     

Swift and Erie: The Trials of an Ephemeral Landmark Case

Like jazz improvisation, the meaning of Swift v. Tyson was elusive. ¹ Justice Joseph Story's 1842 opinion concerning an important commercial‐law issue arose from a jury trial. ² When the creditor plaintiff appealed, counsel for the winning debtor raised as a defense Section 34 of the 1789 Judiciary Act. The federal circuit court disagreed about the standing of commercial law under Section 34. Although profound conflicts otherwise divided nationalist and states'‐rights proponents, the Supreme Court endorsed Story's commercial‐law opinion unanimously. ³ New members of the Court and the increasing number of federal lower‐court judges steadily transformed the Swift doctrine; after the Civil War it agitated the federal judiciary, elite lawyers, and Congress. ⁴ Asserting contrary tenets of American constitutionalism, the Supreme Court overturned the ninety‐six‐year‐old precedent in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins (1938). ⁵ The Swift doctrine's resonance with changing times was forgotten. The Court and the legal profession established, transformed, and abandoned the doctrine though an adversarial process and judicial instrumentalism. Although the policy of each decision reflected its time, Story's opinion was more consistent with the federalism of the early Constitution than was Erie. ⁶     

Justice Jackson and the Second Flag‐Salute Case: Reason and Passion in Opinion‐Writing

In 1943, the Supreme Court handed down West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. ¹ With Justice Robert H. Jackson writing for the six‐Justice majority, the Court upheld the First Amendment right of Jehovah's Witnesses schoolchildren to refuse to salute the flag or recite the Pledge of Allegiance, state‐imposed obligations that the children and their parents contended were acts of idolatry that violated biblical commands. Judge Richard A. Posner has said that Justice Jackson's effort “may be the most eloquent majority opinion in the history of the Supreme Court.” ²     

The Case of William Dick: Ransom County, North Dakota

In May 2009, a decision of the United States Supreme Court with North Dakota roots turned fifty years old. A case unique in the annals of the law, Dick v. New York Life Insurance Company ¹ still fascinates lawyers today. Factually, the case presented a strange question: could an experienced hunter accidentally shoot himself not once, but twice? Some of North Dakota's finest lawyers, including Philip Vogel, Donald Holand, and Norman Tenneson, aimed to get to the bottom of that matter. The judges were equally impressive: Judge Ronald Davies of the federal district court; Judge John Sanborn of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; and Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Felix Frankfurter. Finally, as a matter of Supreme Court jurisprudence, Dick may have been the last time the High Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case that turned almost exclusively on questions of fact. In honor of its golden anniversary, this article recounts the captivating story of Dick v. New York Life.     

Inter-Court Dynamics and the Development of Legal Policy: Citation Patterns in the Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Lower federal appellate judges, like other government officials, identify problems, formulate and implement solutions, and subsequently evaluate them for their efficacy. Immediately following the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, courts were confronted with cases that raised new policy issues in claims of employment discrimination. With no guidance from the Supreme Court for five years, circuit courts articulated solutions to these issues with written published opinions. By examining citations to precedents in those opinions, we evaluate the degree to which the court's reasoning draws on policies from other circuits. Although stare decisis does not compel appeals court judges to consider decisions from other circuits, 76 percent of the opinions include a reference to an out-of-circuit precedent. Outside citations were not uniform across circuits and cases with increased references to outside courts in circuits were characterized by conflict. Our examination of citation patterns suggests that the development of precedent proceeds on two tracks. On one level, circuit judges' opinions build on precedent from within their court. More broadly, citations reflect on an inter-court dialog to identify conflict and consensus in federal legal policy.     

The Public Response to Controversial Supreme Court Decisions: The Insular Cases

In the Insular Cases, the Supreme Court established a new category of areas and persons coming under the sovereignty of the United States. Added to (1) the member states of the Union and (2) the existing territories (and states to be), was (3) territory "belonging to" the United States, but not a part of it. Justice Edward White proposed this doctrine—that territories were of two types, "incorporated" territories, those fit to be states, and non-incorporated territories, to be the property of the United States—in his concurring opinion in Downes v. Bidwell . ¹ Congress could govern these latter territories as it wished, subject to "fundamental" protections under the Constitution, those protecting individual liberties rather than those granting political participation.     

“Spreading the Wealth”: Justice Tom C. Clark's Wide‐ranging Efforts to Open the Doors of the Law Clerk Ranks

Associate Justice Tom C. Clark retired from the Supreme Court at the conclusion of its 1966 term to avoid even the appearance of impropriety when his son, Ramsey, became the U.S. Attorney General. “I believe it would be best for me to retire,” Clark wrote one well‐wisher, “Litigants have enough problems without having a father‐son psychology to face. And while there is no actual conflict the potential is there and the appearance of justice is as important and effective as the real thing.” ¹ Clark had served on the Court eighteen years, and he began his retirement with a three‐month, state‐sponsored goodwill trip around the world, which was cut short when he contracted hepatitis in Thailand.     

Attorney General Kennedy versus Solicitor General Cox: The Formulation of the Federal Government's Position in the Reapportionment Cases

In a recent article in this journal, “May It Please the Court? The Solicitor General's Not-So-‘Special' Relationship: Archibald Cox and the 1963–1964 Reapportionment Cases,” ¹ Helen J. Knowles shows how the Supreme Court went beyond the arguments of the Solicitor General, Archibald Cox, in establishing “one man, one vote” as the governing principle for the election of state legislators. In making this demonstration, Ms. Knowles also shows how Attorney General Robert Kennedy prevailed on Cox to support the plaintiffs in six reapportionment cases despite Cox's serious doubts about this position. ² In doing so, Ms. Knowles was more than generous in describing my small part in this story.     

"The Defendant Has Seemed to Live a Charmed Life": Hopt v. Utah: Territorial Justice, The Supreme Court of the United States, and Late Nineteenth-Century Death Penalty Jurisprudence

On March 7, 1887, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Fred Hopt's fourth appeal to that Court. The Utah Territory murderer's conviction had been reversed three times over seven years-his "charmed life"-but this time both his luck and his legal argument had run out: his fourth conviction was upheld. Justice Stephen J. Field dismissed Hopt's four major claims: that several members of the jury were improperly seated in spite of bias; that a doctor's evidence of cause of death was beyond the scope of his expertise; that the trial judge's "reasonable doubt" jury instruction was inadequate; and that the prosecutor's reference to the "many times the case had been before the courts" was prejudicial. Five months later, on August 11, Hopt was executed by a firing squad in the yard of the Utah Penitentiary. Hopt was only one of over two thousand convicted criminals, mostly murderers, who were legally executed in the United States in the two decades between 1880 and 1900. However, his defense team of court-appointed Salt Lake City lawyers had kept him alive for seven years. During that time he had four jury trials, four appeals to the Supreme Court of Utah Territory, and four appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only death penalty litigant ever to be the subject of four full opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States.