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.     

Tribute to Justice Souter

When the U.S. Supreme Court Justices took their seats at the beginning of the 2009 Term, the Bench looked different. Gone from the Bench, after nineteen years, was David H. Souter. He returned to his home in New Hampshire, a state he likes enormously. Justice Souter will be missed by his former colleagues and by advocates before the Court, by legal scholars nationwide and by all who follow the Court's work and activities.     

Oral Advocacy and the Re-emergence of a Supreme Court Bar

Over the past generation, roughly the period since 1980, there has been a discernible professionalization among the advocates before the Supreme Court, to the extent that one can speak of the emergence of a real Supreme Court bar. Before defending that proposition, it is probably worth considering whether advocacy makes a difference—whether oral argument matters. My view after one year on the opposite side of the bench is the same as that expressed by no less a figure than Justice John Marshall Harlan—the second one—forty-nine years ago, after he completed his year on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. ¹ Justice Harlan lamented what he saw as a growing tendency among the bar "to regard the oral argument as little more than a traditionally tolerated part of the appellate process," a chore "of little importance in the decision of appeals." ² This view, he said, was "greatly mistaken." ³ As Justice Harlan told the bar, "[Y]our oral argument on appeal is perhaps the most effective weapon you have got." ⁴     

The Development of the Supreme Court Practice of Calling for the Views of the Solicitor General

"When the Supreme Court invites you, that's the equivalent of a royal command. An invitation from the Supreme Court just can't be rejected." ¹ The guest most frequently invited to the Supreme Court is the Solicitor General. Even before the practice of the Supreme Court calling for the views of the Solicitor General process developed, the Court occasionally invited the Solicitor General to participate as amicus in important cases by submitting a brief and/or participating in oral arguments before the Court. ² As then–Solicitor General Simon E. Sobeloff remarked to then–Attorney General Herbert Brownell in a 1954 letter about the landmark school desegregation cases, "The Supreme Court has expressly extended an invitation to the United States to participate in the reargument. While this by no means compels participation, such an invitation is not to be lightly declined." ³     

The Supreme Court as a Policy Arena: The Strategies and Tactics of State Attorneys General

Presently, state governments are more active and more successful in the U.S. Supreme Court than at any time since the New Deal. These rates of activity and success are a function of two coincident forces—the emergence of the Republican Court and the increased capacity of the states to pursue their policy goals aggressively before the High Bench. In this analysis, we seek to offer a better-defined portrait of the states' evolving advocacy in the Supreme Court. Using archival and survey data, we find that, as a group, the states are more capable Supreme Court litigators, that their perceptions of the Republican Court have encouraged them to increase their pursuit of policy goals through litigation, and that they are "procedurally rational"—i.e., their estimates of success enter into their decisions to engage the Court.     

Explaining Supreme Court Policymaking in Civil Rights: The Influence of the Solicitor General, 1953–2002

What factors explain Supreme Court policymaking in civil rights cases? Despite the importance of this question of law and policy, few empirical studies have explored the problem on the area of racial and ethnic discrimination. This study seeks to fill this gap by assessing the importance of the solicitor general, the federal government's representative before the Supreme Court, as a litigant and in the filings of amicus curiae briefs. The findings confirm that the solicitor general's presence in civil rights cases does matter when explaining whether the Supreme Court reaches a liberal or conservative outcome. This research demonstrates the significance of executive‐judicial interaction in explaining Supreme Court policymaking in civil rights cases.     

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

"In law, also, men make a difference," ¹ counseled Felix Frankfurter the year before his appointment to the Supreme Court. Frankfurter highlighted one of the three critical components of judicial decision-making in constitutional law: alongside the text of the Constitution itself and the cases that pose various questions for decision are the women and men who answer those questions. Those answers, as Frankfurter believed, are invariably influenced by the values Justices bring with them to the Bench. Yet he was expressing no newfound truth, but an awareness that had been apparent for a long time. "Impressed with a conviction that the true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government," President George Washington wrote future Attorney General Edmund Randolph in 1789, "I have considered the first arrangement of the judicial department as essential to the happiness of our country and the stability of its political system." To be sure, the Court's role in the political system was unclear, but Washington realized the impact the Court might have in the young Republic. This required, he told Randolph, "the selection of the fittest characters to expound the laws and dispense justice." ² And as he filled the six seats Congress had authorized for the Supreme Court, the first President made sure that each nominee was a strong supporter of the new Constitution.     

"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.     

The Clerk, the Thief, His Life as a Baker: Ashton Embry and the Supreme Court Leak Scandal

On December 16, 1919, Ashton Fox Embry, law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna, abruptly resigned from the position he had held for almost nine years. His explanation? His fledgling bakery business required his undivided attention. Newspapers that morning hinted at a different reason: Embry resigned because he had conspired with at least three individuals to use inside knowledge of upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decisions to profit on Wall Street.2 A grand jury returned an indictment against Embry and his associates a few months later, and Embry’s argument that he had committed no crime ultimately reached the Supreme Court, the very institution he was accused of betraying. Despite the sensational headlines and fierce legal battle arising from his indictment, the United States Attorney quietly dismissed Embry’s case in 1929, almost ten years after the story had broken. Few Court scholars have ever heard of Embry, and the memory of Embry, much like the case against him, has disappeared with time.3 This article unravels the “Supreme Court Leak Case” by reconstructing what happened almost eighty years ago.     

A Transformed Triangle: Court, Congress, and Presidency in Civil Rights

The relative permeability of the three elements of a triangle-the Supreme Court, Congress, and the president-to civil rights interest groups has varied over time. For almost two decades after World War II, the Supreme Court was the groups' preferred arena because Congress was resistant and presidents could thus do little or were hesitant to act. For a brief time in the mid-1960s the president and Congress became supportive of civil rights groups' claims while the Court also remained accessible. Starting in the late 1960s executive and legislative support for civil rights moderated, with presidential support declining significantly in the 1980s. When the Supreme Court adopted that latter stance, Congress became the body through which to protect civil rights by reversing the Court's decisions. In this examination of the "transformed triangle" in civil rights policymaking, we look at this change over time and at "flip-flops" in litigation as one administration changes the position espoused by its predecessor, and we also give some attention to the Supreme Court's response to congressional reversal of its rulings.     

Justice Harlan's “Great Betrayal”? A Reconsideration of Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education

In 1899 the Supreme Court of the United States decided the case of Joseph W. Cumming, James S. Harper, and John C. Ladeveze v. The County Board of Education of Richmond County, State of Georgia. The litigation arose after the all-white Richmond County School Board closed Ware High School, a segregated, tax-supported, all-black high school in the City of Augusta, GA. The plaintiffs did not seek integration of the Augusta Public Schools. They did not lodge a complaint regarding the separation by race of children in the primary grades. They did not attempt to compel the board to provide a high school for blacks. Their demand was for injunctive relief that would force the closing of the white high school through the withholding of tax support until the black high school was reopened. This approach succeeded in the trial court but failed in the Georgia Supreme Court. In an opinion written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Justice who had just three years before asserted that the constitution was color-blind, the Supreme Court of the United States sustained the ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court denying the request for injunctive relief. Ware High School was not reopened.     

David Souter: A Clerk's View

Many former Supreme Court clerks describe their clerkship as the best job of their lives. David Souter's former clerks do too, though with what I believe is a greater than normal frequency. (As a former Souter clerk I confess to partiality.) But while Souter resembles other Justices in the devoted affection he inspires, he was in many other ways a very unusual presence at the Supreme Court.     

Oversimplifying the Supreme Court

I cannot tell you what a pleasure it is to be at the Supreme Court Historical Society. Of course, the Supreme Court is fortunate to have a Chief Justice who is also Chief Historian. I have read each of Chief Justice Rehnquist's books on the Court, and they are engagingly written narratives filled with a love and knowledge of this institution. The Chief Justice is steeped in the folklore of this remarkable Court as few have ever been. This is just one reason those of us throughout the federal judiciary admire and love the Chief. He has shown kindness to me ever since I was a young law clerk for Justice Lewis Powell. I don't know if it's appropriate or not to dedicate a speech, but I am going to do so anyway. This speech is for him.     

Historical Consensual Norms in the High Court

There is a substantial political-science literature that discusses the notion of consensual norms in the US Supreme Court. Most of this literature assumes that consensual norms exist, rather than proving their existence. Caldeira and Zorn ( American Journal of Political Science 42: 874-902, 1998) use the method of cointegration developed in econometric time-series analysis to prove the existence of a single consensual norm in the US Supreme Court. This study applies cointegration analysis to historical time-series data on dissenting and single judgments to examine whether there is a single consensual norm in the High Court of Australia. The study finds that a single consensual norm does not underlie decision making in the High Court. This result is explained on the basis that the institutions underpinning decision making and the approach to decision making are different between the Australian High Court and the US Supreme Court.     

Beginning to Write Separately: The Origins and Development of Concurring Judicial Opinions

While political scientists and legal academics have both evinced a “fascination with disagreement on courts,” ¹ this scholarly concentration on conflict rather than consensus has tended to focus on dissent and dissenting opinions. As far as we can tell, there is no authoritative history of concurring opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court. This article is a first effort to correct that oversight by examining developments and change in concurring behavior from the founding through the White Court (1921). This period covers the emergence of an institutionally independent national judicial branch and ends before the start of the modern, policy‐making Court era, which we argue begins with the Taft Court and the creation of a fully discretionary docket.     

JURY DECISION MAKING MODELS AND THE SUPREME COURT: THE JURY CASES FROM WILLIAMS v. FLORIDA TO BALLEW v. GEORGIA*

This article analyzes recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in cases relating to the size and unanimity of juries as an example of the use (and abuse) of social science by the Court in the realm of policy analysis. The four cases reviewed “cast an unflattering light on the U.S. Supreme Court's ability to integrate social science findings into public law.”     

The Arlington Cemetery Case: A Court and a Nation Divided

Seventeen years after the Confederate general Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox, his eldest son won a sweeping victory over the federal government in the United States Supreme Court. On December 4, 1882, the Supreme Court upheld a federal trial court's ruling that the United States government's claim of title to Arlington National Cemetery rested on an invalid tax sale. The Justices thus affirmed the lower court's verdict that George Washington Custis Lee (“Custis Lee”), eldest son of Mary and Robert E. Lee, held legal title to Arlington. The Supreme Court also upheld the lower court's decision to permit Custis Lee to bring suit against the government officers who occupied Arlington. On the latter point, the Justices split 5 to 4, with a majority ruling for Custis Lee. The outcome of United States v. Lee, commonly known as the Arlington case, made it clear that the Lee family, and not the United States government, owned Arlington.     

The "Lone Dissenter"

The tenure of Associate Justice—and later Chief Justice—William H. Rehnquist on the Supreme Court spanned more than three decades. Despite his public importance, he was a quite private man. During his time on the Court, relatively few accounts appeared of what life was like inside the Rehnquist chambers, especially during his years as an Associate Justice. In the aftermath of his death last fall, former clerks have begun to reminisce about what it was like to clerk for him.     

The Judicial Bookshelf

Standard nomenclature in Supreme Court literature contrasts the "old Court" and the "new Court" (or, sometimes, the "modern Court"). By most accounts, the dividing line between the two falls during the years 1937–1940, when the nation witnessed a judicial and constitutional revolution. The proverbial "irresistible force" (in the form of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal program to cope with the Great Depression) met the "immovable object" (in the guise of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that, for a short time, stymied many of the President's initiatives). The result was Roosevelt's audacious assault on the Court through the Court-packing plan and the hasty change of mind by Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts that gave Roosevelt the five sure votes he needed so that his agenda could receive the constitutional stamp of approval. This flip-flop was promptly followed by the Court's adoption of a new agenda for itself, one that elevated civil liberties into a preferred position in the hierarchy of constitutional values and demoted property interests, which heretofore had been accorded heightened judicial protection.