Samuel Nelson was an associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court as well as an American attorney.

Samuel Nelson was born in Hebron, New York. In 1813, he attended the Middlebury College in Vermont and also read law in order to be licensed in law in 1817. Samuel Nelson entered a private practice in 1817 in Cortland, New York. In 1820, Samuel Nelson was a presidential elector in 1820 as well as the Postmaster of Cortland until 1823.

Samuel Nelson was the Sixth Circuit Court judge between 1823 and 1831. Afterwards, he became an associate justice in the New York Supreme Court between 1831 and 1837 and Chief Justice between 1837 and 1845. Unfortunately in 1845, Samuel Nelson was an unsuccessful candidate for the office of U.S. Senator New York.

Samuel Nelson was nominated on February 4, 1845 by President John Tyler for a seat as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court and was confirmed by the Senate on February 14, 1845. He immediately received his commission, which was a surprise to him since other candidates who were thought to fill the seat were unable to do so.  Samuel Nelson served as an associate Justice for 27 years, retiring on November 28, 1872 and passing away soon after. 

Ableman v. Booth (1859): A Supreme Court case where the Court held that the state courts could not issue decisions that contradict the decisions made by federal courts. This ruling made by the Supreme Court specifically overturned a decision which was made by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Furthermore, the decisions highlighted the dual form of government by showing the independence of federal and state courts from one another. The case resulted from the events of 1854 where the Sherman Booth, an abolitionist editor, was arrested because he helped incite a mob in order to rescue a black fugitive in Wisconsin, which was against the Fugitive Slave Act. Booth received a writ of habeas corpus which ordered Booth’s release from federal custody. The US Marshal brought the case to the state supreme court, which decided that the federal law was unconstitutional and agreed with Booth’s release. When the marshal went to the federal courts, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin refused to recognize the federal courts’ authority, and ordered Booth’s release again. Wisconsin Supreme Court then declared the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 as an unconstitutional act.

In a unanimous opinion made by the Supreme Court which included Chief Justice Samuel Nelson, the court stated that the state Supreme Court had essentially asserted that the state courts were supreme over the federal courts in cases that dealt with laws and the Constitution of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that if the Wisconsin Supreme Court could annul a judgment of conviction made by a federal district court, any state court would then have the power to annul a conviction made under federal law. The Supreme Court stated that the individual states did not have this power. 

William Johnson was a Supreme Court Justice from 1804 to 1834 as well as a state legislator and a judge in South Carolina. He was born in Charleston. He later studied law at Princeton, where he graduated in 1790 with an A.B. He read law in the Charles Cotesworth Pinckney’s office, and then passed the bar in 1793. 

William Johnson was nominated for the position of Associate Justice on March 22, 1804 by Thomas Jefferson and was confirmed by the Senate on March 24, 1804, where he received his commission two days later. William Johnson was the first of Jefferson’s appointments to the Supreme Court, and was thought have the most similar beliefs about the Constitution. As a Justice, William Johnson was a very independent mind. While John Marshal, the Chief Justice had an ability to direct the opinions of many of the justices, Johnson became known for often dissenting.

Fletcher v. Peck (1810): A landmark Supreme Court decision where for the first time Court ruled a state law unconstitutional. This action helped start and create a precedent for the sanctity and importance of legal contracts, and implied that Native Americans did not actually hold title to their own lands. The case resulted in the Supreme Court, as well as Justice William Johnson, reaching a unanimous decision that ruled that the repeal by the state legislature of the law was not valid because of the unconstitutionality of the law.

The opinion of the court, which was written by John Marshall, stated that a sale was a binding contract and could not be invalidated even if the contract was illegally secured, in accordance to the Contract Clause, or Article I, Section 10, Clause I of the Constitution. This case resulted in the Court asserting its judicial right to invalidate a state law which was in conflict with the Constitution.  In the concurrence written by Justice William Johnson, he wrote that while he did not hesitate in declaring that the state law was unconstitutional, he did so because of the nature of the case, specifically because the law imposed on the deity. 

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): A landmark Supreme Court decision which established two principles. The first was that the Constitution gave Congress the implied powers to implement their will in order to make a functional national government. The second was that these powers and actions could not impede on any constitutional exercises of power performed by the federal government. This case resulted from an event where the state of Maryland tried to impede the operation of the Second Bank of the U.S. by placing a tax on all bank notes not chartered within the state.

While the law was generally applicable to all banks which were not chartered in Maryland, this particular bank was the only one existing in the state that was an out-of-state bank, meaning that the law specifically targeted this U.S. Bank. As a result, the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, which included the opinion of William Johnson, invoked the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, allowing the Federal government to pass laws that were not explicitly given in the Constitution’s list of express powers for Congress, as long as the laws were in could further the  Congress’ powers under the Constitution. 

John was an American politician, revolutionary, diplomat, statesman, Founding Father, and the very first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court from 1789 to 1795.

John Jay also served as the President of the Continental Congress between 1778 and 1779. John Jay was a minister to both Spain and France during and after the American Revolution, where he helped design United States foreign policy, and worked to secure favorable terms of peace from Great Britain through Jay’s Treaty of 1794 as well as favorable terms of peace with the First French Republic. John Jay, along with James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, co-wrote the Federalist Papers.

As a member and leader of the new Federalist Party, John Jay acted as the Governor of New York State between 1795 and 1801, and he also became the state’s strongest opponent of slavery. His first two attempts in 1777 and 1785 to emancipate the slaves in New York failed, but his third attempt in 1799 succeeded. The success in 1799 of the gradual emancipation act that John Jay signed into law ultimately brought about the emancipation of the New York slaves before Jay’s death in 1829.

John Jay was born in New York City on December 12, 1745 as the sixth son and the eighth child in his family. Jay was raised in Rye, New York, and had the same political opinions as his father, who was a very strong Whig. Jay was educated in Rye by private tutors until the age of eight, when he was then sent to New Rochelle where he studied under Anglican pastor Pierre Stoupe. After three years, jay returned to his homeschooling under the instruction of George Murray. In 1760, Jay went on to continue his education at King’s College, where he graduated four years later and took on the role of a law clerk for Benjamin Kissam.

After reading law getting admitted to the New York bar in 1768, Jay worked at a legal practice created by Robert Livingston using government money, until 1771, where he established his own law office. Jay’s first public role was the secretary to the committee of correspondence of New York, where Jay represented the conservative group that was looking to protecting property rights and preserve the rule of law while resisting the “British violations” American rights. This group of individuals feared the idea of “mob rule”. Jay believed the British tax measures that were placed were wrong and that Americans were legally and morally justified in resisting these taxes.

However, as a delegate in 1774 to the First Continental Congress, Jay sided with individuals who wished for conciliation with Parliament. Events like the burning of Norfolk, Virginia, in January 1776 pushed John Jay to support independence for America. After the American Revolutionary War broke out, Jay tirelessly worked for the revolutionary cause and fought to suppress the Loyalists, making Jay into first a moderate and then later a strong Patriot after he decided that the colonies’ efforts aimed towards reconciliation with Britain were completely fruitless and that the fight for independence which ultimately became the American Revolution was inevitable.

In September 1789, President George Washington offered John Jay the position of Secretary of State, but Jay declined. President Washington responded to this by offering Jay the position of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, which he accepted. Jay was officially nominated by Washington on September 24, 1789, which was the same day that Washington signed the Judiciary Act of 1789 into law, which created the Chief Justice position.  On September 26, 1789Jay was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate, and he received his commission on the same day. Jay’s term began on October 19, 1789 with his taking his oath of office. President Washington also nominated William Cushing, John Blair, James Iredell, John Rutledge, and James Wilson as Associate Judges.

The business of the Supreme Court through the first three years mainly involved the establishment and application of rules and procedure, such as the admission of attorneys to the bar and reading of commissions. The Justices’ also had duties in riding circuit, or presiding over various cases in the different circuit courts of the many federal judicial districts.

There was no convention at the time that precluded the involvement of the Justices from political affairs, so Jay used his mild workload as a Justice as a way to freely participate in the business of President Washington’s administration. Jay also used his circuit riding to spread information throughout the states about Washington’s commitment to neutrality for the county, and then he published reports of the French minister’s, Edmond-Charles Genet, campaign to win the American support for France.

However, John Jay also created an early precedent for the independence of the Supreme Court in 1790, when the Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton wrote to Jay asking for the Supreme Court’s endorsement of a piece of legislation that could assume the debts of the states. John Jay replied that the Supreme Court’s business was restricted just to ruling on the constitutionality of court cases being tried before it and because of this, he refused to allow the court to take a position regarding the legislation.

Van Staphorst v. Maryland (1791): The first court case docketed with the Supreme Court of the United States. While the Supreme Court agreed to hear and decide on this case, the law suit was settled before oral arguments could begin in Court. In this Supreme Court case, the Van Staphorst brothers gave money to the State of Maryland as a loan during the Revolutionary War era. Afterwards, the State of Maryland refused to pay back the loans to the Van Staphorst brothers in accordance to the terms that were set by the Van Staphorst brothers. After the threat of having to undergo Supreme Court litigation, both parties finally settled the court case with each other.

West v. Barnes (1791): The first decision made by the United States Supreme Court and the first Supreme Court case which called for oral arguments. Prior to this, the case Van Staphorst v. Maryland was docketed, but that case was settled before the Supreme Court could hear the case. West v. Barnes was argued in front of the Court on August 2, 1791 and it was decided upon on August 3, 1791.

William West was a revolutionary war militia general, farmer, a judge from Scituate, Rhode Island, and an anti-federalist leader. Due to a failed molasses deal to the Jenckes family from Providence in 1763, he owed a mortgage on his farm. William West made payments for twenty years on the mortgage, and then asked the state for permission to set up and run a lottery in 1785 in order to help pay off the rest. Because of West’s services during the Revolution, the state of Rhode Island granted him the permission to do so. Many of the proceeds were not paid in gold or silver, but instead were paid in paper currency. William West tendered the payment in the paper currency which was allowed according to the statute by since he was lodging the money with a state judge, which would be collected within 10 days.

David Leonard Barnes, a well-known attorney and an heir of the Jenckes family, eventually brought forward a lawsuit in a federal court based on the diversity jurisdiction which asserted that silver or gold payment was needed, rather than the paper currency. Despite the lack of formal legal training, William West represented himself pro se in June 1791 in the circuit court before Chief Justice John Jay and two other justices. All of them rejected his arguments. West then tried to appeal the case to the Supreme Court on a writ of error, in an attempt to comply with all of the statutory directions. William West was not able to travel to Philadelphia to represent himself in the suit, so he hired Pennsylvania’s attorney general, William Bradford, Jr., to represent him.

On the appeal, David Barnes examined the procedural irregularities of the case. He asserted that the writ had been only signed and sealed circuit court clerk in Rhode Island rather than the Supreme Court clerk, which he said was necessary. William West lost the case due to this procedural issue and eventually was forced to surrender his farm. The Supreme Court held that a writ of error needed to be issued within ten days by the Supreme Court Clerk as required by the Federal statute, rather than a lower court’s clerk. As a result, Congress ultimately modified this procedure with the section nine of the Judicial Act of 1792, which allowed circuit courts to issue writs, helping citizens who lived far away from the capitol.

This Supreme Court case was one of the earliest potential ones that could have allowed judicial review in the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court had the chance to overturn a statute enacted by Rhode Island State which discussed fulfilling a contract through lodging the payment a debt by using paper currency. However, the Supreme Court did not exercise any judicial review in respect to the legislature.

Hayburn’s Case (1792): A Supreme Court case where the court was invited to make a decision on whether Congress could assign certain non-judicial duties to the federal circuit courts which were in their official capacity. This case was the first time the Supreme Court looked at the issue of justifiability. Eventually, Congress reassigned the duties in question, and the Court did not have to give judgment in this case. At the time of the case, each of the Supreme Court Justices also served on a Circuit Court. Due to the fact, five of the six Justices including Justice John Jay declared it to be unconstitutional as judges in the District Courts.

Chisholm v. Georgia (1793): A Supreme Court case that was considered the first Supreme Court case of impact and significance. Because of the date, there is very little legal precedent available. The case was superseded almost immediately by the 11th Amendment. In South Carolina in 1792, Alexander Chisholm, who was the executor of the Robert Farquhar’s estate, tried to sue Georgia State in the Supreme Court regarding payments for goods that were owned by Farquhar from the American Revolutionary War. General Edmund Randolph, the U.S. Attorney, argued on behalf of the plaintiff. Meanwhile, Georgia refused to appear as the defendant, claiming that it could not be sued as a sovereign state without granting consent to the suit.

The Court, including Chief Justice John Jay, decided in a 4 to 1 vote in favor of the plaintiff. The justices argued that Article III, Section II, of the Constitution rescinded the sovereign immunity of the states and gave federal courts the power to hear disputes between States and private citizens. Because of the case, the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution was ratified in 1795. Doing so removed federal jurisdiction in situations where citizens of a specific state tried to sue another state. However, a citizen of one state still had the power to sue the Federal courts if the state consented to the suit or if Congress abrogated the immunity of the state under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Georgia v. Brailsford (1794): A Supreme Court case where the judge presiding over the Court instructed the jury that they had the right to judge not only the law, but also the facts. This case is often thought of as the precedent of jury nullification. Chief Justice John Jay explained the opinion, which explicitly acknowledged jury nullification by saying that juries were the best judges of facts while courts were the best judges of law, but it still allowed juries to look at both parts to make a decision. Justice John Jay considered this case to be extremely importance. Because of this it was treated by the Supreme Court justices with great diligence, ability, and learning. While the facts understood in the case were agreed upon, the only real issue was deciding what the law of the land was coming out of the facts and whether it was proper for the Supreme Court to give that opinion.

Earl Warren was the fourteenth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. He was born on March 19, 1891 in Los Angeles, California. Earl Warren grew up in Bakersfield, California and attended Kern County High School. He went on to attend University of California, Berkeley where he graduated in 1912 with a B.A. in Legal Studies, and then Boalt Hall Law School, where he received his LL.B. in 1914.

Eisenhower picked Warren in September 1953 to take the office the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. As the chief Justice, Earl Warren was a very liberal justice, more than anyone had anticipated. Earl Warren was able to set up a long series of landmark decisions due to building a winning coalition. Warren’s term of office was included numerous rulings on civil rights, police arrest procedure, and separation of church and state in the United States.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): A landmark Supreme Court decision that declared that state laws which separate public schools for white and black students as unconstitutional laws, which overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Justice Hugo Black was a part of the unanimous decision which stated that the separate educational facilities were inherently unequal.

The case called for the school district of Topeka to reverse its racial segregation policy for the schools. The Topeka Board of Education operated separate elementary schools under a Kansas law from 1879, which allowed but did not require the districts to have separate elementary schools for white and black students in twelve different communities with populations exceeding 15,000. The plaintiffs in the case felt that a system of racial separation, while pretended to provide separate but equal treatment of black and white Americans, perpetuated inferior services, treatment, and accommodations for black Americans. 

The Supreme Court heard the case in spring 1953, but they could not decide on the issue, so they reheard the case in fall 1953. During the second rehearing, the court paid close attention to whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the operation of different public schools for black and white students. The case was reargued at the request of Justice Felix Frankfurter, as a stalling tactic to gather a unanimous consensus in this case which would outlaw segregation. The justices who supported desegregation spent much effort trying to those the initial dissenters to join a unanimous, in order to prevent providing a legitimate counterargument for outlawing segregation.

Chief Justice Earl Warren set up a meeting with all the justices, and argued that the only reason to allow segregation was having an honest belief in the inferiority of African Americans.  Chief Justice Earl Warren further stated that the Court needed to overrule Plessy v. Ferguson in order to maintain the court’s legitimacy as an institution of liberty, and it unanimous to avoid Southern resistance. 

The holding of the Supreme Court was that, even if segregated white and white schools had equal teachers and facilities, segregation itself was unconstitutional and harmful to black students. There was a significant social and psychological disadvantage in black children due to segregation itself. This issue moved the case away from the question of whether the schools were equal, and instead looked at whether the idea of “separate but equal” was constitutional. The case resulted in de jure racial segregation being a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and also paved the way for the civil rights movement and integration.

Baker v. Carr (1962): A landmark Supreme Court case that moved away from the political question doctrine of the Court, and decided that that redistricting issues were justiciable questions, meaning that federal courts could intervene in order to decide reapportionment cases. After Chief Justice Earl Warrant left the Supreme Court, he stated that the Baker v. Carr line of cases were the most important cases in his tenure as the Chief Justice.

Charles Baker, the plaintiff, was a Republican residing in Shelby County, Tennessee, which was the county where Memphis was located. According to the Tennessee State Constitution, legislative districts had to be redrawn according to the federal census every ten years to create districts with substantially equal population. Baker’s issue was that Tennessee had redistricted since the 1901 census.

By the 1960’s, the population had shifted dramatically so Shelby County had nearly ten times as many citizens as some of the more rural districts. This meant that representationally, the votes of the citizens from the more rural districts had more value than the votes of the urban citizens. The argument made by Baker was that this issue was not letting him receive the equal protection of the laws which were required by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Joe Carr, the defendant, was sued as Tennessee’s Secretary of State. While he had not set the district, he was sued ex officio since he was the official responsible for elections conduct of the state as well as and the district map publication. Tennessee argued that legislative districts were not judicial questions, but instead political questions, and should not be determined by the court. The defendants of the case argued unsuccessfully that legislative district reapportionment should not have been resolved by federal courts since it was a “political question”. The decision was split in a 6 to 2 and resulted in a reformulation in just exactly what questions could be considered “political”. 

The decision in this case was one of the most stressful in the Court’s history. No clear majority emerged and one of the justices was so torn that eventually he recused himself. Chief Justice Earl Warrant and the Court finally handed down an opinion on March 1962, almost a year after the case was initially argued. The Supreme Court split 6 to 2, with Chief Justice Earl Warren siding on the majority, and ruled that the case was justifiable.

John Paul Stevens was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court between December 19, 1975 and his retirement in June 29, 2010. Upon his retirement, John Paul Stevens was the oldest member of the Supreme Court and the third-longest serving associate justice in the history of the Court. John Paul Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975. After being confirmed by the Senate Stevens and he took his seat in the Supreme Court December 19, 1975, after being confirmed 98–0 by the Senate.

As a Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens was considered to be a liberal justice in the Court. When he first began his tenure on the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens had held relatively moderate positions in his opinions. But when he was in the conservative Rehnquist Court, Justice John Paul Stevens joined the liberal Justices on many issues such as federalism, gay rights, and abortion rights. 

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): A landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which ruled that the admission process of the University of California at Davis Medical School, which put aside 16 of the 100 available seats for African American students was unconstitutional. The justification of “diversity in the classroom” for looking at race as a factor in the school’s admissions policies was not the same in comparison to the original purpose stated by the school, whose admissions program that was under review was designed to ensure the admissions of minorities that were traditionally discriminated-against. UC Davis Medical School developed the program originally to decrease the historic deficit of conventionally disfavored minorities in the medical profession and in medical schools, fight against the effects of societal discrimination, increase the amount of physicians who would practice in communities that were currently underserved, and receive the educational benefits that result from a student body that is ethnically diverse.

Justice Paul Stevens wrote a plurality opinion which did not concur with the majority’s assertion that race could be a factor among many different ones when looking at admissions, but it did agree with the opinion that stated that the special admissions program excluded Bakke due to his race, which was unconstitutional.  Justice Paul Stevens’ plurality also agreed with the point in Powell’s opinion that said that UC Davis was required to admit Bakke into the class.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): A Supreme Court case where the court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy set by the University of Michigan Law School in a 5-4 decision.  When the University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Grutter, a Michigan resident who had a 3.8 GPA and a LSAT score of 161 LSAT, Grutter alleged that the school had discriminated against her race, which was in violation of Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), the Fourteenth Amendment, along with 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Grutter claimed that was rejected from the school due to the school’s use of race as a predominant factor which gave certain minority groups a significantly higher chance of admission and that the respondents did not have a compelling interest to justify using race.

The District Court found the use of race in the school’s admission process to be unlawful, but the Sixth Circuit reversed that decision. The Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Circuit’s reversal, and upheld the University’s admissions policy.

Justice John Paul Stevens was a part of the Court’s majority opinion, which stated that the U.S. Constitution did not explicitly prohibit the school’s narrowly tailored use of race to promote a compelling interest in attaining the educational benefits that occur from having a diverse student population. The Supreme Court felt that the law school’s desire to achieve a critical mass of minority students did qualify as a tailored use. The majority opinion also suggested that in future cases, racial affirmative action should no longer be necessary and therefore no longer be allowed. This decision mostly upheld the position in the case University of California v. Bakke, where Justice Powell allowed race to be a factor in admissions policy, although quotas were illegal.

Texas v. Johnson (1989): A landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which invalidated prohibitions regarding desecrating the American flag which was enforced in 48 of the 50 states. 

This case revolved around Gregory Lee Johnson, a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, who participated in a political demonstration in Dallas, Texas during the Republican National Convention of 1984, which protested some policies of the Reagan Administration as well as some companies in Dallas. A demonstrator gave Johnson an American flag which was stolen from a targeted building. Once the protesters arrived at Dallas City Hall, Johnson drenched the flag with kerosene and set it on fire. While no one was injured, some claimed to be extremely offended. 

Johnson was charged with breaking the Texas law that prohibited the desecration of a venerated item. He was convicted, fined, and sentenced to a year in prison. The Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas saw the case through an appeal and overturned the conviction, saying that the State did not have the power to could not punish him for burning the flag since it was protected under the First Amendment as symbolic speech. However, the State of Texas claimed that its interests were more important than the symbolic speech rights because the state wished to preserve the national flag as a symbol of national unity while maintaining order, but the court stated that neither of these could justify the conviction. The State asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. The opinion of the court was a controversial 5-4 decision, with Justice Thurgood Marshall being a part of the majority.

The Court first looked at whether the First Amendment could include non-speech acts and, if so, if flag burning was included. The court found that in this case, the flag burning constituted as expressive conduct, allowing Johnson the protecting under the First Amendment. The court also found that there was no disturbance of the peace due to the flag burning, and rejected the States claim that the flag burning was to incite breaches of the peace. The last issue was if the states had a legitimate interest in preserving the national flag as a symbol of principles and national identity. However, the majority found that the lack of evidence for Constitutional support regarding flag burning, so the Court concluded that it was protected under the first amendment. 

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a strongly dissenting opinion, which argued that the American flag was a symbol of freedom, of religious tolerance, of equal opportunity, and of good will for others who share the same aspirations and that value of the American flag as a symbol is not measurable. Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that the case at hand has nothing to do with having disagreeable ideas, but rather involved disagreeable conduct that which diminished the value of an important asset of the country and that Johnson was not punished for his opinion, but rather the way he expressed it.

United States v. Morrison (2000): is a decision made by the Supreme Court that stated that sections of the Violence Against Women Act (1994) were unconstitutional because the act passed by Congress exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause as well as under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. This act that was originally passed contained a provision regarding federal civil remedies for gender-based violence victims, even in cases where no charged were filed.  The case revolved around an incident at Virginia Tech where a freshman student was allegedly assaulted and raped by members of the football team. One of the students admitted to having sexual contact with the student despite her protests. The college initially punished the student, but it was later struck down by the school administration. The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit Court’s decision to support the U.S. District Court’s opinion that Congress had exceeded their power under the Constitution. Justice John Paul Stevens was a part of the dissent opinion which argued that enacting the Violence Against Women Act was within the powers of Congress as allowed in the Commerce Clause. The dissent also stated that the majority opinion had looked over an old and discredited understanding of the Commerce Clause. Justice Breyer, who was joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter, also argued that it was mainly the responsibility of the United States Congress, and not the courts, to set limits on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Joined by Justice John Paul Stevens, Justice Breyer also stated that Congress had been very sensitive to issues of federalism when they enacted the Violence Against Women Act, and they had expressed doubts about the majority’s conclusions regarding the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bush v. Gore (2000): A landmark Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000, that resolved the controversy of the 2000 presidential election in favor of G.W. Bush. Eight days before, the U.S> Supreme Court had decided unanimously the related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) and three days before that, had preliminarily stopped the recount that was happening in Florida. The Court ruled in a per curiam decision that the Florida Supreme Court’s technique for the ballot recount violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court also ruled that no other method could be made within the time limits that were created by Florida State. 

Four justices including Justice John Paul Stevens dissented and did not feel the recount should have been stopped. Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer concluded that the petitioners’ federal assault on the election procedures in Florida had an underlying lack of confidence in the capacity and impartiality of the state judges that would make critical decisions if the count were to continue. 

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006): A Supreme Court case in which the Court held that military commissions that were set up by the Bush administration in order to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lacked the power to process due to the fact that the procedures and structures violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as the four Geneva Conventions which were signed in 1949.

The case looked at whether Congress could pass legislation to prevent the Supreme Court from taking the case of an accused combatant prior to his military commission takes place. The case also would determine if the special military commission that had been created violated federal law, and whether courts could enforce the 1949 Geneva Convention. The Court issued a 5-3 decision on June 29, 2006 which held that the court had jurisdiction and that President Bush did not have the proper authority to set up special military commissions without approval from Congress since they did not follow the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice and that the war crimes tribunals also violated the laws as well.

Justice John Paul Stevens was the author of the Supreme Court’s majority in part opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens began the opinion by looking at the issue of jurisdiction. Justice Stevens denied the United States ‘s motion to dismiss under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which gave the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals the exclusive jurisdiction to look over decisions of cases held in military commissions. However, the act did not have language that would suggest that the Supreme Court’s review would be excluded.  Because the military commission did not meet the necessary requirements of the Geneva Convention or the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the commission violated the laws of war thus could not be used to.

William Howard Taft was the 27th President of the United States and later the 10th Chief Justice of Supreme Court from 1921 to 1930. He is the only individual to have served in both of these positions, and one of only two presidents to have also headed a different branch of the federal government, excluding vice-presidents who later went on to become president.

William Howard Taft was born near Cincinnati on September 15, 1857. Taft went to Woodward High School in Cincinnati, and then continued on to attend Yale College in New Haven, Connecticut, where he  was a member of the Beta chapter of Psi Upsilon, Linonian Society, and Skull and Bones. William Howard Taft graduated second in his class in 1878 and continued his education at Cincinnati Law School, where he received a Bachelor of Laws in 1880. 

On June 30, 1921, President Warren G. Harding nominated William Howard Taft for the seat of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The Senate approved Taft with a 60-4 vote in a secret session on the same day of the nomination, and Taft immediate received his commission. He took the oath of office on July 11, 1921, and served the court until retirement in 1930 due to his failing health. 

William Howard Taft decided to promote the introduction and passage of the 1925 Judiciary Act, which shifts the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to be mostly discretionary upon reviewing litigants’ petitioning , allowing the Supreme Court to preferentially receive cases that they believed were of national importance, allowing the Court to work in a more efficient manner.

Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922): A Supreme Court case where the court held that some provisions of the United States Constitution were not applicable to territories which were not incorporated into the union. This case began when Jesús M. Balzac was prosecuted for a criminal libel in Puerto Rico’s district court. He declared that his Constitutional rights had been violated under the Sixth Amendment since he was denied a trial by jury. He had not been given a trial by jury because the Puerto Rico’s code of criminal procedure did not allow for a jury trial for cases regarding misdemeanor. In the court appeal, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgments made by the lower courts in Puerto Rico in deciding that the relevant Constitutional provisions did not apply to a territory that was not incorporated into the Union, while belonging to the United States.

The Supreme Court held a unanimous opinion which was delivered by Chief Justice William Howard Taft. Chief Justice Taft argued that while the Jones Act had granted citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, the act had not actually incorporated Puerto Rico into the Union. Although the island had been under the United States control since after the 1898 Spanish-American War, the territory had never been designated for any sort of ultimate statehood. Chief Justice William Howard Taft distinguished Puerto Rico from the territory received in the Alaska purchase, which was acquired in 1867 from Russia, that in Rasmussen v. United States had been held to be incorporated. Thus, specific constitutional provisions were given based on location, instead of on citizenship.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft reason for denying jury trial was very similar to earlier reasoning in older Insular Cases. Chief Justice Taft argued that since Puerto Rico had been previously governed by Spanish civil law for four hundred, the inhabitants would not be prepared for jury service. Chief Justice Taft also argued that the locals should have the ability to determine their own laws. In the opinion, the court failed to resolve the exact fundamental personal rights  that would be extended to American citizens in Puerto Rico.

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922): A Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the Child Labor Tax Law of 1919 was unconstitutional and an inappropriate attempt by the United States Congress to penalize employers who used child labor. The Supreme Court indicated that the tax law imposed by the statute was not really a tax but really a penalty in disguise.

Congress passed the Child Labor Tax Law on February 24, 1919, which created an excise tax of 10% on the net profits generated by a company that used children as employee. The tax law defined child labor as a worker under the age of 16 in a mine or quarry, and under the age of 14 in a cannery, mill, workshop, manufacturing, or factory establishment. The definition of child labor also included using children between the ages of 14 and 16 who worked over 8 hours a day or over 6 days a week, or worked between 7PM and 6AM.  Drexel Furniture Co. was a furniture manufacturing company based in North Carolina.

On September 21, 1921, a Bureau of Internal Revenue collector assessed $6,312.79 in excise taxes from the company for employing a child under the age of 14 during the 1919 tax year. The company paid the tax under protest, and then sued for a refund after.  The main argument used by Drexel was that the tax was an attempt to regulate manufacturing in an unconstitutional manner. The U.S. argued that the statute did not need to meet any standard if it was a geographically uniform indirect tax. Additionally, the United States said that the tax was only an excise tax levied by the United States Congress under the broad power of taxation found in Article One of the U.S. Constitution. The lower court ended up ruling in favor of the company.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft’s Court declared that the tax placed on child labor was unconstitutional since it was not actually a tax but rather it was a penalty on the employment of children. Additionally, the Child Labor Tax Law regulated businesses rather than acting as a tax. Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued the law described a specific course for businesses. Under the tax act, any deviation from that court resulted in a payment being enacted. 

Chief Justice William Howard Taft also said that the court had to commit itself ultimately to the law of the land, even if it required them to refuse a piece of legislation created to promote the highest good. Chief Justice Taft continued on by saying that good sought in legislation that is unconstitutional leads legislators and citizens down a risky path of compromising the constitution and its standards. Additionally, Congress could then take control of different areas of public interest that are normally controlled by the States under the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court later abandoned the philosophy found in the Bailey case.

Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (1923): A Supreme Court case where the opinion held that the federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional violation of the liberty of contract, which is protected by the due process clause found in the Fifth Amendment. Congress passed a law setting the minimum wages for children and woman in 1918 in Washington, DC

As in other court cases, the issue of the case balancing the power Congress had to regulate safety and health with the right that individuals had to conduct their own business and affairs without having interference from Congress. Children’s Hospital along with female elevator operator from a hotel brought this court case to prevent enforcement of this minimum wage legislation by Jesse Adkins and the two wage board members.

The Supreme Court opinion held that previous court decisions such as Muller v. Oregon (1908) or Bunting v. Oregon (1917) did not overrule the decision made in Lochner v. New York (1905) which protected the freedom of contract.  The Supreme Court argued that if Congress was allowed to set laws regarding minimum wage, they would also be allowed to set wage laws regarding maximum wage. The majority opinion also discussed the changes that had occurred after Muller, particularly the passage of the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote.

The opinion mentions any differences between men and women that justify special protection for women are no longer relevant in respect to the cultural changes that have occurred, particularly in the political, civil, and contractual, status of women, which have culminated in the 19th Amendment. Chief Justice William Howard Taft dissented and argued that there that there was no real different between maximum hour laws and minimum wage laws, considering that both of these effectively become restrictions on the employment contract. Chief Justice William. Adkins v. Children’s Hospital was ultimately overturned 1937 in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.

Carroll v. United States (1925): A Supreme Court decision that upheld that a search of an automobile without a warrant is the automobile exception. This court case has also been referred to in order to increase the scope of searches without warrants. In the case, federal prohibition officers set up an undercover purchase of liquor from an illicit dealer, George Carroll, who was under investigation, but the purchase transaction had not been completed. Later, the officers saw Carroll driving from Detroit to Grand Rapids on the highway, which they patrolled regularly. The officers gave chase, pulled the car over, and searched it, finding illegal liquor in the car.

The National Prohibition Act Stated that officers had the right to make searches of vehicles, airplanes, or boats without warrants when they had a reason to believe that illegal liquor was being transported. The Supreme Court noted that the U.S. Congress removed the need for a warrant in situations regarding border and that Congress always understood an important difference between searches of buildings versus vehicles for contraband items, where it is not as practical to acquire a warrant, since the vehicle can be moved quickly out of the jurisdiction or locality where the warrant must be acquired.

However, Chief Justice William Howard Taft and the Supreme Court held in a majority opinion that it would be unreasonable and intolerable if a prohibition agent had the authority to stop any vehicle on the chance of finding liquor, subjecting all individuals who are lawfully using the roads to the indignity and inconvenience of the search. The Supreme Court also added that when the securing of a warrant is done reasonably, it must be done.

This precedent became known as the Carroll doctrine, meaning a warrant was necessary to search a vehicle if there was some probable cause to think that evidence was present, coupled with pressing circumstances to think that the vehicle could be removed from the area acquiring a warrant.

Myers v. United States (1926): A United States Supreme Court decision which ruled that the President of the United States can remove executive branch officials with his exclusive powers, and is not required to obtain the approval of the Senate or another legislative body.

Frank Myers, a First-Class Postmaster in Portland, Oregon, was removed from his office by President Wilson in 1920. A federal law created in 1876 stated that first, second, and third class Postmasters could be appointed and removed by the President of the United States with the consent and advice of the U.S. Senate. Frank Myers argued that his dismissal was in violation of this law, and that he was entitled to receive back pay for the portion of the four-year term that was unfilled.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft wrote the opinion for the Court, where he noted that the appointment of officials was mentioned in the Constitution, but there was nothing regarding the dismissal officials. A look at the notes of the Constitutional Convention, showed that this was intentional and that it was implicit in the Constitution that only the President held the exclusive power to remove his own staff, which existed as extensions of the President’s authority.

The Supreme Court therefore held that the law was unconstitutional, and it violated the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. This decision also found that Tenure of Office Act, which had placed a similar requirement on previous Presidential appointees and was critical in President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, had also been invalid. 

A Supreme Court, in the majority of jurisdictions, is the highest judicial body within the particular jurisdiction’s court system. The rulings or judgments made by the Supreme court are not subjected for further review by additional court systems.

The following is a list of the most famous Supreme Court Judgments:

1.    Marbury v Madison (1803): The Supreme Court judgment that is regarded as the keystone power of Judicial Review. Through this Supreme Court 

Judgment Judicial Review was affirmed and formally established in this case.

2.    Dred Scott v Sanford (1857): The Supreme Court judgment that classified Slaves as personal property. This ruling fueled the flames that eventually led to the Civil War.

3.    Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954): A notable Supreme Court judgment that offered a tremendous step towards civil rights and the delivery of equal rights for all citizens of the United States.

4.    NAACP v. Alabama (1958): A famous Supreme Court judgment which protected the Freedom of association; this ruling enabled citizens of the United States to assemble in groups for a common political or human-rights based objective.

5.    Wesberry v. Sanders (1964): The Supreme Court judgment that declared each person’s vote to carry an equal measure. 

6.    Roe v. Wade (1973): A highly controversial Supreme Court judgment, which rules that states can and can and cannot control legality issues in regards to abortions. 

7.    United States v Nixon (1974): A Supreme Court judgment that limited the President’s “Executive Priviledge.”

Sonia Sotomayor is a current associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.  She has served as both a Federal district judge and a Federal Appeals court judge before her nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court.  This article contains the following:

– A brief biographical history of Sonia Sotomayor.

– Dates and appointments of her various Judgeships

– Notable cases with her decisions as a Federal District Judge of the Southern District of New York

– Notable cases with her decisions as a Federal Appeals Court Judge of the Second Circuit Court

– Notable cases  with her decisions as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court

Sonia Maria Sotomayor, born June 25, 1954, is an active associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.  Sotomayor has been on the court since August 2009 and is the 111th justice of the court.  She is the third female justice and first justice with a Hispanic heritage. Both of her parents were born in Puerto Rico and emigrated to the United States shortly after World War II.  parents raised her Catholic and lived in several neighborhoods of the Bronx, mostly among Puerto Rican communities. 

Sotomayor graduated from Yale Law School in 1979 and was admitted to the New York state bar in 1980, having passed on her first try.  Sotomayor was immediately hired out of Yale Law School as an assistant district attorney in New York County. After spending three years as a prosecutor, Sotomayor began a solo law practice, named “Sotomayor & Associates”, which she ran out of her apartment in Brooklyn.  

She was nominated by President George H. W. Bush in 1991 to a seat in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and eventually confirmed by unanimous decision of the United States Senate. In 1997, Sotomayor was nominated by then president Bill Clinton for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit. After an extended period of hearings, Sotomayor was finally approved by the Senate in late 1998, with a 67 – 29 decision in her favor.  In May of 2009, Sotomayor was nominated by President Barack Obama for appointment to the United States Supreme Court.  She was confirmed and took her seat in August of 2009.  

Sonia Sotomayor served as a Federal District judge from 1992 to 1998.  During this time, she spent her time on numerous types of cases and made various rulings.  Although she kept a low public profile as a district court judge, she was considered a fairly liberal judge who was willing to rule against the government in several cases.  For criminal actions, she was known for being particularly tough and gave much longer sentences than other district judges.  

– Silverman v. Major League Baseball (1995) – One of her most famous decisions was her ruling against Major League Baseball in 1995.  Her ruling ultimately ended the baseball strike of 1994, after she struck down the owner’s request for a new collective bargaining agreement.  

– Dow Jones v. Department of Justice (1995) – In this decision, the Wall Street Journal was attempting to obtain and publish of the last note left by former Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster.  Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Wall Street Journal, stating that the public had a substantial interest in the note.  The ruling required the U.S. Justice Department to not act to stop its release.  

– New York Times Co. v. Tasini (1997) – This case involved a group of freelance journalists that sued the New York Times for copyright infringement.  The case revolved around the use by the New York Times of an electronic archival database for legal and business professionals, which was using the published works of the freelancers.  Sotomayor ruled that the New York Times had a right to license out the work of the freelancers.  However, this decision was ultimately reversed on appeal, with the appeal being upheld by the Supreme Court.  Only two Supreme Court Justices took Sotomayor’s position.  

– Castle Rock Entertainment v. Carol Publishing Group (1997) – This case involved a book of trivia that was being published that referenced the television show “Seinfeld”. Sotomayor ruled that the publisher violated copyrights for the show’s producer and did not meet the requirements of fair use.  This ruling was upheld on appeal.   

Sotomayor was next nominated by President Clinton for a seat in the Second Circuit of the United State’s Court of Appeals.  Her nomination was in June of 1997, but political issues delayed her confirmation by the Senate until October 1998.  She served in this position from 1998 until 2009, in which she heard over 3000 cases and issued 380 majority opinions.  Her decision were generally regarded as centrist with some liberal leanings in some circumstances.

– Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush (2002) – Sotomayor ruled that the “Mexico City Policy”, a Bush administration policy of not contributing to separate nongovernmental organizations which promote abortion as a method of family planning in their nation.  Sotomayor ruled the government is allowed to favor anti-abortion positions over pro-choice positions and can show such preference with public funds without violating equal protection. 

– Pappas v. Giuliano (2002) – In this appeal, Sotomayor dissented from the majority that ruled a New York Police officer could be fired for sending racist materials through the mail.  Sotomayor’s position was that the first amendment protected such speech, since the questionable activities, although hateful and offensive, were made outside of the police officer’s employment.  

– Maloney v. Cuomo (2009) – Sotomayor affirmed a challenge of the conviction of a New York man who was charged with possession of an illegal weapon, which were nunchuks.  Her opinion states that the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, is binding to the states like most of the other constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights.  The ruling was upheld later by the Supreme Court, as they have stated that no court but the Supreme Court could rule the second amendment applies to the states.  

– N.G & S.G. v. Connecticut (2004) – Sotomayor dissented from the majority’s decision to uphold strip searches of adolescent girls in a juvenile detention center.  Sotomayor felt the girl’s rights were violated in the absence of individualized suspicion, since the girls had never been charged with a crime.  

– Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko (2000) – Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, stating that an individual has the right to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for constitutional violations.  This decision overturned the lower court decision which ruled that such private corporations were protected by sovereign immunity laws.  This decision was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court in a close 5-4 decision, which did not agree with the extension of the Bivens doctrine that Sotomayor applied in her decision.  

– Krimstock v. Kelly (2002) – Sotomayor ruled that New York City’s policy of sizing cars from drivers accused of DWI’s and holding the vehicles for months or years during the criminal proceedings violated due process rights.  This ruling was especially important as New York had previously not allowed such drivers to challenge the holding of property, and Sotomayor ruled cars play an important role in the everyday lives of citizens.  

– Clarett v. National Football League (2003) – This was a case that garnered national headlines, as it involved a challenge to the National Football Leagues eligibility rules that required its players to spend three years in college before being allowed to enter the draft.  Maurice Clarett, a college football star at the time, challenged the rule on antitrust grounds.  Sotomayor ruled against Clarett, stating that such a decision would infringe on federal labor laws designed to promote collective bargaining agreements.  

Sotomayor was nominated by president Barack Obama in 2009 for a seat on the United States Supreme Court.  In July of 2009, she was confirmed by the Senate (which voted strongly among party lines, with all Democrats supporting her and only 9 Republicans).  She is the first Hispanic judge to serve on the court and only the third woman justice.  

– Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2009) – In her first case as an active Supreme Court Justice, Sotomayor heard on of the most important cases in years.  The case involved the first amendment rights of corporations during political campaigns, in which the court ultimately held that corporations are protected and have legal person-hood for such campaigns.  Sotomayor dissented to the controversial opinion.  

– Berghuis v. Thompson (2010) – This case was the first case in which Sotomayor wrote an opinion of the court.  This case involved the rights of individuals who are arrested by the police, given the proper Miranda warnings, understand their right to remain silent, yet speak anyway.  The decision states that an individual does not invoke his or her right to silence by actually remaining silent and must affirmatively state they are relying on the right.  While this was the majority opinion, Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, stating that Miranda rules and protections have always required more in order to have a valid waiver of such rights.  Many feel this decision was a major infringement on individual rights and the dissent has remained a popular opinion.  

– Pepper v. United States (2010) – Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion of the court in this case, in which she held the position that an original sentence of a drug dealer, which was significantly less than the federal sentencing guidelines, should be upheld.  The prosecution appealed the original sentences, which was overturned and made in compliance with the federal sentencing guidelines, however the Supreme Court invalidated this later sentencing on the grounds that the original sentence was sufficient under the facts.  

– Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano (2010) – This decision, in which Sotomayor wrote the unanimous majority opinion, established that the plaintiffs in a securities fraud claim properly stated a claim against a pharmaceutical company that failed to disclose negative reports regarding one of its drugs.  The failure to disclose ultimately had a negative affect on securities pricing.  Sotomayor wrote the opinion which was met with criticism by many corporations, which state the ruling does not give any guidelines for what “adverse events” are and when they must be disclosed to investors.   

– Michigan v. Bryant (2010) – This case involved the conviction of a defendant for second degree murder, in which the trial judge allowed a hearsay statement naming the defendant as the perpetrator by the victim before his death.  Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the court that held such a statement is not testimonial and therefore the defendant did not have a right under the confrontation clause to exclude it from the trial.  

William Rehnquist was an American jurist, political figure, and lawyer who served as a Justice on the United States Supreme Court as well as the 16th Chief Justice. Justice William Rehnquist’s views often promoted federalism and conservatism that strongly preserved the Reservation of Powers to the States under the Tenth Amendment. He served as Chief Justice for almost 19 years.

William Rehnquist was born on October 1, 1924 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He graduated in 1942 from Shorewood High School in 1942 and went on to attend Kenyon College for one quarter, but then entered the United States Army Air Forces. Rehnquist served in World War II. After the end of the war, William Rehnquist attended Stanford University under the provisions of the G.I. Bill. and received both a B.A and a M.A. degree in political science in 1948. Two years later, Rehnquist attended Harvard University, where he earned a M.A. government. After, he attended Stanford Law School where he graduated and received his Law Degree.

Gonzales v. Raich (2005): A decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Congress could criminalize the use and production of home-grown cannabis even in states which had laws that approved its use for medicinal purposes. Congress could do this with the power given to them from the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Chief Justice William Rehnquist joined Justice O’Connor’s dissent, which explained that federalism promoted innovation in the country by allowing one state the freedom to try different social or economic experiments that would not risk the rest of the country. The dissent also explained that the federal ban was overreaching and despite personal opinions, the medical marijuana ballot initiated was voted in and the Compassionate Use Act had been passed in California, so the state should have the right to continue their social and economic experiment. 

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): A landmark Supreme Court case that struck down a sodomy law in Texas by a 6-3 ruling. In the previous case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the court had upheld a Georgia statute and claimed that there was no protection of sexual privacy in the constitution. The new ruling held that the previous case looked at liberty interest too narrowly. Justice Scalia wrote a dissent, which was Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The dissent objected to the Supreme Court’s decision to look at Bowers v. Hardwick and discussed that there were many subsequent decisions based on Bowers that came out of lower courts which could now be open to doubts. The dissent also noted that the rationale used to overturn the previous could just as easily be applied to overturn other court decisions such as Roe v. Wade, which had been recently used to hold up Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): A Supreme Court Case that looked at the constitutionality of numerous Pennsylvania state regulations that involved abortion. The plurality opinion of the court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion. However, the court also examined many restrictions of the right and upheld certain portions while invalidating others. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was a part of the plurality opinion which stated that their opinion was upholding the essential precedent of Roe V. Wade, meaning that the right to abortion was a fundamental part of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. However, Chief Justice William Rehnquist along with Justice Scalia dissented from the plurality’s decision by upholding Roe v. Wade while striking down the spousal notification law.

David Souter was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who served from1990 to 2009, when he retired. David Souter was appointed by to fill the seat of Justice Brennan by President George H. W. Bush. At the time, David Souter was the only Justice on the Supreme Court with an extensive amount of previous court experience outside of the federal appeals court. He had previously served as a prosecutor, an attorney general, and a judge on both state appellate and trial courts.

David Souter was born on September 17, 1939 in Melrose, Massachusetts and attended Concord High School in New Hampshire. He went on to attend Harvard College, where he graduated with an A.B. magna cum laude. After earning a M.A. from Magdalen College in 1963, Souter attended Harvard Law School, where he received his law degree in 1966.

As a Justice, David Souter was expected to be a judge who showed conservatism in his jurisprudence. For the first three years as a Supreme Court Justice, David Souter tended was conservative, although not as strongly as Justice Scalia, Thomas, or Rehnquist. His more dramatic turning point came in Planned Parenthood v. Casey where he reaffirmed the vital holding in Roe v. Wade.

Bush v. Gore (2000): A landmark Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000, that resolved the controversy of the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Eight days before, the U.S> Supreme Court had decided unanimously the related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (2000) and three days before that, had preliminarily stopped the recount that was happening in Florida. The Court ruled in a per curiam decision that the Florida Supreme Court’s technique for the ballot recount violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court also ruled that no other method could be made within the time limits that were created by Florida State.

While Justice David Souter agreed that there was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in using different methods of counting in different counties in Florida, he also dissented due to many different issues in the case. Justice David Souter specifically dissented against the opinion that the Supreme Court of Florida had acted oppositely to the legislature’s intent. Justice Souter further dissented the majority opinion regarding stopping the ballot recount. He acknowledged that the counting done prior and on December 9 were not aligned with the Equal Protection requirements. However, he still wanted to send the case back to the Supreme Court of Florida in order to allow the court to create uniform standards of legal voting and then recount the ballots based on those standards.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): A Supreme Court Case that challenged the constitutionality of many Pennsylvania state regulations dealing with abortion. The plurality opinion of the court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion. However, the court also examined many restrictions of the right and upheld certain portions while invalidating others.

Justice David Souter defied expectations and joined the plurality opinion which wrote that their opinion was upholding the vital precedent of Roe V. Wade, which meant that the right to abortion was a fundamental part of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 

It went on further to describe the importance of standing by previous court decisions even if the precedent seemed unpopular, unless a drastic change in the fundamental reasoning of the previous decision had occurred. The plurality with Justice David Souter continued and described the rejection of the separate but equal idea notion as the actual reason for the court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education court’s where they rejected the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine.