Equal justice under law

Last updated
The front of the Supreme Court Building, including the West Pediment sculpture by Robert Ingersoll Aitken EqualJusticeUnderLaw.jpg
The front of the Supreme Court Building, including the West Pediment sculpture by Robert Ingersoll Aitken

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the West Pediment, above the front entrance of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced the American legal system.

Contents

The phrase was proposed by the building's architects, and then approved by judges of the Court in 1932. It is based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, and has historical antecedents dating back to ancient Greece.

Proposed by architects and approved by justices

Justice Van Devanter (left) and Chief Justice Hughes Justice Van Devanter's last day. Washington, D.C., June 1. Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter of Cheyenne, Wyo. today attended his last session as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. He LCCN2016877904.jpg
Justice Van Devanter (left) and Chief Justice Hughes

This phrase was suggested in 1932 by the architectural firm that designed the building. [1] Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Willis Van Devanter subsequently approved this inscription, as did the United States Supreme Court Building Commission which Hughes chaired (and on which Van Devanter served). [2] [3]

The architectural firm that proposed the phrase was headed by Cass Gilbert, though Gilbert himself was much more interested in design and arrangement, than in meaning. [4] Thus, according to David Lynn who at that time held the position of Architect of the Capitol, the two people at Gilbert's firm who were responsible for the slogan "equal justice under law" were Gilbert's son (Cass Gilbert, Jr.) and Gilbert's partner, John R. Rockart. [3]

In 1935, the journalist Herbert Bayard Swope objected to Chief Justice Hughes about this inscription, urging that the word "equal" be removed because such a "qualification" renders the phrase too narrow; the equality principle would still be implied without that word, Swope said. Hughes refused, writing that it was appropriate to "place a strong emphasis upon impartiality". [3]

This legal soundbite atop the Court is perceived differently by different people, sometimes as ostentatious, often as profound, and occasionally as vacuous. [5] According to law professor Jim Chen, it is common for people to "suggest that disagreement with some contestable legal proposition or another would be tantamount to chiseling or sandblasting 'Equal Justice Under Law' from the Supreme Court's portico." [5] The phrase may be perceived in a variety of ways, but it very distinctly does not say "equal law under justice", which would have meant that the judiciary can prioritize justice over law. [6]

Based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence

The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined in 1891 by the Supreme Court. [7] [8] In the case of Caldwell v. Texas, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of a unanimous Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." [9] The last seven words are summarized by the inscription on the U.S. Supreme Court building. [7]

Chief Justice Fuller (front center) wrote for a unanimous Court in Caldwell. In this 1899 photo, Justice Harlan is seated to his right, and Justice Peckham is standing to Harlan's right. The Fuller Court.jpg
Chief Justice Fuller (front center) wrote for a unanimous Court in Caldwell. In this 1899 photo, Justice Harlan is seated to his right, and Justice Peckham is standing to Harlan's right.

Later in 1891, Fuller's opinion for the Court in Leeper v. Texas again referred to "equal...justice under...law". [10] Like Caldwell, the Leeper opinion was unanimous, in contrast to the Fuller Court's major disagreements about equality issues in other cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson . [11]

In both Caldwell and Leeper, murder indictments were challenged because they allegedly gave inadequate notice of the crimes being charged. The Court upheld the indictments because they followed the form required by Texas law. [12] In a case nine years later ( Maxwell v. Dow ), the Court quoted the "equal...justice under...law" phrase that it had used in Caldwell and Leeper, to make the point that Utah could devise its own criminal procedure, as long as defendants are "proceeded against by the same kind of procedure and ... have the same kind of trial, and the equal protection of the laws is secured to them." [13]

In the 1908 case of Ughbanks v. Armstrong, the Fuller Court yet again discussed the Fourteenth Amendment in similar terms, but this time mentioning punishments: "The last-named Amendment was not intended to, and does not, limit the powers of a State in dealing with crime committed within its own borders or with the punishment thereof, although no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law." [14]

Ughbanks was a burglary case, and the opinion was written for the Court by Justice Rufus Peckham, while Justice John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenter. The Court would later reject the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment does not limit punishments (see the 1962 case of Robinson v. California ).

In the years since moving into their present building, the Supreme Court has often connected the words "equal justice under law" with the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, in the 1958 case of Cooper v. Aaron , the Court said: "The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal." [15] [16]

The words "equal justice under law" are not in the Constitution, which instead says that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." [17] From an architectural perspective, the main advantage of the former over the latter was brevity — the Equal Protection Clause was not short enough to fit on the pediment given the size of the letters to be used.

Following ancient tradition

Pericles, Greek statesman and general Pericles3.JPG
Pericles, Greek statesman and general

In the funeral oration that he delivered in 431 BC, the Athenian leader Pericles encouraged belief in what we now call equal justice under law. [18] Thus, when Chief Justice Fuller wrote his opinion in Caldwell v. Texas, he was by no means the first to discuss this concept. [19] There are several different English translations of the relevant passage in Pericles' funeral oration.

Here is Pericles discussing "equal justice" according to the English translation by Richard Crawley in 1874:

Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. [20]

The English translation by Benjamin Jowett in 1881 likewise had Pericles saying: "the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes". [21] And, the English translation by Rex Warner in 1954 had Pericles saying: "there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes". [22] The funeral oration by Pericles was published in Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War , of which there are several other English translations.

As quoted above, Pericles said that a person's wealth or prominence should not influence his eligibility for public employment or affect the justice he receives. Similarly, Chief Justice Hughes defended the inscription "equal justice under law" by referring to the judicial oath of office, which requires judges to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich". [3] Decades later, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall made a similar point: "The principles which would have governed with $10,000 at stake should also govern when thousands have become billions. That is the essence of equal justice under law." [23] [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to formerly enslaved Americans following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Loving v. Virginia (1967) regarding interracial marriage, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage, and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) regarding race-based college admissions. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), is a corporate law case of the United States Supreme Court concerning taxation of railroad properties. The case is most notable for a headnote stating that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment grants constitutional protections to corporations.

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which nominally guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".

Substantive due process is a principle in United States constitutional law that allows courts to establish and protect substantive laws and certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if they are unenumerated elsewhere in the U.S. Constitution. Courts have asserted that such protections come from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the federal and state governments, respectively, from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Substantive due process demarks the line between those acts that courts hold to be subject to government regulation or legislation and those that courts place beyond the reach of governmental interference. Whether the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments were intended to serve that function continues to be a matter of scholarly as well as judicial discussion and dissent. In 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas called on the Supreme Court to reconsider all of its rulings that were based on substantive due process.

City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the scope of Congress's power of enforcement under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 (1880), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States about racial discrimination and United States constitutional criminal procedure. Strauder was the first instance where the Supreme Court reversed a state court decision denying a defendant's motion to remove his criminal trial to federal court pursuant to Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

<i>Hernandez v. Texas</i> 1954 United States Supreme Court case

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954), was a landmark case, "the first and only Mexican-American civil-rights case heard and decided by the United States Supreme Court during the post-World War II period." In a unanimous ruling, the court held that Mexican Americans and all other nationality groups in the United States have equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. This was the first case in which Mexican-American lawyers had appeared before the Supreme Court.

Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 7–2, that a California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional because it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In the case, Yetta Stromberg was convicted for displaying a red flag daily in the youth camp for children at which she worked, and was charged in accordance with California law. Chief Justice Charles Hughes wrote for the seven-justice majority that the California statute was unconstitutional, and therefore Stromberg's conviction could not stand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789; under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the Court was to be composed of six members—though the number of justices has been nine for most of its history, this number is set by Congress, not the Constitution. The court convened for the first time on February 2, 1790.

<i>Plyler v. Doe</i> 1982 United States Supreme Court case

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pericles's Funeral Oration</span> Speech during the Peloponnesian War

"Pericles's Funeral Oration" is a famous speech from Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War. The speech was supposed to have been delivered by Pericles, an eminent Athenian politician, at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War as a part of the annual public funeral for the war dead.

Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the power of Congress, pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, to enact laws that enforce and interpret provisions of the Constitution.

Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court that allowed state governments, as distinguished from the federal government, to avoid using grand juries in criminal prosecutions.

Robinson v. Florida, 378 U.S. 153 (1964), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the convictions of several white and African American persons who were refused service at a restaurant based upon a prior Court decision, holding that a Florida regulation requiring a restaurant that employed or served persons of both races to have separate lavatory rooms resulted in the state becoming entangled in racial discriminatory activity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 146 (1964), is a United States Supreme Court decision that reversed the breach of peace and criminal trespass convictions of five African Americans who were refused service at a lunch counter of a department store. The Court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the breach of peace convictions, and reversed the criminal trespass convictions for the reasons stated in another case that was decided that same day, Bouie v. City of Columbia, which held that the retroactive application of an expanded construction of a criminal statute was barred by due process of ex post facto laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White Court (justices)</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1910 to 1921

The White Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1910 to 1921, when Edward Douglass White served as Chief Justice of the United States. White, an associate justice since 1894, succeeded Melville Fuller as Chief Justice after the latter's death, and White served as Chief Justice until his death a decade later. He was the first sitting associate justice to be elevated to chief justice in the Court's history. He was succeeded by former president William Howard Taft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fuller Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1888 to 1910

The Fuller Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1888 to 1910, when Melville Fuller served as the eighth Chief Justice of the United States. Fuller succeeded Morrison R. Waite as Chief Justice after the latter's death, and Fuller served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Associate Justice Edward Douglass White was nominated and confirmed as Fuller's replacement.

References

  1. ↑ Pusey, Merlo. Charles Evans Hughes, Volume 2, p. 689 (Columbia University Press 1963).
  2. ↑ West Pediment Information Sheet via U.S. Supreme Court web site. At that time, the other members of the Commission were Senator Henry W. Keyes, Senator James A. Reed, Representative Richard N. Elliott, Representative Fritz G. Lanham, and Architect of the Capitol David Lynn. See Liu, Honxia. "Court Gazing: Features of Diversity in the Supreme Court Building", Court Review (Winter 2004)
  3. 1 2 3 4 McGurn, Barrett. "Slogans to Fit the Occasion", pp. 170-174, United States Supreme Court Yearbook (1982).
  4. ↑ Goodwin, Priscilla. "A Closer Look at the Bronze Courtroom Gates", Supreme Court Quarterly, Vol. 9, p. 8 (1988).
  5. 1 2 Chen, Jim. "Come Back to the Nickel and Five: Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law", Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 59, pp. 1305-1306 (2002).
  6. ↑ Ball, Milner. Lying Down Together: Law, Metaphor and Theology, p. 23 (Univ. of Wisconsin Press 1985).
  7. 1 2 Cabraser, Elizabeth. "The Essentials of Democratic Mass Litigation", Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, Vol. 45, p. 499, 500 (Summer 2012).
  8. ↑ Peccarelli, Anthony. "The Meaning of Justice", DuPage County Bar Association Brief (March 2000), via Archive.org.
  9. ↑ Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692 (1891).
  10. ↑ Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462 (1891). Fuller's opinion in Leeper stated: "It must be regarded as settled that....by the Fourteenth Amendment the powers of States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, except that no State can deprive particular persons, or classes of persons, of equal and impartial justice under the law; that law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process, and when secured by the law of the State the constitutional requirement is satisfied; and that due process is so secured by laws operating on all alike, and not subjecting the individual to the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice."
  11. ↑ Aside from Fuller, the members of the Court in 1891 were as follows: Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, Samuel Blatchford, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, David Josiah Brewer, and Henry Billings Brown. The Fuller Court most famously disagreed about equality issues in Plessy v. Ferguson , 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
  12. ↑ Stuntz, William. The Collapse of American Criminal Justice , p. 124 (Harvard U. Press 2011).
  13. ↑ Maxwell v. Dow , 176 U.S. 581 (1900); Justice Peckham wrote the Court's opinion, and Justice Harlan was the sole dissenter. Harlan argued that a person cannot be tried for an infamous crime by a jury of less than twelve persons, instead of the eight jurors allowed in Utah. Many years later, in Williams v. Florida , 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Court held that six jurors are enough.
  14. ↑ Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481 (1908).
  15. ↑ Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
  16. ↑ Mack, Raneta and Kelly, Michael. Equal Justice in the Balance: America's Legal Responses to the Emerging Terrorist Threat , p. 16 (U. Mich. Press 2004).
  17. ↑ Feldman, Noah. Scorpions: The Battles and Triumphs of FDR's Great Supreme Court Justices , p. 145 (Hachette Digital 2010).
  18. ↑ Rice, George. Law for the Public Speaker: Legal Aspects of Public Address , p. 171 (Christopher Pub. House, 1958).
  19. ↑ See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins , 118 U.S. 356 (1886): "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution."
  20. ↑ Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War , Written 431 B.C.E, Translated by Richard Crawley (1874), retrieved via Project Gutenberg.
  21. ↑ Jowett, Benjamin. Thucydides, translated into English, to which is prefixed an essay on inscriptions and a note on the geography of Thucydides, Archived 2016-06-07 at the Wayback Machine Second edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1900): "Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition."
  22. ↑ Pericles's Funeral Oration , translated by Rex Warner (1954), via wikisource: "Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition."
  23. ↑ Pennzoil v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1 (1987)(Thurgood Marshall, concurring in the judgment).
  24. ↑ "How To Handle A Texas-sized Lawsuit", Chicago Tribune (April 11, 1987).

Statue of Thurgood Marshall featuring "Equal Justice Under Law".

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.