Journal of Supreme Court History最新文献

{"title":"The Judicial Bookshelf","authors":"Donald Grier Stephenson Jr.","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsch.12288","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"71-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137510229","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsch.12289","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"88"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137510228","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Peter S. Canellos, The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America's Judicial Hero. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2021, 495 pp. + acknowledgments, notes, bibliography, and index","authors":"Paul Kens","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12287","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12287","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"65-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42808811","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Earl Warren's Last Stand: Powell v. McCormack, Race, and the Political Question Doctrine","authors":"Olivia O'Hea","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12292","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12292","url":null,"abstract":"Chief Justice Earl Warren had great expectations for Powell v. McCormack.1 According to his clerks, the Chief believed the case would be his swansong.2 He hoped the opinion would become an illustrious historical document, revered as canonical by future constitutional scholars.3 To Warren’s credit, the case contained all the trappings of a great constitutional showdown. At its center: the gregarious Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who was formally excluded from his seat after allegations of mismanaging funds.4 And the question—who had the power to unseat a fairly elected congressman?— highlighted the escalating tension between Congress and the Court.5 In a jab at the Court, the House report recommending Powell’s sanctions noted that the final vote would be immune to judicial review.6 By the time the Supreme Court granted cert, New York’s 18th Congressional District had reelected Powell, and by the time the justices heard the oral argument Powell was Handsome and charismatic, Adam Clayton Powell was a Baptist pastor elected to Congress from Harlem, New York, in 1944.","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"44-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45192035","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“Commonly Estimated as One Judge”: Bushrod Washington and the Marshall Court","authors":"Gerard N. Magliocca","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12284","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12284","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1822, Justice William Johnson gave Thomas Jefferson a brief description of his colleagues from his early years on the Supreme Court.¹ After dismissing almost all of them as “incompetent,” “slow,” or unable to “think or write,” Justice Johnson told Jefferson that Chief Justice John Marshall and Justice Bushrod Washington “are commonly estimated as one judge.”² One way of understanding Johnson's comment is that he thought that Justice Washington simply followed Chief Justice Marshall's lead, which is consistent with the idea that Marshall dominated his Supreme Court unlike any previous or subsequent Chief Justice. In researching my forthcoming biography of Bushrod Washington, I instead reached the conclusion that Justice Johnson called Washington and Marshall “one judge” because they were close collaborators.³ Indeed, the Marshall Court is best understood as a partnership created by these two remarkable Virginians.</p><p>My claim challenges three cliches about the Marshall Court. The first is that Justice Washington was, in the words of Albert Beveridge, “slow-thinking” and dim-witted.⁴ The second is that Associate Justice Joseph Story was Chief Justice Marshall's principal ally during Story's entire tenure on the Court.⁵ While Story was an important member of the Marshall Court and was the Chief Justice's right-hand-man after Justice Washington's death in 1829, he was not the linchpin of that institution while Washington was on the bench. The third is that Chief Justice Marshall alone was the Marshall Court. Nobody thinks Earl Warren did everything on the Warren Court. Instead, we recognize that Chief Justice Warren worked with many other talented colleagues to fashion the jurisprudence of that era.⁶ The same is true for John Marshall, and his alter ego was Bushrod Washington.</p><p>Washington and Marshall's working relationship began well before they reached the Supreme Court. They first met in 1780 at the College of William and Mary, where they attended Professor George Wythe's law lectures and engaged in debates as members of Phi Beta Kappa.⁷ In 1787, they were reunited as members of the Virginia House of Burgesses when Washington was elected to the legislature.⁸ A year later, they both were chosen as delegates to Virginia's ratifying convention for the Constitution, where they strongly supported ratification.⁹ But Washington and Marshall did not become close until Washington moved his legal practice to Richmond in 1792. Soon thereafter they were frequently arguing cases as a team or against each other in the Virginia Court of Appeals (Virginia's highest court).¹⁰ They also served together on the Richmond City Council from 1794 to 1795, including a committee about local police reform.¹¹ When Marshall returned from his diplomatic mission in France now known of the “XYZ Affair,” Washington welcomed him home with a rousing","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"7-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jsch.12284","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45535298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Illustrations","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12290","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12290","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42782076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Judicial Bookshelf","authors":"Donald Grier Stephenson, Jr.","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12281","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12281","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"350-367"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43262667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Contributors","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jsch.12282","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"368"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137816622","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trop v. Dulles: How Earl Warren's Contradicting Legal Opinions Secured Trop's Victory","authors":"Courtney Christensen","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12280","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12280","url":null,"abstract":"On March 31, 1958, the Supreme Court held in Trop v. Dulles that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment” barred Congress from denaturalizing citizens as a punishment.1 It was an important result, albeit one announced by a highly regarded chief justice, Earl Warren, who in this instance could marshal the support of only three other members of the Court. The result was important, and the principles for which Trop stands are worthy of our respect. But there is so much more to the story, of a chief justice’s struggle to reach the result he wished and what that process tells us about the Court and the manner in which it functions. Albert Trop, the plaintiff in the case, was denaturalized a result of his courtmartial conviction for desertion in the time of war.2 The Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren, held that his punishment violated the Eighth Amendment and restored Trop’s lost citizenship.3 Today, Trop is known for its contribution to the Eighth-Amendment jurisprudence, with a particular focus on the plurality’s statement that the “amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”4 However, at the time Trop and its companion cases, Perez v. Brownell5 and Nishikawa v. Dulles,6 were argued, Trop was considered among the most important and controversial cases of the term,7 not due to the EighthAmendment question, but because the case represented fundamental questions of constitutional law, including “What’s the nature of Congress’ power? What’s the structure of the Constitution?”8 Despite the unexpected nature of the issue, Warren’s determination to decide the case in Trop’s favor and his willingness to change his theoretical views regarding congressional power led the case to be decided","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"331-349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43100735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Brown v. Board of Education and the Politics That Created a Constitutional Icon","authors":"Jeffrey Hockett","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12279","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12279","url":null,"abstract":"Few scholars or educators of law or politics would dispute the contention of the authors of a recent retrospective on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that the Supreme Court’s 1954 school desegregation ruling was “the most important decision of the 20th century.”1 Indeed, Brown can be said to have achieved canonical status within the legal academy, as evidenced by the fact that no other ruling has been regarded by so many individuals as, to borrow one of many similar encomiums, “the greatest moral triumph constitutional law ha[s] ever produced.”2 The 88 percent approval rating that Brown received in a Gallup opinion poll taken forty years after the decision was rendered supports the view that the ruling is “largely sacred” not only among academics but “in American political culture” as well.3 The contrast between that supermajority figure and the 62 percent of Americans that approved of Brown in 1961 (the last time Gallup sought that information until 1994) reveals that the ruling’s reputation developed over time.4 In fact, Brown generated enormous controversy for a number of years after it was rendered. Even journalists and scholars who favored desegregation conceded the charge of southern politicians that the justices had circumvented traditional legal constraints in declaring segregation unconstitutional.5 Gerald Rosenberg observes that the conventional explanation for Brown’s eventual elevation to canonical or iconic status is that the decision and related desegregation rulings “played a crucial role in producing both changes in civil rights and an active civil rights movement.”6 Yet, pervasive and current as the belief may be within the academy that Brown inspired activists who then prompted Congress to pass important civil rights legislation, the wider public is unlikely to be familiar with the written opinions that accompany even well-publicized rulings,","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"46 3","pages":"292-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48158218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}