Remembering Rehnquist

William Hubbs Rehnquist spent the last thirty-three years of his life as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, fifteen as an Associate Justice and eighteen as Chief Justice. I met Bill when I was a freshman at Stanford in 1946. He was attending Stanford and working part time as a "hasher" at my dormitory during the evening meal. He amazed all of the young women by carrying such heavy loads of dishes on his tray. Perhaps that is how he learned to carry all those heavy loads in all of the years that followed. He was tall and good-looking, and he had a sharp sense of humor.     

Tribute to William H. Rehnquist

The casket was plain unvarnished pine, and over it was draped the American flag. As my fellow Rehnquist clerks and I carried that casket up the marble steps of the Supreme Court building, to the Great Hall, it occurred to a number of us that this was very fitting. For Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was direct, straightforward, utterly without pretense—and a patriot who loved and served his country.     

The Original Justice Roberts

The Supreme Court had rarely, if ever, seen a fight quite like the one over the farewell letter to a departing Justice. It started routinely enough in the summer of 1955, when Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone drafted a letter of farewell to Justice Owen J. Roberts, who had suddenly resigned after fifteen eventful years on the Court. The six-sentence missive went first to the Senior Associate Justice, Hugo L. Black, to be signed and passed along to his Brethren.     

Courtroom to Classroom: Justice Harlan's Lectures at George Washington University Law School

John Marshall Harlan had a singularly successful legal career as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court that spanned thirty-three years, from 1877 to 1911, one of the longest terms in history. For twenty-one of those years on the Court he also distinguished himself as a professor of constitutional law at George Washington University. Along with his colleague on the Bench and on the faculty, Associate Justice David J. Brewer, Harlan carried a full course load, teaching just about every subject: evidence, torts, property law, corporation law, commercial law, international law, and his specialty, constitutional law.     

Unlikely Abolitionist: William Cushing and the Struggle Against Slavery

One of the striking differences between the federal Union established under the Constitution and the Confederation of States established under the Articles of Confederation is the creation under Article III of a judicial power of the United States and of a Supreme Court to exercise that power. Acting pursuant to its power to determine the structure of that Court, Congress determined that the Court should consist of one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The six lawyers President Washington named to the Court ¹ were leading members of the bar, yet none achieved lasting distinction by reason of his service on the Court. Chief Justice Jay, for example, is best remembered for the treaty with England which bears his name; and when he resigned in 1795 following his election as Governor of New York, local papers referred to his new office as "a promotion." ²     

William O. Douglas Remembered: A Collective Memory by WOD's Law Clerks

William O. Douglas (WOD), who was the longest-serving Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, was an Associate Justice from April 17, 1939 to November 19, 1975, and thereafter was a retired Justice until his death on January 19, 1980. During this period he employed fifty-four law clerks, one for each Term of the Court except for the 1950, 1967, and 1970 Terms, when he employed two clerks, and starting in the 1971 Term, when he had three clerks until his retirement. Forty-one of his law clerks are still alive, including his first law clerk, David Ginsburg, who at the age of 95 remains mentally and physically active and only recently “retired” from his law practice.     

The Chief I Knew

Chief Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist died with his boots on. Those boots came each from his native Wisconsin and his adopted Arizona, and he loved them both. He worked until the end, but the enormous importance of his work did not detract from his other interests and talents, and it cannot begin to reflect his personality. This essay does not address his jurisprudence; rather, it is a collection of some personal memories that describe an admirable character whom I, and nearly everyone else, found to be most enjoyable company. Bill Rehnquist was one of the most thoughtful, considerate people I've ever known. He was a humble man with great good humor, and he was, to the very end, a man of surprises.     

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.     

“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.     

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 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.     

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.     

Textual Corruption in the Civil Rights Cases

The Civil Rights Cases ¹ do not quite rival Plessy v. Ferguson ² for notoriety as the decision that most clearly confirmed the failure of Reconstruction and the rise of Jim Crow. Yet the Civil Rights Cases did far more than Plessy to limit federal power to address the continuing consequences of slavery. They declared unconstitutional the Civil Rights Act of 1875 insofar as it prohibited discrimination in public accommodations operated by private parties. Congress passed that act under its powers to enforce the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, but the Court held the act unconstitutional on the ground that private discrimination was neither a badge or incident of slavery under the Thirteenth Amendment nor a manifestation of state action under the Fourteenth. Although the Court's holding under the Thirteenth Amendment was effectively overruled by the Warren Court, ³ its holding under the Fourteenth Amendment continues to be influential, supporting a decision of the Rehnquist Court striking down the Violence Against Women Act. ⁴     

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 Supreme Court in the Nineteenth Century

At the beginning of the nineteenth century, we find a Court which has not yet found its role, and whose principal impact is deciding which litigant wins in a particular lawsuit. Chief Justice John Marshall, appointed in 1801, changes that; he and his successor, Roger B. Taney, are the dominant figures in the Courts over which they preside. From 1801 until 1864-sixty-three years-the nation had only two Chief Justices; during the same time, it had fifteen presidents. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Chief Justices are less dominant and influential, sharing their authority with several notable Associate Justices. By the end of the century, the Court is beginning to wrestle with the many problems facing the nation after a little more than a century of existence.     

Thomas Jefferson and the American Indian Nations: Native American Sovereignty and the Marshall Court

The Cherokee Removal Cases — Cherokee Nation v. Georgia ¹ and Worcester v. Georgia ² —stand as the dramatic last act of the Marshall Court era. Thomas Jefferson was long dead by the time of the removal of the American Indians from the land north and south of the Ohio River. Yet in many ways the Cherokee Removal Cases that bedeviled Marshall in his final years on the Court were Jefferson's revenge, the first bitter fruits of policies adopted during his presidency that created the political and legal environment for the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Cherokee Nation litigation itself. This Jeffersonian legacy is ironic, given that Jefferson as a scholar, diplomat, and Secretary of State was an ardent supporter of Indian sovereignty and eventual citizenship. Yet these views were subordinated during his presidency to concerns of what we would term "national security," to preserve the Union, and to advance the interests and needs of his political party.     

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     

Introduction

Justice Stephen J. Field sat on the Supreme Court of the United States for thirty-four years—from 1863 to 1897. Field was undoubtedly one of the most colorful personalities ever to occupy a seat on the High Court and, perhaps, one of the most controversial. His strong-willed, persistent, tenacious character incited intense feelings in both friends and foes. We can observe this, in part, from the language of his opinions. Field is most well known for stinging, sometimes sarcastic dissents in case like the Slaughter-House cases or Munn v. Illinois . We also find it in the tenor of numerous newspaper articles and pamphlets that were published in connection with the controversies that seemed to follow him. We can glean it from biographies such as Carl Brent Swisher's Stephen J. Field: Craftsman of the Law and Robert McCloskey's American Conservatism in the Age of Enterprise .     

Democracy in Justice Kennedy's America: Reading Obergefell with Tocqueville

Justice Anthony Kennedy cites Alexis de Tocqueville in support of the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges. But Kennedy's citation leaves much out of Tocqueville's original text. Looking at what Kennedy erases in his quotation of Tocqueville indicates some of the broader cultural and historic erasures that are present in the Obergefell decision (and in the Supreme Court's latter-day treatment of marriage and the family in general). Standing Obergefell next to Tocqueville yields suggestive possibilities for evaluating the evolution of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence—and recent American political thought, more generally speaking—on questions of marriage and family. Specifically, reading Obergefell with Tocqueville reveals the intellectual and political weakness of the contemporary Supreme Court.     

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