Warren Court

Last updated
Supreme Court of the United States
Warren Court
Earl Warren.jpg
Chief Justice Earl Warren
October 5, 1953 – June 23, 1969
(15 years, 261 days)
Seat Supreme Court Building
Washington, D.C.
No. of positions 9
Warren Court decisions
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

The Warren Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1953 to 1969 when Earl Warren served as the chief justice. The Warren Court is often considered the most liberal court in U.S. history.

Contents

The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways. [a] It has been widely recognized that the court, led by the liberal bloc, created a major "Constitutional Revolution" in U.S. history. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

The Warren Court brought "one man, one vote" to the United States through a series of rulings, and created the Miranda warning. [7] [8] [9] In addition, the court was both applauded and criticized for bringing an end to de jure racial segregation in the United States, incorporating the Bill of Rights (i.e. including it in the 14th Amendment Due Process clause), and ending officially sanctioned voluntary prayer in public schools. The period is recognized as the most liberal point that judicial power had ever reached, but with a substantial continuing impact. [b] [c]

Membership

The Warren Court began on October 5, 1953, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, the incumbent governor of California, to replace Fred Vinson as Chief Justice of the United States. The court began with Warren and the remaining eight members of the Vinson Court: Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Robert H. Jackson, Harold Hitz Burton, Tom C. Clark, and Sherman Minton.

Jackson died in 1954 and Minton retired in 1956, and they were replaced by John Marshall Harlan II and William J. Brennan Jr.. Another vacancy occurred when Reed retired in 1957 and was replaced by Charles Evans Whittaker. Burton then retired in 1958, and Eisenhower appointed Potter Stewart in his place. When Frankfurter and Whittaker retired in 1962, then-President John F. Kennedy appointed two new justices: Byron White and Arthur Goldberg. In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson encouraged Goldberg to resign to become Ambassador to the United Nations, and nominated Abe Fortas to take his place. Clark retired in 1967, and Johnson appointed the first African American justice, Thurgood Marshall to the court. The Warren Court concluded on June 23, 1969 when Earl Warren retired and was replaced by Warren E. Burger. Prominent members of the Court during the Warren Court era besides the Chief Justice included Associate Justices: Brennan, Douglas, Black, Frankfurter, and Harlan II. [11]

Timeline

Warren Court
Bar key:
  F. Roosevelt appointee  Truman appointee  Eisenhower appointee  Kennedy appointee  L. Johnson appointee

Other branches

Presidents during this court included Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon. Congresses during this court included 83rd through the 91st United States Congresses.

Warren's leadership

One of the primary factors in Warren's leadership was his political background, having served two and a half terms as Governor of California (1943–1953) and experience as the Republican candidate for vice president in 1948 (as running mate of Thomas E. Dewey). Warren brought a strong belief in the remedial power of law. According to historian Bernard Schwartz, Warren's view of the law was pragmatic, seeing it as an instrument for obtaining equity and fairness. Schwartz argues that Warren's approach was most effective "when the political institutions had defaulted on their responsibility to try to address problems such as segregation and reapportionment and cases where the constitutional rights of defendants were abused." [12]

A related component of Warren's leadership was his focus on broad ethical principles, rather than narrower interpretative structures. Describing the latter as "conventional reasoning patterns," Professor G. Edward White suggests Warren often disregarded these in groundbreaking cases such as Brown v. Board of Education , Reynolds v. Sims and Miranda v. Arizona , where such traditional sources of precedent were stacked against him. White suggests Warren's principles "were philosophical, political, and intuitive, not legal in the conventional technical sense." [13]

Warren's leadership was characterized by remarkable consensus on the court, particularly in some of the most controversial cases. These included Brown v. Board of Education, Gideon v. Wainwright , and Cooper v. Aaron , which were unanimously decided, as well as Abington School District v. Schempp and Engel v. Vitale , each striking down religious recitations in schools with only one dissent. In an unusual action, the decision in Cooper was personally signed by all nine justices, with the three new members of the Court adding that they supported and would have joined the Court's decision in Brown v. Board. [14]

Fallon says that, "Some thrilled to the approach of the Warren Court. Many law professors were perplexed, often sympathetic to the Court's results but skeptical of the soundness of its constitutional reasoning. And some of course were horrified." [15]

Vision

The Supreme Court as was composed between 1958 and 1962. Top (l-r): Charles E. Whittaker, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart. Bottom (l-r): William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark. US Supreme Court 1958-62.jpg
The Supreme Court as was composed between 1958 and 1962. Top (l-r): Charles E. Whittaker, John M. Harlan II, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart. Bottom (l-r): William O. Douglas, Hugo L. Black, Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark.

Professor John Hart Ely in his book Democracy and Distrust famously characterized the Warren Court as a "Carolene Products Court". This referred to the famous Footnote Four in United States v. Carolene Products , in which the Supreme Court had suggested that heightened judicial scrutiny might be appropriate in three types of cases:

The Warren Court's doctrine can be seen as proceeding aggressively in these general areas:[ citation needed ]

The Warren Court, while in many cases taking a broad view of individual rights, generally declined to read the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment broadly, outside of the incorporation context (see Ferguson v. Skrupa , but see also Griswold v. Connecticut ). The Warren Court's decisions were also strongly nationalist in thrust, as the Court read Congress's power under the Commerce Clause quite broadly and often expressed an unwillingness to allow constitutional rights to vary from state to state (as was explicitly manifested in Cooper v. Aaron ).[ citation needed ]

Professor Rebecca Zietlow argues that the Warren Court brought an expansion in the "rights of belonging", which she characterizes as "rights that promote an inclusive vision of who belongs to the national community and facilitate equal membership in that community". [17]

Archibald Cox, who as Solicitor General from 1961 to 1965 saw the Court up close, summarized: "The responsibility of government for equality among men, the openness of American society to change and reform, and the decency of the administration of criminal justice received both creative and enduring impetus from the work of the Warren Court." [18]

Historically significant decisions

A photo taken shortly after Justice Goldberg joined the Court. Top (l-r): Byron White, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, and Arthur Goldberg Bottom (l-r): Tom C. Clark, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, and John Marshall Harlan II. These court members served together from 1962-1965 US Supreme Court November 19, 1962.png
A photo taken shortly after Justice Goldberg joined the Court. Top (l-r): Byron White, William J. Brennan Jr., Potter Stewart, and Arthur Goldberg Bottom (l-r): Tom C. Clark, Hugo Black, Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, and John Marshall Harlan II. These court members served together from 1962-1965

Important decisions during the Warren Court years included decisions holding segregation policies in public schools ( Brown v. Board of Education ) and anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional ( Loving v. Virginia ); ruling that the Constitution protects a general right to privacy ( Griswold v. Connecticut ); that states are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot ignore them ( Cooper v. Aaron ); that public schools cannot have official prayer ( Engel v. Vitale ) or mandatory Bible readings ( Abington School District v. Schempp ); the scope of the doctrine of incorporation ( Mapp v. Ohio , Miranda v. Arizona ) was dramatically increased; reading an equal protection clause into the Fifth Amendment ( Bolling v. Sharpe ); holding that the states may not apportion a chamber of their legislatures in the manner in which the United States Senate is apportioned ( Reynolds v. Sims ); and holding that the Constitution requires active compliance ( Gideon v. Wainwright ).

Warren's role

Warren took his seat January 11, 1954, on a recess appointment by President Eisenhower; the Senate confirmed him six weeks later. Despite his lack of judicial experience, his years in the Alameda County district attorney's office and as state attorney general gave him far more knowledge of the law in practice than most other members of the Court had. Warren's greatest asset, what made him in the eyes of many of his admirers "Super Chief," was his political skill in manipulating the other justices. Over the years his ability to lead the Court, to forge majorities in support of major decisions, and to inspire liberal forces around the nation, outweighed his intellectual weaknesses. Warren realized his weakness and asked the senior associate justice, Hugo L. Black, to preside over conferences until he became accustomed to the drill. A quick study, Warren soon was in fact, as well as in name, the Court's chief justice. [19]

When Warren joined the Court in 1954 all the justices had been appointed by Franklin D. Roosevelt or Harry S. Truman, and all were committed New Deal liberals. They disagreed about the role that the courts should play in achieving liberal goals. The Court was split between two warring factions. Felix Frankfurter and Robert H. Jackson led one faction, which insisted upon judicial self-restraint and insisted courts should defer to the policymaking prerogatives of the White House and Congress. Hugo Black and William O. Douglas led the opposing faction that agreed the court should defer to Congress in matters of economic policy, but felt the judicial agenda had been transformed from questions of property rights to those of individual liberties, and in this area courts should play a more central role. Warren's belief that the judiciary must seek to do justice, placed him with the latter group, although he did not have a solid majority until after Frankfurter's retirement in 1962. [20]

Decisions

Warren was a more liberal justice than anyone had anticipated. [d] Warren was able to craft a long series of landmark decisions because he built a winning coalition. When Frankfurter retired in 1962 and President John F. Kennedy named labor union lawyer Arthur Goldberg to replace him, Warren finally had the fifth vote for his liberal majority. William J. Brennan, Jr., a liberal Democrat appointed by Eisenhower in 1956, was the intellectual leader of the faction that included Black and Douglas. Brennan complemented Warren's political skills with the strong legal skills Warren lacked. Warren and Brennan met before the regular conferences to plan out their strategy. [22]

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954) banned the segregation of public schools. The very first case put Warren's leadership skills to an extraordinary test. The Legal Defense Fund of the NAACP (a small legal group formed for tax reasons [23] from the much better known NAACP) had been waging a systematic legal fight against the "separate but equal" doctrine enunciated in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and finally had challenged Plessy in a series of five related cases, which had been argued before the Court in the spring of 1953. However the justices had been unable to decide the issue and asked to rehear the case in fall 1953, with special attention to whether the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibited the operation of separate public schools for whites and blacks. [24]

While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the self-restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end. Warren's faction believed the Fourteenth Amendment did give the necessary authority and were pushing to go ahead. Warren, who held only a recess appointment, held his tongue until the Senate, dominated by southerners, confirmed his appointment. Warren told his colleagues after oral argument that he believed segregation violated the Constitution and that only if one considered African Americans inferior to whites could the practice be upheld. But he did not push for a vote. Instead, he talked with the justices and encouraged them to talk with each other as he sought a common ground on which all could stand. Finally he had eight votes, and the last holdout, Stanley Reed of Kentucky, agreed to join the rest. Warren drafted the basic opinion in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and kept circulating and revising it until he had an opinion endorsed by all the members of the Court. [25]

The unanimity Warren achieved helped speed the drive to desegregate public schools, which came about under President Richard M. Nixon. Throughout his tenure in the bench, Warren succeeded in keeping all decisions concerning segregation unanimous. Brown applied to schools, but soon the Court enlarged the concept to other state actions, striking down racial classification in many areas. Congress ratified the process in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Warren did compromise by agreeing to Frankfurter's demand that the Court go slowly in implementing desegregation; Warren used Frankfurter's suggestion that a 1955 decision (Brown II) include the phrase "all deliberate speed." [26]

The Brown decision of 1954 marked, in dramatic fashion, the radical shift in the Court's – and the nation's – priorities from issues of property rights to civil liberties. Under Warren the courts became an active partner in governing the nation, although still not coequal. Warren never saw the courts as a backward-looking branch of government.

The Brown decision was a powerful moral statement. His biographer concludes, "If Warren had not been on the Court, the Brown decision might not have been unanimous and might not have generated a moral groundswell that was to contribute to the emergence of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. [27] Warren was never a legal scholar on par with Frankfurter or a great advocate of particular doctrines, as were Black and Douglas. [28] Instead, he believed that in all branches of government common sense, decency, and elemental justice were decisive, not stare decisis (that is, reliance on previous Court decisions), tradition, or the text of the Constitution. He wanted results that in his opinion reflected the best American sentiments. He felt racial segregation was simply wrong, and Brown, whatever its doctrinal defects, remains a landmark decision primarily because of Warren's interpretation of the equal protection clause. [29]

Reapportionment

The one man, one vote cases ( Baker v. Carr and Reynolds v. Sims ) of 1962–1964, had the effect of ending the over-representation of rural areas in state legislatures, as well as the under-representation of suburbs. Central cities – which had long been under-represented – were now losing population to the suburbs and were not greatly affected.

Warren's priority on fairness shaped other major decisions. In 1962, over the strong objections of Frankfurter, the Court agreed that questions regarding malapportionment in state legislatures were not political issues, and thus were not outside the Court's purview. For years underpopulated rural areas had deprived metropolitan centers of equal representation in state legislatures. In Warren's California, Los Angeles County had only one state senator. Cities had long since passed their peak, and now it was the middle class suburbs that were underrepresented. Frankfurter insisted that the Court should avoid this "political thicket" and warned that the Court would never be able to find a clear formula to guide lower courts in the rash of lawsuits sure to follow. But Douglas found such a formula: "one man, one vote." [30]

In the key apportionment case Reynolds v. Sims (1964) [31] Warren delivered a civics lesson: "To the extent that a citizen's right to vote is debased, he is that much less a citizen," Warren declared. "The weight of a citizen's vote cannot be made to depend on where he lives. This is the clear and strong command of our Constitution's Equal Protection Clause." Unlike the desegregation cases, in this instance, the Court ordered immediate action, and despite loud outcries from rural legislators, Congress failed to reach the two-thirds needed pass a constitutional amendment. The states complied, reapportioned their legislatures quickly and with minimal troubles. Numerous commentators have concluded reapportionment was the Warren Court's great "success" story. [32]

Due process and rights of defendants (1963–1966)

In Gideon v. Wainwright , 372 U.S. 335 (1963) the Court held that the Sixth Amendment required that all indigent criminal defendants receive publicly funded counsel (Florida law at that time required the assignment of free counsel to indigent defendants only in capital cases); Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436 (1966) required that certain rights of a person interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").

While most Americans eventually agreed that the Court's desegregation and apportionment decisions were fair and right, disagreement about the "due process revolution" continues into the 21st century. Warren took the lead in criminal justice; despite his years as a tough prosecutor, he always insisted that the police must play fair or the accused should go free. Warren was privately outraged at what he considered police abuses that ranged from warrantless searches to forced confessions.

Warren’s Court ordered lawyers for indigent defendants, in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), and prevented prosecutors from using evidence seized in illegal searches, in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). The famous case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) summed up Warren's philosophy. [33] Everyone, even one accused of crimes, still enjoyed constitutionally protected rights, and the police had to respect those rights and issue a specific warning when making an arrest. Warren did not believe in coddling criminals; thus in Terry v. Ohio (1968) he gave police officers leeway to stop and frisk those they had reason to believe held weapons.

Conservatives angrily denounced the "handcuffing of the police." [34] Violent crime and homicide rates shot up nationwide in the following years; in New York City, for example, after steady to declining trends until the early 1960s, the homicide rate doubled in the period from 1964 to 1974 from just under 5 per 100,000 at the beginning of that period to just under 10 per 100,000 in 1974. Controversy exists about the cause, with conservatives blaming the Court decisions, and liberals pointing to the demographic boom and increased urbanization and income inequality characteristic of that era. After 1992 the homicide rates fell sharply. [35]

First Amendment

The Warren Court also sought to expand the scope of application of the First Amendment. The Court's decision outlawing mandatory school prayer in Engel v. Vitale (1962) brought vehement complaints by conservatives that echoed into the 21st century. [36]

Other Issues

Warren worked to nationalize the Bill of Rights by applying it to the states. Moreover, in one of the landmark cases decided by the Court, Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Warren Court affirmed a constitutionally protected right of privacy, emanating from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as substantive due process. [37]

This ruling was critical even after Warren's retirement (and Fortas' untimely departure as well) for the outcome of the Roe v. Wade case which recognized the constitutional right to abortion.

With the exception of the desegregation decisions, few decisions were unanimous. The eminent scholar Justice John Marshall Harlan II took Frankfurter's place as the Court's self-constraint spokesman, often joined by Potter Stewart and Byron R. White. But with the appointment of Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice (as well as the first non-white justice), and Abe Fortas (replacing Goldberg), Warren could count on six votes in most cases. [38]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "To many people, the idea of judicial deference to the elected branches lost much of its theoretical appeal in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren, was invalidating school segregation (Brown v. Bd. of Educ.), protecting freedom of speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio) striking down poll taxes (Harper v. Bd. of Elections), requiring a rule of one person, one vote (Reynolds v. Sims), and protecting accused criminals against police abuse (Miranda v. Arizona)." [1]
  2. ↑ "Is it possible to defend the Warren Court against the charge that its decisions were fatally undemocratic? The most elaborate effort came from John Hart Ely, the Warren Court's most celebrated expositor and defender, who famously argued for what he called a "representation-reinforcing" approach to judicial review. Like Thayer, Ely emphasized the central importance for democratic self-rule. But Ely famously insisted that if self-rule is really our lodestar, then unqualified judicial deference to legislatures is utterly senseless. Some rights, Ely argued, are indispensable to self-rule, and the Court legitimately protects those rights not in spite of democracy but in its name. The right to vote and the right to speak are the central examples. Courts promote democracy when they protect those rights." [10]
  3. ↑ "Ely went much further. He argued that some groups are at a systematic disadvantage in the democratic process, and that when courts protect “discrete and insular minorities,” they are reinforcing democracy too." [10]
  4. ↑ In later years Eisenhower remarked several times that making Warren the Chief Justice was a mistake. He probably had the criminal cases in mind, not Brown. [21]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating states rights

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. It expresses the principle of federalism, also known as states' rights, by stating that the federal government has only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and that all other powers not forbidden to the states by the Constitution are reserved to each state, or to the people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Thurgood Marshall</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1967 to 1991

Thoroughgood "Thurgood" Marshall was an American civil rights lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1967 until 1991. He was the Supreme Court's first African-American justice. Prior to his judicial service, he was an attorney who fought for civil rights, leading the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Marshall was a prominent figure in the movement to end racial segregation in American public schools. He won 29 of the 32 civil rights cases he argued before the Supreme Court, culminating in the Court's landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which rejected the separate but equal doctrine and held segregation in public education to be unconstitutional. President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court in 1967. A staunch liberal, he frequently dissented as the Court became increasingly conservative.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that ruled that U.S. state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. The decision partially overruled the Court's 1896 decision Plessy v. Ferguson, which had held that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that had come to be known as "separate but equal". The Court's unanimous decision in Brown, and its related cases, paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement, and a model for many future impact litigation cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Earl Warren</span> Chief Justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969

Earl Warren was an American lawyer, politician, and jurist who served as the 30th governor of California from 1943 to 1953 and as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States from 1953 to 1969. The Warren Court presided over a major shift in American constitutional jurisprudence, which has been recognized by many as a "Constitutional Revolution" in the liberal direction, with Warren writing the majority opinions in landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Reynolds v. Sims (1964), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), and Loving v. Virginia (1967). Warren also led the Warren Commission, a presidential commission that investigated the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He served as Governor of California from 1943 to 1953, and is the last chief justice to have served in an elected office before nomination to the Supreme Court. Warren is generally considered to be one of the most influential Supreme Court justices and political leaders in the history of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hugo Black</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1937 to 1971

Hugo Lafayette Black was an American lawyer, politician, and jurist who served as a U.S. Senator from Alabama from 1927 to 1937 and as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971. A member of the Democratic Party and a devoted New Dealer, Black endorsed Franklin D. Roosevelt in both the 1932 and 1936 presidential elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Warren E. Burger</span> Chief Justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986

Warren Earl Burger was an American attorney and jurist who served as the 15th chief justice of the United States from 1969 to 1986. Born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, Burger graduated from the St. Paul College of Law in 1931. He helped secure the Minnesota delegation's support for Dwight D. Eisenhower at the 1952 Republican National Convention. After Eisenhower won the 1952 presidential election, he appointed Burger to the position of Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Division. In 1956, Eisenhower appointed Burger to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Burger served on this court until 1969 and became known as a critic of the Warren Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Felix Frankfurter</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1939 to 1962

Felix Frankfurter was an Austrian-born American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 until 1962, during which he was an advocate of judicial restraint.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William J. Brennan Jr.</span> U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1956 to 1990

William Joseph Brennan Jr. was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1956 to 1990. He was the seventh-longest serving justice in Supreme Court history, and was known for being a leader of the Court's liberal wing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Potter Stewart</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1958 to 1981

Potter Stewart was an American lawyer and judge who was an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1958 to 1981. During his tenure, he made major contributions to criminal justice reform, civil rights, access to the courts, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harold H. Burton</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1945 to 1958

Harold Hitz Burton was an American politician and lawyer. He served as the 45th mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, as a U.S. Senator from Ohio, and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Marshall Harlan II</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1955 to 1971

John Marshall Harlan was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1955 to 1971. Harlan is usually called John Marshall Harlan II to distinguish him from his grandfather, John Marshall Harlan, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1877 to 1911.

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.

<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.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that denied the school board of Little Rock, Arkansas the right to delay racial desegregation for 30 months. On September 12, 1958, the Warren Court delivered a decision that held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagree with them, asserting the judicial supremacy established in Marbury v. Madison (1803). The decision in this case upheld the rulings in Brown v. Board of Education and Brown II that had held that the doctrine of separate but equal was unconstitutional.

<i>Separate but Equal</i> (film) 1991 American TV series or program

Separate But Equal is a 1991 American two-part television miniseries depicting the landmark Supreme Court desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education, based on the phrase "Separate but equal". The film stars Sidney Poitier as lead NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, Richard Kiley as Chief Justice Earl Warren, Burt Lancaster as lawyer John W. Davis, Cleavon Little as lawyer and judge Robert L. Carter, and Lynne Thigpen as Ruth Alice Stovall.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Burger Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1969 to 1986

The Burger Court was the period in the history of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1969 to 1986, when Warren E. Burger served as Chief Justice of the United States. Burger succeeded Earl Warren as Chief Justice after Warren's retirement, and served as Chief Justice until his retirement, when William Rehnquist was nominated and confirmed as Burger's replacement. The Burger Court is generally considered to be the last liberal court to date. It has been described as a transitional court, due to its transition from having the liberal rulings of the Warren Court to the conservative rulings of the Rehnquist Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William Rehnquist</span> Chief Justice of the United States from 1986 to 2005

William Hubbs Rehnquist was an American attorney and jurist who served as the 16th chief justice of the United States from 1986 until his death in 2005, having previously been an associate justice from 1972 to 1986. Considered a staunch conservative, Rehnquist favored a conception of federalism that emphasized the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers to the states. Under this view of federalism, the Court, for the first time since the 1930s, struck down an act of Congress as exceeding its power under the Commerce Clause.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the country's highest federal court. The Court has ultimate—and largely discretionary—appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of U.S. federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stone Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1941 to 1946

The Stone Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1941 to 1946, when Harlan F. Stone served as Chief Justice of the United States. Stone succeeded the retiring Charles Evans Hughes in 1941, and served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Fred Vinson was nominated and confirmed as Stone's replacement. He was the fourth chief justice to have previously served as an associate justice and the second to have done so without a break in tenure. Presiding over the country during World War II, the Stone Court delivered several important war-time rulings, such as in Ex parte Quirin, where it upheld the President's power to try Nazi saboteurs captured on American soil by military tribunals. It also supported the federal government's policy of relocating Japanese Americans into internment camps.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vinson Court</span> Period of the US Supreme Court from 1946 to 1953

The Vinson Court refers to the Supreme Court of the United States from 1946 to 1953, when Fred M. Vinson served as Chief Justice of the United States. Vinson succeeded Harlan F. Stone as Chief Justice after the latter's death, and Vinson served as Chief Justice until his death, at which point Earl Warren was nominated and confirmed to succeed Vinson.

References

  1. ↑ Sunstein, Cass Breyer's Judicial Pragmatism University of Chicago Law School. November, 2005. pg. 3-4.
  2. ↑ Pederson, William D. "Earl Warren". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved 2019-09-15.
  3. ↑ Horwitz, Morton J. (Winter 1993). "The Warren Court And The Pursuit Of Justice". Washington and Lee Law Review. 50.
  4. ↑ Driver, Justin (October 2012). "The Constitutional Conservatism of the Warren Court". California Law Review. 100 (5): 1101–1167. JSTOR   23408735.
  5. ↑ Powe, Jr., Lucas A. (2002). The Warren Court and American Politics. Harvard University Press.
  6. ↑ Swindler, William F. (1970). "The Warren Court: Completion of a Constitutional Revolution" (PDF). Vanderbilt Law Review. 23.
  7. ↑ "Biography of Earl Warren". warren.ucsd.edu. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  8. ↑ "One Person, One Vote | The Constitution Project". www.theconstitutionproject.com. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  9. ↑ "Miranda v. Arizona". Oyez. Retrieved 2019-10-04.
  10. 1 2 Sunstein; Breyer’s Judicial Pragmatism, p. 4
  11. ↑ Schwartz, Bernard (1996) The Warren Court: A Retrospective Oxford University Press, pg. 5. ISBN   0-19-510439-0 (preview)
  12. ↑ Schwartz (1996), pg. 6.
  13. ↑ Tushnet, Mark The Warren Court: in Historical and Political Perspective. (1996). pp 40-42.
  14. ↑ Introduction to Cooper v. Aaron
  15. ↑ Richard H. Fallon, The Dynamic Constitution: An Introduction to American Constitutional Law (2005) p 23
  16. ↑ 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).
  17. ↑ Zietlow, Rebecca E. (2008-01-01). "The Judicial Restraint of the Warren Court (and Why it Matters)". Ohio State Law Journal. 69 (2): 255–301. SSRN   960144.
  18. ↑ "Chief Justice Warren". Harvard Law Review. 83 (1): 1–5, 1. November 1969. Retrieved 2016-04-01– via Heinonline.org.
  19. ↑ White (1982) pp 159-61
  20. ↑ Michael R. Belknap, The Supreme Court under Earl Warren, 1953-1969 (2005) pp. 13-14
  21. ↑ See David. A. Nichols, Matter of Justice: Eisenhower and the Beginning of the Civil Rights Revolution (2007) pp 91-93
  22. ↑ Powe (2000)
  23. ↑ See "Biographies: NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Teaching Judicial History, fjc.gov"
  24. ↑ See Smithsonian, “Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. Board of Education’’ Archived 2015-06-30 at the Wayback Machine
  25. ↑ For text see BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
  26. ↑ Robert L. Carter, "The Warren Court and Desegregation," Michigan Law Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 237-248 in JSTOR
  27. ↑ White, Earl Warren, a public life (1982) p. 208
  28. ↑ White, Earl Warren, a public life (1982) p. 161
  29. ↑ Patterson, Brown v. Board of Education: A Civil Rights Milestone and Its Troubled Legacy (2001)
  30. ↑ James A. Gazell, "One Man, One Vote: Its Long Germination," The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), pp. 445-462 in JSTOR
  31. ↑ See REYNOLDS v. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
  32. ↑ Robert B. McKay, "Reapportionment: Success Story of the Warren Court." Michigan Law Review, Vol. 67, No. 2 (Dec., 1968), pp. 223-236 in JSTOR
  33. ↑ See MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
  34. ↑ Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, eds. The Supreme Court and American Political Development (2006) online at p. 442
  35. ↑ Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy (1995) online at p. 26-29
  36. ↑ See ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
  37. ↑ See Griswold v. Connecticut (No. 496) 151 Conn. 544, 200 A.2d 479, reversed
  38. ↑ Michal R. Belknap, The Supreme Court under Earl Warren, 1953-1969 (2005)

Further reading


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.