Biographical Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court: The Lives and Legal Philosophies of the Justices
Publication Year: 2006
The recent dramatic shift in makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court has led to great interest in the rulings and legal opinions of its justices. Now, CQ Press brings you a comprehensive volume that analyzes the lives and legal philosophies of all past and present justices of the Court.
Biographical Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court includes signed essays profiling the men and women who have served and are serving on the U.S. Supreme Court. This one-of-a-kind reference includes not only important biographical information, but also in-depth details of the legal contributions made by the men and women of the nation’s highest bench. Keeping up with the recent changes to the Court, this volume includes all current justices. New essays profile Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice ...
- Entries A-Z
- Subject Index
1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20037
Phone: 202-729-1900; toll-free, 1-866-427-7737 (1-866-4CQ-PRESS)
Copyright © 2006 by CQ Press, a division of Congressional Quarterly Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Cover design: Tony Olivis, of Studio 2
Cover photos: (Top row, from left) Stephen Gerald Breyer, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. (Second row) Anthony McLeod Kennedy, John Paul Stevens, John Glover Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, David Hackett Souter (Third row) William Orville Douglas, John Marshall, William Howard Taft (Bottom row) Earl Warren, Thurgood Marshall, Louis Dembitz Brandeis, Roger Brooke Taney, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. From the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
Interior photo credits are located on page 665.
The paper used in this publication exceeds the requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.
Printed and bound in the United States of America
10 09 08 07 06 1 2 3 4 5
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Biographical encyclopedia of the Supreme Court: the lives and legal philosophies of the justices/edited by Melvin I. Urofsky.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-933116-48-X (alk. paper)
1. United States. Supreme Court—Officials and employees—Biography—Encyclopedias.
2. Judges—United States—Biography—Encyclopedias. I. Urofsky, Melvin I. II. Title.
For David W. Levy
Scholar, colleague, and friend on the occasion of his retirement[Page iv]
Chronological Listing of the Supreme Court Justices[Page viii]
In this listing, the year in which a justice took the judicial oath is used as the starting date of service on the Court. Similar chronological listings using appointment or confirmation dates will result in a different order for the justices, particularly for the earliest members of the Court.
Two sets of year ranges appear after the names of chief justices who served previously as associate justices.
- [Page ix]
Contributors[Page x]About the Editor
Melvin I. Urofsky is professor of public policy and law at the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is the author or editor of more than two dozen books on constitutional law, Supreme Court history, and religious freedom. His other publications with CQ Press include The Public Debate over Controversial Supreme Court Decisions (2006); 100 Americans Making Constitutional History (2004); and Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, with Paul Finkelman (2003).About the Contributors
Henry J. Abraham is the James Hart Professor of Politics Emeritus at the University of Virginia. His numerous books include Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and Liberties in the United States, 8th ed. with Barbara A. Perry (2003); Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton, new and revised ed. (1999); The Judicial Process: An Introductory Analysis of the Courts of the United States, England, and France, 7th ed. (1998); and The Judiciary: The Supreme Court in the Governmental Process, 10th ed. (1996).
Richard M. Abrams is professor emeritus of history and former associate dean of international and area studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of America Transformed: Sixty Years of Revolutionary Change, 1941–2001 (2006), in which the Supreme Court figures prominently. His research interests include political, business, and industrial history.
Judith A. Baer is professor of political science at Texas A&M University. She is the coauthor of The Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women: Cases in Law and Social Change (2006). Professor Baer is a former fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Fulbright Senior Lecturer.
Michal R. Belknap is professor of law at California Western Law School and adjunct professor of American history at the University of California, San Diego. He is the author of several books, including The Supreme Court under Earl Warren (2005); The Vietnam War on Trial: The My Lai Massacre and the Court Martial of Lieutenant Calley (2002); and Federal Law and Southern Order: Racial Violence and Constitutional Conflict in the Post-Brown South (1987). He is also the editor of American Political Trials, rev. ed. (1993).
Gayle Binion is professor of political science and former chair of the Law and Society Program at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Her law review articles include “Feminist Jurisprudence and the First Amendment: Hearing Another Voice” (1998) and “On Politics, Constitutional Interpretation and Abortion Rights' Jurisprudence” (1997). Her research focuses on the areas of civil rights and civil liberties within the U.S. constitutional structure, with special emphasis on the status of women, ethnic minorities, and the poor. She is particularly interested in understanding the role of the judiciary in defining and protecting constitutional rights.
David J. Bodenhamer is professor of history and executive director of the Polis Center at Indiana University/Purdue University, Indianapolis. He is the author of Our Rights (forthcoming) and Fair Trial: Rights of the Accused in American History (1993). He also is editor of The Bill of Rights in Modern America, with James W. Ely Jr. (forthcoming) and The History of Indiana Law, with Randall T. Shepard (2006). His research interests include the history of individual rights and rights of the accused.
William Bosch, S.J., is professor emeritus and college archivist at Le Moyne College in Syracuse, New York. He is [Page xi]the author of Judgment on Nuremberg: American Attitudes toward the Major German War-Crime Trials (1970).
Craig M. Bradley is the James Louis Calamaras Professor of Law at Indiana University School of Law–Bloomington. He is the editor and coauthor of Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study, 2d ed. (forthcoming) and The Rehnquist Legacy (2006). He is a former Fulbright fellow and law clerk to Justice William H. Rehnquist. His teaching and research covers such areas as criminal procedure, comparative criminal procedure, and federal criminal law.
Daniel L. Breen is professor of history at Newbury College. In addition, he teaches legal studies and philosophy at Brandeis University. He is currently working on an article on the influence of Judge Henry J. Friendly upon the contemporary jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.
William R. Casto is the Allison Professor of Law at Texas Tech University. He is the author of Foreign Affairs and the Constitution in the Age of Fighting Sail (2006) and The Supreme Court in the Early Republic (1995). His research interests include the law, foreign affairs, and Calvinism in the early republic.
Stephen Cresswell is professor of history at West Virginia Wesleyan College. He is the author of Rednecks, Redeemers and Race (2006); Multiparty Politics in Mississippi (1995); and Mormons and Cowboys, Moonshiners and Klansmen: Federal Law Enforcement in the South and West (1991).
Barry Cushman is the Percy Brown Jr. Professor of Law and History at the University of Virginia. He is the author of many articles on constitutional development in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His book, Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution (1998), was awarded the American Historical Association's Littleton-Griswold Prize.
David J. Danelski is the Boone Centennial Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. Among his publications are The Autobiographical Notes of Charles Evans Hughes, with Joseph Tucchin (1973) and A Supreme Court Justice Is Appointed (1964). He received the Hughes-Gossett Award for Historical Excellence from the Supreme Court Historical Society in 1997. His research focuses chiefly on judicial decision making and biography.
Donald O. Dewey is professor emeritus of history at California State University, Los Angeles, where he was also dean of natural and social sciences from 1970 to 1996. Previously, he served as associate editor of The Papers of James Madison, an ongoing publication. He is the author of Lessons on the Bill of Rights and Limited Government, with Kenneth A. Wagner and John T. Hyland (1995) and Marshall versus Jefferson: The Political Background of Marbury v. Madison (1970).
Norman Dorsen is the Stokes Professor of Law and counselor to the president at New York University. He has written extensively on constitutional law and on Supreme Court justices, and he has participated in many leading cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. He served as law clerk to Justice John Marshall Harlan II from 1957 to 1958, and as president of the ACLU from 1976 to 1991. He has received many awards, including honorary degrees and the Eleanor Roosevelt Medal for Human Rights from President Clinton in 2000.
James W. Ely Jr. is the Milton R. Underwood Professor of Law and professor of history at Vanderbilt University. He is the author of numerous articles and books on U.S. legal and constitutional history, including The Fuller Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy (2003); Railroads and American Law (2001); The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights, 2nd ed. (1998); and The Chief Justiceship of Melville W. Fuller, 1888–1910 (1995). His research interests include the history and evolution of property rights and the jurisprudence of the Gilded Age.
Daniel A. Farber is the Sho Sato Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley. He is the author of Lincoln's Constitution (2003); The First Amendment, 2d ed. (2003); and Eco-Pragmatism (1999). His research concentrates on constitutional law and history, jurisprudence, and environmental law. Professor Farber is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Ward Farnsworth is professor of law and Nancy Barton Scholar at Boston University Law School. He is the author, most recently, of the law review article “Signatures of Ideology: The Case of the Supreme Court's Criminal Docket” (2005). He served as law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy during the October 1996 term.
John M. Ferren is a senior judge on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. He is the author of Salt of the Earth, Conscience of the Court: The Story of Justice Wiley Rutledge (2004), which won the 2004 Langum Prize for Legal History and shared the 2005 George Pendleton Prize from the Society for History in the Federal Government.[Page xii]
Paul Finkelman is the President William B. McKinley Professor of Law and Public Policy and senior fellow in the Government Law Center at Albany Law School. He is the author or editor of more than twenty books. He is the author of Landmark Decisions of the Supreme Court, with Melvin Urofsky (2003), and A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States (2001).
Michael J. Gerhardt is the Samuel Ashe Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law and director of the Center on Law and Government at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Law School. He is the author of The Federal Appointments Process, rev. ed. (2003) and The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis, 2d ed. (2000).
Dorothy J. Glancy is professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law. Her writings cover a wide range of topics, including Justice William O. Douglas, historical aspects of the right to privacy, historic preservation, and intellectual property. An expert regarding privacy and intelligent transportation systems (ITS), she is also a research fellow of the Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research and a member of the State of California Court Technology Advisory Committee.
Robert M. Goldman is professor of history at Virginia Union University. He is the author of Reconstruction and Black Suffrage (2001) and other works on U.S. constitutional history.
Mark A. Graber is professor of government at the University of Maryland, College Park, and professor of law at the University of Maryland School of Law. He is the author of Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (2006); Rethinking Abortion (1996); and Transforming Free Speech (1991), as well as essays on constitutional politics, law, history, and development.
Michael Grossberg is the Sally M. Reahard Professor of History and a professor of law at Indiana University. He is the coeditor of the forthcoming three-volume Cambridge History of Law in the United States. His research focuses on the legal history of American family law and social relations.
Kermit L. Hall is professor of history and president of the University at Albany. He is the author of The Magic Mirror: Law in American History (1989), editor in chief of The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court, 2d ed. (2005), and editor of Institutions of Democracy: The Judicial Branch, with Kevin McGuire (2005). His research interests include the Supreme Court, judicial selection, and American legal and constitutional history.
Marci A. Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University. She is a former law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (1989) and the author of The Religious Origins of Disestablishment Principles, with Rachel Steamer (2006) and God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law (2005).
Richard F. Hamm is professor of history and public policy at the University at Albany. He is the author of Murder, Honor, and Law (2003) and Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment (1995). His research interests focus on history of crime, social movements and the law, and legal biography. He is the recipient of the 1996 Henry Adams Award for History in the Federal Government.
Susan N. Herman is the Centennial Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School. Her recent publications include The Sixth Amendment Right to a Speedy and Public Trial (forthcoming) and “The USA Patriot Act and the Submajoritarian Fourth Amendment” (2006). Her research covers the Supreme Court and a range of constitutional and criminal procedure issues. She serves as a member of the Board of Directors and as general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Scott Horton is a partner with Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler in New York. In his spare time, he writes about nineteenth-century legal history.
Timothy S. Huebner is associate professor of history and director of the Rhodes Institute for Regional Studies at Rhodes College. He is the author of The Taney Court: Justices, Rulings, Legacy (2003) and The Southern Judicial Tradition: State Judges and Sectional Distinctiveness, 1790–1890 (1999). In 2004 the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education named him Tennessee Professor of the Year.
Joseph Gordon Hylton is professor of law at Marquette University, where he teaches American constitutional history and comparative constitutional law. He is the author of Property Law and the Public Interest, 3d ed. (forthcoming); Sports Law and Regulation (1998); and Professional Values and Individual Autonomy: The United States Supreme Court and Lawyer Advertising (1998). Professor Hylton is currently at work on a biography of Supreme Court Justice David Josiah Brewer. He is a former Fulbright Scholar to Ukraine.
Peter Irons is professor emeritus of political science at the University of California, San Diego. His books include God on Trial (forthcoming); A People's History of the Supreme [Page xiii]Court, rev. ed. (2006); War Powers (2005); and Jim Crow's Children (2003). His research and writing focus on the Supreme Court and constitutional litigation.
Herbert A. Johnson is distinguished professor of law emeritus at the University of South Carolina. He is the author of The Chief Justiceship of John Marshall, 1801–1835 (1997) and coauthor of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court volume entitled Foundations of Power, John Marshall, 1801–1815, with George L. Haskins (1981). His current research involves the relationship between seventeenth-century English constitutional development and the rise of American constitutionalism.
John W. Johnson is professor of history at the University of Northern Iowa. Among his books are Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy (2005); The Struggle for Student Rights: Tinker v. Des Moines and the 1960s (1997); Insuring Against Disaster: The Nuclear Industry on Trial (1986); and American Legal Culture, 1908–1940 (1981). He received Thomas Jefferson awards from the Society for History in the Federal Government for both editions of his edited work Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia (2001 and 1992). He also received the Distinguished Scholar Award (2006) and the Donald N. McKay Faculty Research Award (2001) from the University of Northern Iowa. He is currently working on a book on the history of affirmative action in the United States.
John Paul Jones is professor of law at the University of Richmond, where he teaches administrative law, constitutional law, and the law of admiralty. He served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable David Schwartz of the United States Court of Claims and has been a visiting scholar at the Central Intelligence Agency. Professor Jones writes and lectures about comparative constitutional law, judicial administration, and maritime law.
Kenneth Jost is Supreme Court editor for CQ Press and associate editor of the CQ Researcher. He teaches media law as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center. Jost has covered legal affairs as a reporter, editor, or columnist since 1970 and has contributed to a variety of legal publications. He is the editor of The Supreme Court A to Z, 4th ed. (forthcoming), and a frequent commentator about the Court on television and radio programs. He was a member of the Researcher team that won the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award in 2002 for magazine coverage of law and justice issues.
Jonathan Kahn is assistant professor of law at Hamline University School of Law. He is the author of How A DrugBecomes ‘Ethnic’: Law, Commerce, and the Production of Racial Categories in Medicine (2004); Privacy as a Legal Principle of Identity Maintenance (2003); and Budgeting Democracy (1997). His research encompasses law and biotechnology, critical legal theory, and social studies of science.
Paul Kens is professor of political science and history at Texas State University–San Marcos. He is the author of Lochner v. New York: Economic Regulation on Trial (1998) and Justice Stephen Field: Shaping Liberty from the Gold Rush to the Gilded Age (1997). He was awarded National Endowment for the Humanities fellowships in 1993–1994 and 2005–2006. He has also received awards for articles on constitutional history and Western history.
Ken I. Kersch is assistant professor of politics at Princeton University. He is the author of The Supreme Court and American Political Development, with Ronald Kahn (2006); Constructing Civil Liberties: Discontinuities in the Development of American Constitutional Law (2004); and Freedom of Speech: Rights and Liberties under the Law (2003), as well as numerous articles, book chapters, and reviews. His interests lie in American constitutional and political development and American political thought.
Jonathan Lurie is professor of history and adjunct professor of law at Rutgers University. He is the author of The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation, Reconstruction and the Fourteenth Amendment, with Ronald M. Labbe (2003), which received the Scribes Award in 2004 from the American Society of Writers on Legal Subjects. He is also the author of Military Justice in America (2001); Pursuing Military Justice (1998); and Arming Military Justice (1992). In 2005 he was a Fulbright Lecturer at Uppsala University School of Law.
Thomas C. Mackey is professor of history at the University of Louisville and adjunct professor of law at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville. A specialist in U.S. legal and constitutional history, he is the author of Pursuing Johns: Criminal Law Reform, Defending Character, and New York City's Committee of Fourteen, 1920–1930 (2005). His research interests include law and society issues and criminal law history.
Maeva Marcus is research professor of law at the George Washington University Law School. She is editor of The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800 (eighth and final volume, forthcoming) and director of the Institute for Constitutional Studies at the George Washington University. She is a member of the Permanent Committee for the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise (2001–2009) and president-elect of the American [Page xiv]Society for Legal History. Her publications include Truman and the Steel Seizure Case (1994) and Origins of the Federal Judiciary: Essays on the Judiciary Act of 1789 (editor and contributor, 1992), as well as many articles and essays in books and law reviews.
Tony Mauro is Supreme Court correspondent for Legal Times and American Lawyer Media. He is the author of Illustrated Great Decisions of the Supreme Court, 2d ed. (CQ Press, 2006). Mauro has covered the Supreme Court since 1980.
Elizabeth Brand Monroe is associate professor of history at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. She is the author of multiple entries to encyclopedias and companions on legal and constitutional topics and The Wheeling Bridge Case: Its Significance in American Law and Technology (1992). She is currently working on a biography of William Wirt, the famous constitutional lawyer and U.S. attorney general from 1817 to 1829.
A. E. Keir Nash is professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of numerous articles on environmental law and policy and nineteenth-century American legal history, especially the legal history of slavery.
Jenni Parrish is director of the law library and professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law. She is the author of the article “Litigating Time in America at the Turn of the Twentieth Century” (2002). She teaches immigration legal history and is involved in the complete renovation and seismic retrofit of her law library. Her research currently focuses on the legal history of daylight savings time in the United States.
Michael E. Parrish is professor of history at the University of California, San Diego. He is the author of The Hughes Court: Justices, Rulings and Legacy (2002); Anxious Decades: America in Prosperity and Depression, 1921–1941 (1992); and Felix Frankfurter and His Times: The Reform Years (1982).
Richard Polenberg is the Goldwin Smith Professor of American History and Stephen H. Weiss Presidential Fellow at Cornell University. He is the author of The World of Benjamin Cardozo: Personal Values and the Judicial Process (1997) and Fighting Faiths: The Abrams Case, The Supreme Court, and Free Speech (1987), which received the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award.
Robert C. Post is the David Boies Professor of Law at Yale Law School. He is an expert in constitutional law and the editor of Civil Society and Government, with Nancy Rosenblum (2002) and author of Constitutional Domains: Democracy, Community, Management (1995), among other books. He is currently writing the tenth volume of the Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court, which will cover the period from 1921 to 1930, when William Howard Taft was chief justice. Professor Post served as law clerk to Justice William J. Brennan Jr. from 1978 to 1979.
H. Jefferson Powell teaches at the Duke University School of Law and holds a joint appointment at the Divinity School. He has served as principal deputy solicitor general in the U.S. Department of Justice and as special counsel to the attorney general of North Carolina, and he has briefed and argued cases before the Supreme Court. He is the author of “That Heaven of Which We Have Heard,” in Places of God: Theological Conversations with Wendell Berry (forthcoming), and A Community Built on Words (2005). Professor Powell received the Duke Bar Association's Excellence in Small Section Teaching Award and was University Scholar/Teacher of the Year 2001–2002.
Linda Przybyszewski is associate professor of history at the University of Notre Dame. She is the editor of Some Memories of a Long Life, 1854–1911, by Malvina Shanklin Harlan (2002) and the author of The Republic According to John Marshall Harlan (1999). Her research covers the subjects of constitutional law and church-state issues.
Eric W. Rise is associate professor of sociology and criminal justice at the University of Delaware. He is the author of The Supreme Court of Florida and Its Predecessor Courts, 1821–1917, with Walter W. Manley and E. Canter Brown (1997); The Martinsville Seven: Race, Rape, and Capital Punishment (1995); and From Local Courts to National Tribunals: The Federal District Courts of Florida, 1821–1991 (1991). His research interests include the history of civil rights litigation, freedom of speech, and federal and state judiciaries.
Daniel B. Rodriguez is the Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. He is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on state and federal constitutional law. His scholarship on the history and theory of American federalism has been published in various venues, including the University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2003); the Encyclopedia of the American Constitution (2000); the Yale Journal on Regulation (1996); and the Duke Law Journal (1995). He is the author of a forthcoming monograph on constitutional police power and is the coauthor of a forthcoming book on statutory interpretation.[Page xv]
Ralph A. Rossum is director of the Rose Institute of State and Local Government and the Henry Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College. He is the author of eight books, including Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text and Tradition (2006); Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy (2001); and American Constitutional Law, with G. Alan Tarr (1986), as well as numerous articles in law reviews and professional journals. He has written extensively on the American founding, federalism, and modes of constitutional interpretation.
Margaret M. Russell is professor of law at the Santa Clara University School of Law. She is chair of the board of directors of the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and a vice president of the national American Civil Liberties Union. Among her recent publications are “Civil Liberties in the U.S.: Why They Matter in a Post–9/11 World” (2003) and “Cleansing Moments and Retrospective Justice” (2003). Her areas of specialization include civil procedure, constitutional law, and contemporary legal theory.
Herman Schwartz is professor of law at American University Washington College of Law. He is the author of Right Wing Justice (2004) and The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2000). He is also the editor of The Rehnquist Court (2002) and The Burger Years (1987). His research interests are religion in America, judicial selection, and comparative constitutional law.
Philip J. Schwarz is professor emeritus of history at Virginia Commonwealth University. He is the author of Gabriel's Rebellion: A Documentary History, with Douglas R. Egerton (forthcoming); Migrants Against Slavery: Virginians and the Nation (2001); Slave Laws in Virginia (1996); and Twice Condemned: Slaves and the Criminal Laws of Virginia (1988).
Rebecca Shepherd Shoemaker is professor of history at Indiana State University in Terre Haute, where she teaches constitutional history. She is the author of The White Court: Justices, Rulings, Legacy (2004). Her areas of interest include civil liberties history. She is currently completing a book-length history of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union.
Robert Stanley is professor of political science at California State University, Chico. He is the author of “The Income Tax Cases,” in Melvin I. Urofsky, ed., The Public Debate over Controversial Supreme Court Decisions (CQ Press, 2006); “When Monopoly Mattered,” in Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia (2001); and Dimensions of Law in the Service of Order: Origins of the Federal Income Tax, 1861–1913 (1993).
Philippa Strum is director of the United States Studies division at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Breuklundian Professor Emerita at CUNY. Her books include Women in the Barracks: The VMI Case and Women's Rights (2002); When the Nazis Came to Skokie (1999); Privacy: The Debate in the United States since 1945 (1998); and Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (1984).
Thad W. Tate is the Forrest G. Murden Professor of Humanities Emeritus at the College of William and Mary and emeritus director of the Institute of Early American History and Culture. He is the author of Colonial Virginia: A History, with Warren Billings and John Selby (1986) and The Negro in Eighteenth-Century Williamsburg (1972).
James A. Thomson has studied and practiced law in the United States and Australia, where he is currently a barrister of the supreme courts of Western Australia and Victoria as well as the High Court of Australia. He teaches law parttime at the Western Australia and Murdoch University Law School and is the author of articles on federal and constitutional law that have appeared in the United States and Australia. He has been admitted to the New York Supreme Court bar.
Mark V. Tushnet is professor of law at Harvard Law School. He is the coauthor of four casebooks, including the most widely used casebook on constitutional law, the author of fourteen other books, including a two-volume work on the life of Justice Thurgood Marshall, and the editor of eight others. He served as president of the Association of American Law Schools in 2003 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002.
Sandra F. VanBurkleo is associate professor of history and adjunct professor of law at Wayne State University. She is lead editor of Constitutionalism and American Culture: Writing the New Constitutional History (2002) and author of Belonging to the World: Women's Rights and American Constitutional Culture (2001). She is completing a study of the development of modern citizenship in the Pacific Northwest and soon will begin a detailed account of Americans' experiences related to liberty of speech, press, and assembly from colonial times to the present.
Stephen J. Wermiel is the associate director of the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project at American University Washington College of Law. The project enlists and prepares law students to teach a course in constitutional law in Washington, D.C., public high schools. He was a Supreme Court reporter for the Wall Street Journal from [Page xvi]1979 to 1991. Wermiel also teaches constitutional law and a seminar on the Supreme Court.
Natalie Wexler is a lawyer and historian. She is currently an associate editor of the ongoing multivolume series The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789–1800 (7 volumes, 1985–).
G. Edward White is University Professor and David and Mary Harrison Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. He is the author of thirteen books, including Alger Hiss's Looking-Glass Wars: The Covert Life of a Soviet Spy (2004); The Constitution and the New Deal (2000); Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Law and the Inner Self (1993); The Marshall Court and Cultural Change, 1815–1835 (1991); Earl Warren: A Public Life (1982); and The American Judicial Tradition: The Profiles of Leading American Judges (1976). His books have received the Silver Gavel Award from the American Bar Association, the Littleton-Griswold Prize from the American Historical Association, the James Willard Hurst Prize from the Law and Society Association, and the Triennial Coif Award from the Association of American Law Schools. His research encompasses American legal and constitutional history and American intellectual history.
Lou Falkner Williams is associate professor of history at Kansas State University. She is the author of The Ellenton Riot Cases and Federal Enforcement of Black Rights in Post-Redemption South Carolina (2000) and The Great South Carolina Ku Klux Klan Trials (1996). Her research focuses primarily on Reconstruction Era civil rights issues.
Victoria Saker Woeste is senior research fellow at the American Bar Foundation in Chicago. She has published The Farmer's Benevolent Trust: Law and Agricultural Cooperation in Industrial America, 1856–1945 (1998), which won the 2000 J. Willard Hurst Prize of the Law and Society Association. Her research interests range from agricultural and business history to anti-Semitism, group libel, and the meaning of civic equality in the twentieth-century United States.
Michael Allan Wolf is the Richard E. Nelson Chair in Local Government Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. His teaching and scholarly interests center on land-use planning, property, and environmental law as well as constitutional history and economic development. His publications include Strategies for Environmental Success in an Uncertain Judicial Climate (2005) and Land-Use Planning, with C. M. Haar (1989). He is also the general editor of the multivolume Powell on Real Property (2000–).
The Supreme Court of the United States is the oldest and most powerful constitutional court in the world. As provided for in Article III of the Constitution, the First Congress established a supreme court as well as lower federal courts in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Initially, the Supreme Court appeared to be the weakest of the three branches of government. In The Federalist Alexander Hamilton predicted that it would be “the least dangerous branch” because it lacked the power of the purse and the sword, the chief tools of the legislature and executive, respectively. The first chief justice, John Jay, resigned, believing that the Court would never play an important role in government affairs.
Hamilton's and Jay's views of the Court have not been borne out by history, however. Under the leadership of John Marshall, the “great Chief Justice,” the Court demonstrated that it has significant powers, primarily in its role as the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution means. Congress may enact laws, and presidents may promulgate policies, but at times states, institutions, and individuals raise challenges to these laws and policies, and some of these challenges end up as appeals to the Supreme Court. Then, when the Court speaks, it speaks with the power Marshall envisioned for it nearly two centuries ago—to say what the Constitution means and whether the laws and policies under review are constitutional.
The Court's role as ultimate arbiter is not always wisely exercised, however. Occasionally, the Court misjudges the popular mood or the determination of Congress and the executive branch to have their way. Few would argue about its worst miscalculation: the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), in which the Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, tried to impose a judicial solution to the most vexing social, political, and economic problem of the time—slavery. In the words of Charles Evans Hughes in 1927, the decision was a “self-inflicted wound,” and one that took the Court a generation to overcome. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court, passing judgment on a segregation case from Louisiana, again missed an opportunity to make the citizens of the United States equal under the law. Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent contained this prophecy: “In my opinion, the judgment this day rendered will, in time, prove to be quite as pernicious as the decision made by this tribunal in the Dred Scott case.” In the 1930s, when the nation was in the grip of the worst depression in its history, the Court came very near to inflicting another wound on itself by declaring one popular law of the New Deal after another unconstitutional. That it survived the constitutional crisis is due in no small measure to the adroit political skills of Chief Justice Hughes.
If the Court has rendered decisions that changed the course of American history for the worse, it also has prescribed remedies to change it in positive ways. Under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1950s, the Court effectively gutted Plessy in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which said, among other things, that separate schools could never be equal. This decision was one of many that attempted to reverse the policies of Jim Crow governments, and not only in the South. Cases involving equal rights for African Americans were soon followed by appeals on gender discrimination. Today, no one would tell a [Page xviii]woman that she cannot practice law because of her gender, but that is exactly what the Court told the well-qualified Myra Bradwell in the 1873 decision Bradwell v. Illinois.
But what is it that causes the Court to change its collective mind over the years? After all, today's justices are bound by the Constitution and the laws passed under it, just as their predecessors were. Moreover, as an institution the Court is a continuum, and when the justices refer to earlier decisions, they speak of them as opinions of “this tribunal,” as if every justice who ever served was responsible for everything the Court has said. Even though society's issues, ideals, and goals change over time, the justices are mindful of those who came before them, no matter how different their backgrounds, education, and politics. I hope that you can begin to find the answer to that question in the essays in this book.
The development of the Court, its powers, and its jurisprudential policies are the work—a mixture of individual brilliance and persuasiveness and of collaboration—of the 108 men and 2 women who have sat on its bench since 1789. These essays illustrate the abilities of those who have made a decisive impact on American constitutional development as well as note whose tenure on the Court left little or no trace.
The contributors to Biographical Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court: The Lives and Legal Philosophies of the Justices were asked to concentrate primarily on the Supreme Court careers of their subjects. What they did before joining the Court is covered only briefly, but serves to place them in historical context. Perhaps the information on the justices' Court careers will arouse readers' curiosity about their lives. To help satisfy that curiosity, each essay includes an annotated bibliography, which lists biographies of the justice as well as materials on decisions and judicial philosophy. But the primary intention of these essays is to present the issues that confronted the justices during their tenure, interpret and evaluate their work, and assess their importance in our constitutional doctrine and their lasting influence on future Court decisions.
In reading these essays and trying to assess the importance of individual justices, one should keep several factors in mind. First, we need to treat chief justices on a different scale than the associate justices, whether they were brilliant, mediocre, or weak. Although John Marshall, Charles Evans Hughes, and Earl Warren all made significant doctrinal contributions, their real impact is found in how they led the Court. Officially, the chief justice is no more than “first among equals,” and all members of the Court cast only one vote apiece. But the chief justice is the political head of the Court and in modern times, with the development of an extensive judicial system of district and circuit courts, presides over the entire judicial system in the constitutional role as “chief justice of the United States.” The chief justice is the liaison between the courts and the other branches of government. The chief justice presides over the Court and is responsible for assigning opinions. The person in this position is also the one who, if capable, can lead the Court through times of crisis. We remember Marshall not only for his magisterial opinions but also because during his thirty-five year tenure he helped make a weak tribunal into an equal part of government and led the Court in assuming its powers as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
William Howard Taft, a former president, used his considerable political skills far more effectively as chief justice than he had ever done in the White House, securing for the Court not only a home of its own, but more important, control over its docket. Hughes headed the Court during the constitutional crisis of the 1930s, and his great political skills, not his written opinions, helped bring the judiciary through that crisis unscathed, with its authority and powers intact. Warren wrote eloquent opinions striking down racial segregation and legislative malapportionment, but he is remembered primarily for his ability to move the Court to expand the meaning of constitutionally protected rights.
Other chiefs have fared poorly among historians. Taney, despite a long tenure in which he actually expanded the authority of the Court, is remembered today as the architect of the disastrous Dred Scott decision and as the man who tried to undermine Abraham Lincoln's authority to save the Union. Harlan [Page xix]Fiske Stone and Frederick Vinson are portrayed in recent works as ill-suited to the job, unable to keep order in conferences or lead the Court. The evaluation of Warren Burger is that he was neither an effective chief nor a very bright judge. And only constitutional historians even remember the names of other chief justices such as Morrison Waite or Salmon Chase.
The second point to keep in mind is that our assessment of the associate justices tends to focus on their jurisprudential contributions. Chief Justice Marshall could concentrate on the political implications of decisions because Joseph Story worked out the legal issues. Similarly, Chief Justice Warren relied heavily on William Brennan to make sure that his efforts to expand rights were not only just, but based on the Constitution. Intellectually, Story and Brennan dominated the Courts on which they sat.
Because issues change over time, justices who had a major impact in one era may be all but forgotten in another. Few of Story's opinions are cited by current courts, because the issues he considered are no longer relevant in the twenty-first century. If there was a giant on the Court in the late nineteenth century, it was surely Stephen Field, who laid the basis for protection of property rights through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. But Field's ideas have little impact today because the failure of what historian William Wiecek has called “classical legal thought” during the Depression of the 1930s led the Court to abandon substantive due process.
Scholars who try to assess what makes a justice “great” have proposed a number of criteria. One would seem self-evident: is the person learned in the law? One might expect that all of the people nominated to the nation's highest court would have this quality, but that is not, in fact, the case. The true legal scholars on the bench (Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Benjamin Cardozo, and Felix Frankfurter come to mind) were few in number, and through much of the Court's history, political connection, not learning, was the decisive factor in appointment. As these essays show, once on the Court, many of these people, especially in the nineteenth century, proved to be little more than ciphers, leaving no jurisprudential legacy at all. At the same time, some justices whom few expected to leave an impact, such as Louis Brandeis, Hugo Black, and John Marshall Harlan II, turned out to be highly influential.
Another criterion for greatness is the understanding a justice demonstrated of the relationship of law to the aims, values, and needs of society. The truly great justices could mold their opinions—whether decisions for the Court or dissents—in a way that spoke to the American people. Despite his limited individual contributions to legal doctrine, Earl Warren always understood that the law his Court expounded, be it to end racial segregation in schools, reapportion legislative districts, or ensure the rights of persons accused of crimes, would reach millions of people and affect their lives. Justice Brandeis patiently explained in his dissents why the country should cherish and protect free speech and the right to privacy, and how changes in the economy and the society had to be reflected in the law. More recently, Sandra Day O'Connor tried to establish criteria in the jurisprudence of both abortion and church-state relations that reflected the society she saw around her and did not merely parrot ideological fulminations.
A great justice must be able to communicate. The meaning of his or her words cannot be buried in a law review article masquerading as a judicial opinion, understood by only a few law professors. It is important that those teaching the law understand what the Court says, but it is even more important that the people do. When Justice Holmes denounced warrantless wire-tapping, he did so in a way that immediately caught popular attention. Instead of talking in abstract legal principles, he condemned it as “a dirty business,” a phrase that nonlawyers could clearly understand. Chief Justice Warren fashioned his opinion in Brown v. Board of Education so that it would be short, could fit on one page of a newspaper, and be in language that everyone could understand. Some critics claimed that Warren's opinion was a little short in constitutional analysis, but he understood that in the end it was the people who had to understand the meaning of equal protection.[Page xx]
There are other criteria as well, such as whether the justice could operate effectively within the institutional structure of the Court. Some, such as Black and Brennan, often acted like politicians in developing a majority to support their positions. William O. Douglas, on the other hand, had no use for such persuasion. “The only soul I have to save is my own,” he said, a position that Antonin Scalia also seems to have adopted.
The analysis can and does go on, and different scholars apply their own standards. For liberals, the question may be how well a justice can adapt constitutional standards to fit the needs of a modern society, and conservatives may take just the opposite tack and admire a justice who hews closely to what they see as the original intent of the Framers. Nearly every scholar prizes integrity, and, unlike the executive or legislative branches, the judiciary has been remarkably free of scandal. Only one justice has been impeached: Samuel Chase became the target of the Jeffersonians' political war on the judiciary, but in the end the Senate refused to convict. Abe Fortas resigned because of an alleged conflict of interest and his acceptance of large speaking fees after he joined the Court, but his real crime seems to have been his continuing friendship with President Lyndon Johnson and his lack of sensitivity to the separation of powers.
Finally, I would suggest that a truly great justice must be an educator, a justice whose opinions are constructed and written to teach constitutional lessons. It is said of Brandeis that in crafting his dissents, he would say to his clerks, “The opinion is now convincing, but how can we make it more instructive?” The opinions of the great chief justice John Marshall, although addressed to matters that no longer concern us directly, such as chartering banks, nevertheless remain important because they explicated the constitutional authority of a national government so that it may govern effectively. Brandeis, in turn, laid out the bases for understanding our rights and for tying issues such as free speech and privacy to the needs of a democratic society.
Had this book been written fifty years ago, the criteria used by the contributors to assess the justices' careers on the Court might have been different. Prior to the Warren era, the Court's docket had many important cases, but the great expansion of rights was yet to come. Should another editor undertake such a collection fifty years from now, I have no doubt that although some constitutional questions will remain the same, the contributors will have additional criteria and will be judging the men and women of the Supreme Court against a different social, economic, and political background.
This volume is an updated edition of The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary (1994). Among its features are new entries for Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, updated profiles on all members of the Roberts Court, and revised essays on selected former justices.
The 110 essays in this volume open with the justices' biographical data—birth and death dates, education, official positions, and Supreme Court service. For the date of a justice's appointment, the editors settled on the day the Senate received the nomination as the official date, and that information is courtesy of a report from the Congressional Research Service. The entries close with concise bibliographic essays that point readers to the justices' personal and professional papers, the most notable biographies, and journal articles on topics related to their careers. Last is a list of each justice's noteworthy opinions. Each biography includes a photograph or other illustration of the justice profiled. The book concludes with useful reference items that include a selected bibliography, a succession chart of Supreme Court seats, and a description of the Court's supporting personnel.Acknowledgments
Unlike a monograph, for which one author does all of the research and writing, a book like this one happens only because a lot of talented people have a serious flaw—they have not learned to say “no” to editors like me who cajole them, often more than once, into contributing to such collections. There is an important dividend, however, in having a book like this written by multiple hands. We not only get the expertise of scholars who have written extensively about their subject, but we also get multiple viewpoints. The men [Page xxi]and women who have contributed to this book are law professors, historians, political scientists, documentary editors, newspaper reporters, and freelance writers. They have brought to the project not only knowledge about their subject but also their ability to make substantive judgments about the justice's work and legacy. For their willingness to work with me, I am very grateful.
Their work, however, would not be in your hands without the skill and dedication of the staff at CQ Press. This is the fourth book I have done with CQ Press, and I am fortunate to have established good working relations with an editorial crew that is, in my mind, among the best in the business.
Acquisitions editor Doug Goldenberg-Hart enthusiastically believed that there should be an updated and revised version of the original edition, and he smoothed the way to making it happen. January Layman-Wood, the development editor, took on the often tedious but absolutely necessary task of making sure that all of the details fell into place, work in which she was helped by production editor Joan Gossett and editorial assistant Timothy Arnquist. My sometimes testy relationship with Carolyn Goldinger, in which I rail at the questions she raises, is more than tempered by the realization that she is one of the best copy editors in the business and that far more often than not her questions are right on target. Inge Lockwood did the proofreading, Indexing Partners LLC compiled the index, and intern Josh Stager pulled together the material for the selected bibliography. To all of them a sincere thank you for a job—once again—well done.
This edition is dedicated to my friend and colleague David W. Levy, who is retiring from academe but not from scholarship.—Melvin I.UrofskyVirginia Commonwealth University
Selected Bibliography[Page 621]Justices, Presidents, and Senators: A History of the U.S. Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton.New and revised ed.Lanham Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 1999. This text explores the relationship of the justices to the presidents who appointed them and the political process of confirmation.Cushman, Clare, ed. The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995.2d ed.Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1995.Friedman, Leon, and Fred L.Israel, eds. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions.Revised ed.5 vols. New York: Chelsea House, 1995. These volumes, in addition to short biographical entries, also have samplings from the justices' opinions.Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States.2d ed.New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. This book is one of the best one-volume reference works available on the Court and includes pieces on the justices.Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Facts on File, 2001.Johnson, Herbert A., ed. The Chief Justiceships of the United States Supreme Court. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1997. As of 2006, this series has six volumes in print, one out of print, and several others in development.Katz, Stanley N., ed. Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court. New York: Macmillan, 1971-. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005-. The History is the larger and more comprehensive of two multi-volume histories of the Supreme Court (for the second, see Herbert A. Johnson, above). As of 2006, it is complete through Volume 9 (the White Court). Volume 12, covering the Stone and Vinson Courts, is also available, and volumes covering the Taft, Hughes, and Warren Courts are under preparation.Guide to the Supreme Court..4th ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004. The Guide is an excellent two-volume thematic reference on the Court.A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States. 2 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. This text provides an overall view of the Supreme Court, its history, and the justices., and .The American Judicial Tradition: Profiles of Leading American Judges. Expanded ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. White provides thorough analysis as well as biographical information on some of most important members of the Court..
Succession Chart of … Supreme Court Seats[Page 622][Page 623][Page 624][Page 625][Page 626][Page 627]
Supporting Personnel of the Supreme Court[Page 628]
Compared to the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, the Supreme Court employs few people and spends relatively little money. Although the number of Court offices and positions has grown, some are as old as the Court itself. About 470 people work for the Court, and its fiscal year 2006 budget for salaries and expenses was in the comparatively modest $60 million range.
The Court's statutory employees—clerk, marshal, reporter of decisions, and librarian—are appointed by the Court. The justices each select their clerks and other personal staff. The Court's administrative assistant is appointed by the chief justice, and all other court officers, such as the public information officer and the curator, are appointed by the chief justice in consultation with the Court.Clerk of the Court
Clerks of the Court Name Term State of Origin John Tucker 1790–1791 Massachusetts Samuel Bayard 1791–1800 Pennsylvania Elias B. Caldwell 1800–1825 New Jersey William Griffith 1826–1827 New Jersey William T. Carroll 1827–1863 Maryland D. W. Middleton 1863–1880 D.C. J. H. McKenney 1880–1913 Maryland James D. Maher 1913–1921 New York William R. Stansbury 1921–1927 D.C. C. Elmore Cropley 1927–1952 D.C. Harold B. Willey 1952–1956 Oregon John T. Fey 1956–1958 Virginia James R. Browning 1958–1961 Montana John F. Davis 1961–1970 Maine E. Robert Seaver 1970–1972 Missouri Michael Rodak Jr. 1972–1981 West Virginia Alexander Stevas 1981–1985 Virginia Joseph F. Spaniol Jr. 1985–1991 Ohio William K. Suter 1991– Virginia
The clerk of the Court is the Court's judicial business manager. The clerk ensures that the Court is able to carry out its constitutional duty, its judicial business, in orderly fashion. The office was established by the first formal rule of the Court, adopted in February 1790. Through the years, the clerk's duties have increased enormously. The clerk has a staff of about thirty people. The responsibilities of the clerk of the Court include:
- administering the Court's dockets and argument calendars;
- receiving and recording all motions, petitions, jurisdictional statements, briefs, and other documents filed on the various dockets;
- distributing those various papers to the justices;
- collecting filing fees and assessing costs;
- preparing and maintaining the Court's order list and journal, upon which are entered all the Court's formal judgments and mandates;
- preparing the Court's formal judgments and mandates;
- notifying counsel and lower courts of all formal actions taken by the Court, including written opinions;
- supervising the printing of briefs and appendices after review has been granted in in forma pauperis cases;
- requesting and securing the certified record below upon the grant of review or other direction of the Court;
- supervising the admissions of attorneys to the Supreme Court bar, as well as their occasional disbarments; and[Page 629]
- giving procedural advice, by telephone, mail, and in person, to those counsel and litigants who need assistance or assurance as to the Court's rules and procedures.
To date, there have been only nineteen clerks of the Court. Four of them served for a quarter of a century or more: Elias B. Caldwell (1800–1825), William T. Carroll (1827–1863); J. H. McKenney (1880–1913), and C. Elmore Cropley (1927–1952). The first clerk, John Tucker, was selected on the third day of the Court's first session, February 3, 1790, to oversee the courtroom and library, manage subordinate employees, collect the salaries of the justices, and find them lodgings when necessary.
The 1790 rule that established the position of clerk prohibited him from practicing law before the Court while he was a clerk. In the early years the clerk performed many of the duties later taken over by the reporter and the marshal. So varied were the responsibilities of the early clerks that they were described as a combination business manager-errand boy for the justices and the lawyers who appeared before the Court.Marshal of the Court
The Judiciary Act of 1867 gave the Court authority to appoint a marshal, to remove a marshal, and to fix that official's compensation. Today the marshal oversees the operations of the Court building as its general manager, its paymaster, and its chief security officer. Before the office was created, these duties were performed either by the clerk or the marshal of the district in which the Court was located. Between 1801 and 1867, for example, the twelve men who served as marshal of the District of Columbia also served, informally, as marshal of the Court. The present-day marshal attends all the Court's sessions, manages more than two hundred employees, supervises the federal property used by the Court, pays the justices and other employees, oversees telecommunications, orders supplies, and pays the Court's bills. The marshal, whose original duties were to keep order in the courtroom, also oversees the Supreme Court Police Force, which consists of a chief of police and about eighty officers. They police the building, grounds, and adjacent streets; they may make arrests and carry firearms. The marshal and the marshal's aides also receive visiting dignitaries and escort the justices to formal functions outside the Court.
During public sessions of the Court, the marshal (or a deputy) and the clerk–both dressed in morning coats or cut-aways—station themselves at opposite ends of the bench. At exactly 10 a.m., on a signal from the chief justice, the marshal pounds the gavel and announces: “The Honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.” As the justices take their seats, he calls for silence by crying “Oyez” (“Hear ye”) three times and announces: “All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable Court.” During oral argument, the marshal or an assistant flashes the white and red lights to warn counsel that the time for presenting arguments is about to expire.
Marshals of the Court Name Term Richard C. Parsons 1867–1872 John C. Nicolay 1872–1887 John Montgomery Wright 1888–1915 Frank Key Green 1915–1938 Thomas E. Waggaman 1938–1952 T. Perry Lippitt 1952–1972 Frank M. Hepler 1972–1976 Alfred Wong 1976–1994 Dale E. Bosley 1994–2001 Pamela Talkin 2001–Reporter of Decisions
The reporter of decisions is responsible for editing the opinions of the Court and supervising their printing and publication in the official United States Reports. The reporter and the reporter's staff of nine check all citations after the opinions of the justices have been delivered, correct typographical and other errors in the opinions, and add the headnotes, the voting lineup of the justices, and the names of counsel that appear in the published version of the opinions.
The post of reporter of decisions had informal beginnings. The first reporter, Alexander J. Dallas (1790–1800), was self-appointed, and most accounts of the early Supreme Court indicate that as a lawyer he [Page 630]undertook the first reports as a labor of love and a public service. Dallas, who was also a journalist, editor, patron of the arts, and secretary of the Treasury (1814–1816), published four volumes of decisions covering the Supreme Court's first decade.
Dallas was succeeded unofficially by William Cranch in 1801. Like Dallas—who served as Treasury secretary while reporting on the Court's decisions—Cranch continued to sit as a judge and later chief justice of the circuit court in Washington, D.C.
Cranch's successor, Henry Wheaton, was the first reporter formally appointed by the Court, in 1816. John W. Wallace was the last reporter to have his name on the cover of the Court's published reports. The first ninety volumes of the reports were titled Dall. 1–4; Cranch 1–15; Wheat. 1–12; Pet. 1–16; How. 1–24; Black 1–2, and Wall. 1–23. After 1874 the name of the reporter of decisions appeared only on the title page of the reports.
As Augustus Garland noted, “The office of the Reporter is not a bed of roses. The work is constant, arduous and exacting. A failure to give full scope in the syllabus to the utterances of a judge brings wrath upon him.”1 Reporters Benjamin C. Howard (1843–1861) and John W. Wallace (1863–1875) felt the wrath of several justices.
Reporters of Decisions Name Term Alexander J. Dallas 1790–1800 William Cranch 1801–1815 Henry Wheaton 1816–1827 Richard Peters Jr. 1828–1843 Benjamin C. Howard 1843–1861 Jeremiah S. Black 1861–1862 John W. Wallace 1863–1875 William T. Otto 1875–1883 J. C. Bancroft Davis 1883–1902 Charles Henry Butler 1902–1916 Ernest Knaebel 1916–1946 Walter Wyatt 1946–1963 Henry Putzel Jr. 1964–1979 Henry C. Lind 1979–1987 Frank D. Wagner 1987–
1 Augustus H. Garland, Experience in the Supreme Court, quoted in Supreme Court Information Office, “The Docket Sheet” 13 (Summer 1976): 4.Librarian
The Supreme Court library, which contains more than 450,000 volumes in print, microform, and electronic formats, is located on the third floor of the Court building. (A private library for the justices, with 65,000 volumes, is on the second floor. There are also small core libraries in each chamber plus an offsite annex library containing 50,000 books.) The main Supreme Court library's use is limited to Court personnel, members of the Court bar, members of Congress, their legal staffs, and government attorneys. Usually, however, the library will grant access to its books to members of the public or press who specify a particular research interest.
The library, which grew from a donation of 2,011 law books given to the Court by Congress in 1832, has the most complete available set of the printed briefs, records, and appendices of Court cases. It also contains all federal, state, and regional reports, federal and state statutory codes, legal periodicals, legal treatises, and digests and legislative and administrative source material. There are also special collections in international law, military law, British law, patent and trademark law, and Supreme Court history.
Since 1887, when the post of librarian was created, there have been eleven Court librarians. The library has a staff of about twenty-five professional librarians and lawyers.
Librarians of the Court Name Term Henry Deforest Clarke 1887–1900 Frank Key Green 1900–1915 Oscar Deforest Clarke 1915–1947 Helen C. Newman 1947–1965 Henry Charles Hallam Jr. 1965–1972 Edward G. Hudon 1972–1976 Betty H. Clowers (acting) 1976–1978 Roger F. Jacobs 1978–1985 Stephen G. Margeton 1985–1988 Shelley L. Dowling 1989–2003 Judith A. Gaskell 2003–Source: David Savage, Guide to the Supreme Court, 4th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2004), 880–884.
Photo Credits[Page 665]
Names of photographers or painters appear in parentheses.
2 Supreme Court Historical Society (Steven Petteway)
8 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
11 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
14 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
24 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Joseph Lavenburg, National Geographic Society)
35 The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation
38 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
42 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
47 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
58 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
70 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
75 Supreme Court Historical Society (Steven Petteway)
90 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
93 Supreme Court Historical Society (Robert S. Oakes, National Geographic Society)
101 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
106 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
111 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
113 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
116 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
120 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
126 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
133 National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution (John Wesley Jarvis, 1811)
137 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
144 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
146 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
149 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
152 Independence National Historic Park
156 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
161 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
165 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
168 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
179 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
181 Independence National Historic Park
184 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
194 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Harris & Ewing)
197 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
208 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
214 Supreme Court Historical Society (Steven Petteway)
225 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
228 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
234 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
237 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
246 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
256 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
267 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
278 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
281 Courtesy of the North Carolina Office of Archives and History, Raleigh N.C.
286 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
288 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
295 National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution (Gilbert Stuart and John Trumbull, 1874–1818)
302 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
304 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
308 Supreme Court Historical Society (Robin Reid)
315 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
318 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
321 Collection of the New-York Historical Society
324 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
327 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
335 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States (Abdon Daoud Ackad)
342 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
344 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
347 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
350 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
354 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
358 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
364 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States[Page 666]
368 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
370 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
372 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
379 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
382 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
391 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
396 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
400 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
403 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
413 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
419 Supreme Court Historical Society (Dane Penland)
430 Supreme Court Historical Society (Steven Petteway)
436 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
441 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
443 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
450 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
453 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
465 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
468 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
478 Supreme Court Historical Society (Joseph H. Bailey, National Geographic Society)
487 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
494 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
504 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
514 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
517 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
523 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
526 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
533 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
543 Supreme Court Historical Society (Hugh Talman)
555 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
557 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
561 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
563 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
567 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
572 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
579 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
589 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
593 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
595 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
602 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
610 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
613 The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Society Portrait Collection, C. B. Longacre
616 Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division
619 Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States