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. 

Hugo Black was a jurist and an American politician. Black represented Alabama in the United States Senate as a Democratic Senator from 1927 to 1937 and was also a justice in the United States Supreme Court between 1937 and 1971. He was nominated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt for the judicial office and was confirmed by a 63 to 13 vote by the Senate.

Hugo Black was born on February 27, 1886, in Ashland, Alabama as the youngest in a family with children late. While he originally planned to follow the footsteps of his brother and attend medical school, he ended up enrolling at the law school of the University of Alabama. After graduating and receiving his law degree in June 1906, Hugo Black returned home and set up a legal practice, but later moved to Birmingham where his practice specialized in personal injury and labor law cases. He was then asked to serve as a police court judge, but stepped down only to later work as the Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County. During World War I, Hugo black resigned and joined the United States Army, where he became a captain in the 81st Field Artillery. After the war, he eventually became the Senator of Alabama from 1927 to 1937

Supreme Court Career

President Roosevelt nominated Hugo Black on August 12, 1937. Traditionally since 1853, when a senator was nominated for a judicial or executive office, he would be immediately confirmed without debate. However, the Senate departed from this practice and instead referred this nomination to the Judiciary Committee, where he was criticized for his cultural roots, presumed bigotry, and later, his membership with the Ku Klux Klan. However, the Judiciary Committee recommended his confirmation by 13–4 vote on August 16, 1937. The full Senate then considered the nomination the same day and ultimately Confirmed Hugo Black by a 63-16 vote. 

As soon as Hugo Black started on the Court, he quickly promoted judicial restraint and worked to shift the Court away its habit of interjecting itself in social and economic matters. He also strongly defended the plain meaning of the Constitution as a textualist and emphasized the importance and supremacy of the legislature by saying that the purpose of the Supreme Court was constitutionally bound and limited. 

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): A landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect a right to privacy. This case involved a Connecticut law that made the use of contraceptives illegal. The Supreme invalidated this law by a 7–2 vote on the grounds that the law violated the right to marital privacy. Justice Hugo Black, as well as Justice Potter Stewart dissented, stating that the right to privacy is not explicitly found in the Constitution. Furthermore, Black criticized the majority’s interpretations of the 9th and 14th Amendment.

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. 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”. Justice Hugo Black compromised from his typical absolutist position and joined the majority in this case.

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 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 .

Samuel Chase was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and also a signer of the Declaration of Independence as the representative from Maryland. Samuel Chase was born on April 17, 1741 in Princess Anne, Maryland as the was the only child of his family. Chase was homeschooled, and left at the age of eighteen and went to Annapolis, where he studied law under John Hall, an attorney. Samuel Chase  was admitted to the bar in 1761. Afterwards, Chase started a law practice in the same town.

Samuel Chase was elected in 1764 to the Maryland General Assembly, and he held the seat for twenty years. Between 1774 and 1776, he was the member of the Annapolis Convention, where he represented Maryland at the Continental Congress. Samuel Chase was re-elected in 1776 became one of the signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Chase stayed at the Continental Congress until 1778.

In 1786, Samuel Chase moved to Baltimore, and he stayed there for the remainder of his life. Two years later, he was appointed as the Chief justice of the Baltimore District Criminal Court and served the seat until 1796. In 1791, Chase also became the Chief Justice of the Maryland General Court. President George Washington appointed Samuel Chase on January 26, 1796 as an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court, which he served until his death on June 19, 1811.

Marbury v. Madison (1803): A landmark case by the Supreme Court and in United States law, as well as for worldwide law. The case created the basis for the power of judicial review by the judicial branch in the United States under the Constitution, specifically under Article III. This case also demonstrated the first time in Western history where a court nullified a law by pronouncing it unconstitutional, a process which is now called judicial review. The decision helped create and define the checks and balances found in American Government. The case came out from a petition by William Marbury to the Supreme, who had been appointed as the Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams. However, the commission was not subsequently delivered to Marbury. Marbury then proceeded by asked the Supreme Court to force James Madison, the Secretary of State to deliver the documents. However, Justice Samuel Chase along with the Court and Chief Justice John Marshall denied the petition. Instead, the Court held that specific provision found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which allowed William Marbury to bring forth his claim regarding the petition to the Supreme Court unconstitutional, because the act tried to extend the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the point which was established by Article III of the constitution.

Stuart v. Laird (1803): A Supreme Court case most notably decided a week after Marbury v. Madison. The case dealt with a circuit judge’s judgment, after the particular judge’s job had been eliminated by the Judiciary Act of 1801’s repeal. This act created many federal judgeships and established new circuit court judges for intermediate appeals. Because of this, Supreme Court justices would not have to travel to hear appeals across the country, known as circuit riding. The court sustained the Judiciary Act of 1802, which resulted in only one federal judge required for a quorum in any circuit court, allowing Supreme Court justices to rely on the district court judges to hear intermediate appeals. This strategy proved necessary to eliminating circuit riding.

Justice Stephen Breyer is a current Justice of the United States Supreme Court who was appointed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Stephen Breyer was born on August 15, 1938 in San Francisco to a middle-class Jewish family in San Francisco. He graduated from Lowell High School and then went on to Stanford University where he received a B.A. in philosophy along with a B.A. from Magdalen College. Stephen Breyer then continued on to receive his LL.B from Harvard University.

Stephen Breyer first served as a law clerk in 1964 and continued on to be a special assistant to the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust between 1965 and 1967. Afterwards he was an assistant special prosecutor in 1973 for the Watergate Special Prosecution Force. He also served as chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Afterwards, Stephen Breyer worked a judge on the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals . He was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1993 for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, and was appointed in 1994.  As a Judge, Stephen Breyer’s practical approach to the law is to assessing a law’s constitutionality by look at the consequences and purposes of the Constitution’s text rather than looking at the text in a more literal and historical fashion.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): A landmark Supreme Court case that examined and struck down a Texas sodomy law by a 6-3 ruling. In the previous Supreme Court case Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), the court upheld a Georgia statute and stated that there was no protection of sexual privacy that existed in the constitution. The new ruling stated that the previous case examined liberty interest of citizens too narrowly. The majority decision, which included Justice Stephen Breyer, explained that intimate sexual conduct which was consensual was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Court’s decision invalidated many similar laws in the country that criminalized sodomy between consenting heterosexual as well as homosexual adults in private.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): A Supreme Court case that carefully examined a Nebraska law that illegalized partial-birth abortion, with the exception of when it would save the mother’s life. The Supreme Court struck down the partial-birth abortion ban, and found that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause which was first interpreted in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion of the Court, and stated that in Planned Parenthood v. Casey found that an abortion law that limited an undue burden on the right to choose for a woman was unconstitutional. Breyer continued by saying that the ban would cause a fear of prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment, which would be an undue burden, thus unconstitutional.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): A landmark Supreme Court case where the held that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protected an citizen’s right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within a residence. The Court’s decision did not discuss the question of if the 2nd Amendment went beyond federal enclaves to the states. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of appeals which determined that guns were “arms” for all intents and purposes of the Second Amendment, and that D.C.’s ban was unconstitutional. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent joined by Justice Stephen Breyer which worked to show that the handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would be considered permissible limitations on the Second Amendment. Furthermore, Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent examined early municipal fire-safety laws that did not allow the storage of gunpowder and argued for the necessity of gun-control laws for the sake of public safety.

William Paterson was a signer of the Constitution, New Jersey statesman and second governor, and an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Paterson was born in County Antrim in Northern Ireland, but moved to America when he was two years old. At the age of 14, William Paterson entered the College of New Jersey, which is now Princeton University. After graduating, Paterson studied law with Richard Stockton, a prominent lawyer, and in 1768, he was admitted to the bar

William Paterson was nominated by George Washington for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on February 27, 1793, but it was withdrawn when President Washington realized Article I, Section VI of the constitution prevented the nomination since Paterson was a current Senator. President Washington nominated William Paterson once more on March 4, 1793 to the Supreme Court, after Paterson’s term as Senator had ended. He was immediately confirmed by the Senate and served on the Court until his death on September 9, 1806. 

United States v. Richard Peters (1795): An early case in the United States Supreme Court which determined that the federal district court did not have jurisdiction over a foreign privateer when the ship that intended captured was not within the court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court could prohibit the district court from the proceeding in this case. Justice William Patterson joined the decision which held that the district courts did not have jurisdiction of a libel against a privateer for damages when commissioned by a foreign power for the capture of an American ship.

Talbot v. Janson (1795): A Supreme Court case where the opinion, including that of Justice William Paterson held that the court’s jurisdiction extended beyond the land and to the seas and that a United States citizen was also allowed to hold the citizenship of another country.

Hylton v. United States (1796): A U.S. Supreme Court case where the Court stated that a tax placed on carriages did not violate Article I, Section 9’s rule for the apportioning of direct taxes. The decision stated that the carriage tax was actually an excise tax instead of a direct tax, which required apportionment by population among the states. The Supreme Court also noted that a tax placed on land was a type of direct tax contemplated by the U.S. Constitution.

The case was significant because it was the first case heard Supreme Court that challenged the constitutionality of an act performed by of Congress. By holding up the tax, the Court exercised its power of judicial review, although the court refrained from overturning the statute. Rather than issuing a single opinion, the Justices issued their own analysis. Justice William Paterson, along with all the other justices except one agreed that the carriage tax was not a direct tax but an excise tax.

Calder v. Bull (1798): A Supreme Court case where the Court examined whether the court had the authority to review legislative decisions made by the state. The legislature of Connecticut demanded a new trial in a court regarding the contents of a will, which overruled the previous court ruling. In a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court which included Justice William Patterson, the Supreme Court held that the Connecticut legislature’s actions were not in violation of the ex post facto law found in Constitution under Article I Section 10. This holding is still valid today and states that the ex post facto provision found in the Constitution applies only to criminal cases and not civil cases.

New York v. Connecticut (1799): A case heard by the Supreme Court that involved the State of New York and the State of Connecticut which came out of a land dispute between two private parties. This case with the first one where the Supreme Court exercised its power of original jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution in order to hear the controversy between the two states. The land dispute involved a strip of land on the western border of New York bordering Pennsylvania which Connecticut claimed jurisdiction over and in turn granted the land to two private parties.

After New York granted certain parcels within the region to other private parties, the successors in title filed an action. The Court denied a motion to remove the suit from the Circuit Court, and New York then filed a bill in equity against the State of Connecticut. However, since the bill in equity was filed when the General Assembly of Connecticut was out of session, the state did not participate in the case. However, the claimants’ attorneys argued that no reasonable notice was given for the injunction to be allowed and that New York did not have an interest in the proceedings that deserved a stay. Justice William Paterson and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court found the notice to be sufficient, but denied the injunction, since New York lacked standing. 

Marbury v. Madison (1803): A landmark case by the Supreme Court and in United States law, as well as for worldwide law. The case created the basis for the power of judicial review by the judicial branch in the United States under the Constitution, specifically under Article III. This case also demonstrated the first time in Western history where a court nullified a law by pronouncing it unconstitutional, a process which is now called judicial review. The decision helped create and define the checks and balances found in American Government. The case came out from a petition by William Marbury to the Supreme, who had been appointed as the Justice of Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams. However, the commission was not subsequently delivered to Marbury. Marbury then proceeded by asked the Supreme Court to force James Madison, the Secretary of State to deliver the documents. However, Justice William Paterson along with the Court and Chief Justice John Marshall denied the petition. Instead, the Court held that specific provision found in the Judiciary Act of 1789 which allowed William Marbury to bring forth his claim regarding the petition to the Supreme Court unconstitutional, because the act tried to extend the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the point which was established by Article III of the constitution.

Anthony McLeod Kennedy is current Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and was appointed in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan. After the retirement of Sandra Day O’Connor, Justice Kennedy is often the swing vote on many cases that are politically charged split opinions. 

Anthony Kennedy was born Sacramento, California as the son of Anthony J. Kennedy, an well-known attorney who had a reputation for having a strong influence in the legislature of California, and Gladys McLeod, an active participant in many civic activities locally. Because of his parents, Anthony Kennedy was often around prominent politicians like the California Governor or later the U.S. Chief Justice. Anthony Kennedy graduated in 1954 from C. K. McClatchy High School and then graduated from Stanford University in 1958, receiving a B.A. in Political Science. Kennedy then went on Harvard Law School, where he earned an LL.B and graduated cum laude in 1961.

Anthony Kennedy first went into private practice 1961 to 1963, and then took over his father’s practice in from 1963 to 1975. He also taught Constitutional Law at McGeorge School of Law from 1965 to 1988. Throughout his career, he has also served on the California Army National Guard, the board of the Federal Judicial Center, committees in the Judicial Conference of the United States, as well as the Committee on Pacific Territories. Anthony Kennedy was later nominated by President Ford to a seat on the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on March 20, 1975, receiving his commission four days later.  

Anthony Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court and was confirmed by the Senate by a unanimous vote of 97 to 0 on February 3, 1988, and received his commission eight days later. As a Justice, Kennedy has had a somewhat confusing ideological path and tends to examine cases individually rather than sticking to one particular ideology. He, along with Sandra Day O’Conner, acted as the swing votes in many split decisions during the Roberts and Rehnquist votes.  Kennedy has often supported adding more substance to all liberty interests that are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

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 Anthony Kennedy 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.  The plurality also described the importance of standing by previous decisions even if they seemed unpopular, unless a change in the fundamental reasoning of the previous decision had occurred. It went further on to describe the rejection of the separate but equal idea concept as the correct reason for the court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education court’s where they rejected the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000): A Supreme Court case that looked at a Nebraska law that illegalized partial-birth abortion, except when it would save the mother’s life. The Supreme Court struck down the law, and found that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as interpreted in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Justice Anthony Kennedy dissented and claimed that the law was allowed based on precedent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey because it allowed a certain extend of prenatal life preservation. He also went on to describe what he felt was an alternative to partial-birth abortion which was constitutionally protected.

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. The majority decision, which included Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that intimate consensual sexual conduct was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The decision invalidated similar laws in the country that criminalized sodomy between consenting heterosexual and homosexual adults in private. 

Salmon P. Chase was an American jurist and politician who served as the United States Senator from Ohio as well as the 23rd Governor of the State of Ohio. He also acted as the United States Treasury Secretary during the Lincoln administration and most notably, as the sixth Chief Justice for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Salmon P. Chase was born in Cornish, New Hampshire. He received his primary education in the common schools of Worthington, Ohio and Windsor, Vermont, and then attended Cincinnati College prior to entering the third year class at Dartmouth College. In 1826, he graduated from Dartmouth and then moved to the District of Columbia, where he began his studies in law under United States Attorney General William Wirt. Chase was accepted into the bar in 1829.

The next year, Salmon P. Chase moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, where he soon gained a role of prominence at the bar. Chase published an annotated version of the Ohio laws that was considered a standard for many years. In 1835, his first wife died, causing a spiritual reawakening and passion for causes more associated with his religious beliefs, such as abolition. Salmon was very well known for his anti-slavery stance and was nicknamed the Attorney General for fugitive slaves.

In October 1864, President Lincoln mentioned named Salmon P. Chase as to replace Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, who had died that month. President Lincoln issued on the justice nomination on December 6, and Chase was confirmed the same day by the Senate. Chase held this office from 1864 until his death in 1873. Unlike his predecessor, Salmon P. Chase did not hold a pro-slavery stance, and one of his first acts as the Chief Justice was to allow John Rock to argue cases before the Supreme Court as the first African-American attorney.

As Chief Justice, Salmon P. Chase presided at President Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial in 1868. Some of his other important decisions as the Chief Justice included the following: 

This was a significant case which involved a claim made by the Reconstruction government of Texas. They had stated that United States bonds which were owned by Texas since 1850 had actually been illegally sold during the Civil War by the Confederate state legislature. The state filed the suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, who had original jurisdiction.

The court ruled that the state of Texas had remained a state ever since joining the Union, despite joining the Confederate States and having military rule during the decision in the case. The court decided that the Constitution did not allow states to unilaterally secede, and that the secession ordinances, and all legislative acts within these states intended to reinforce the ordinances, were “absolutely null. Salmon P. Chase asserted that U.S. Constitution created a permanent union, made of indestructible states that could have some divisibility through the States’ consent or through revolution. 

The Chief Justice was a part of the majority opinion which stated that Congress had the power to pass act on July 13, 1866, that imposed a 10% tax on notes of state banks, state banking associations, and private persons.

Salmon P. Chase spoke for the court as Chief Justice and declared certain portions of the legal tender acts as unconstitutional. This included the greenback issuance, which Chase was personally responsible for overseeing when he was Secretary of the Treasury. The decision in this case was specifically overruled later by Knox v. Lee and the other Legal Tender Cases, in which Salmon P. Chase strongly dissented.

Antonin Scalia is an American jurist and a current Justice of the United States Supreme. As the current longest-serving justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan. 

Antonin Scalia was born in Trenton, New Jersey but went to school in New York. He received his undergraduate degree at Georgetown University and later received his Bachelor of Laws from Harvard Law School. After working six years in a Cleveland law firm, Scalia became a law school professor. He served in the both the Nixon and Ford administrations, ultimately as the assistant attorney general. In 1986, Antonin Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by Regan. Antonin Scalia was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, and took his place in the Supreme Court on September 26, 1986.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia has shown a very conservative ideology in many of opinions, emphasizing originalism in interpreting the Constitution and textualism in statutory interpretation. Scalia strongly defends the powers of the executive branch, and holds that presidential power should be powerful in many aspects. Scalia also opposes affirmative action and policies that look at minorities as groups. 

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 Antonin Scalia as well as Justice Rehnquist joined the plurality and upheld the parental consent, waiting period, and informed consent laws. However, both of them joined a concurring dissent and felt that Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided, and that the spousal notification law should have been struck down. 

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. The concurring opinion made by Chief Justice Rehnquist was joined by Justices Scalia. It started by emphasizing that this particular case was unusual since the Constitution required federal courts to decide if a state Supreme Court has correctly interpreted the state legislature’s will. After discussing this aspect of the case, the dissent examined and supported the arguments made by the judges who dissented in the Florida Supreme Court.

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 Antonin Scalia dissented, and was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Justice Scalia objected to the decision to revisit the Bowers v. Hardwick case, stating that there were many decisions afterwards from lower courts that could be affected, including Williams v. Pryor, Holmes v. California Army National Guard, and Owens v. State. Justice Scalia also pointed out that the justification behind overturning the first case could have been easily used to overturn Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, Justice Antonin Scalia also suggested that other state laws against same-sex marriage, bigamy, adult incest, masturbation, prostitution, adultery, bestiality, fornication, and obscenity are only sustainable with Bowers v. Hardwick’s validation.

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. The Supreme Court’s majority rule held that the U.S. Constitution did not specific prohibit narrowly tailored use of race by the school in admissions to promote a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits that result from a diverse student body. Justice Antonin Scalia joined Chief Justice Rehnquist’s dissent which argued school’s admissions policy, saying it tried to achieve an unconstitutional racial balancing. Justice Scalia also joined Justice Thomas in an opinion, partially concurring and dissenting which argued that if the school could not remain a prestigious institution while admitting students though a race-neutral system, the school should be forced to decide between a classroom aesthetic and exclusionary admissions.

Rasul v. Bush (2004): A landmark Supreme Court decision that established that the United States court system has the explicit authority to make decisions about whether foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay were considered wrongfully imprisoned. The 6-3 Supreme Court ruling reversed a previous District Court that held that the Judiciary did not have any jurisdiction in deciding wrongful imprisonment cases which involved foreign nationals held in Guantanamo Bay.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent, which was joined by Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist. Justice Antonin Scalia also discussed the intention of jurisdiction by saying that the Constitution needed jurisdiction so that an American citizen who had the protection of the Constitution could have some way of vindicating these rights.

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.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion that tried to differentiate the Court’s decision from the recent results of the cases United States v. Morrison and United States v. Lopez. Although Antonin Scalia voted in favor of limiting the Commerce Clause in these previous decisions, Scalia felt that his interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution resulted in him voting in favor of Raich. This was because Scalia felt that Congress could only regulate non-economic intrastate activities when not doing so could potentially undercut the interstate regulation of the activity. 

Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and the second African American to serve. Succeeding Thurgood Marshall, Thomas is the second African American to serve as an Associate Justice on the Court. Clarence Thomas was born on June 23, 1948, and grew up in Georgia. He attended the College of the Holy Cross where he graduated cum laude with an A.B. in English literature. He went on to attend Yale Law School where he received his law degree in 1974.

As a Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas has taken a very textualist approach to legislative interpretation, working to uphold the original meaning of the Constitution as well as the original meaning of statutes. Clarence Thomas is generally looked at as one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court. He has very often approached issues of federalism in a way that limits the federal government’s power while expanding the power of local and state governments. Meanwhile, Clarence Thomas’s opinions have typically suggested a powerful role for the executive branch within the federal government.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995): A Supreme Court case that stated that racial classifications that were imposed by the federal government needed to be analyzed under the standard of strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the most critical level of review which states that racial classifications must be narrowly tailored in order to further compelling interests by the government. The majority opinion of the court, which included Justice Clarence Thomas, effectively overturned the precedent set by Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC (1990), where the Court had made a two-tiered system to analyze racial classifications. Adarand held the federal government to equal standards as both the local and state governments by using a process of “reverse incorporation,” where the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment was used to bind the federal government to equal standards as the local and state governments are bound under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

Romer v. Evans (1996): A landmark Supreme Court decision regarding state laws and civil rights. The case was the first to deal with LGBT rights after Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), a case where the Supreme Court had ruled that a Georgia law that criminalized homosexual sex was constitutional. Romer v. Evans dealt with an amendment made to the Colorado state constitution which was passed by Colorado voters in a referendum that could have to prevent any town, county, or city in the state from taking any judicial, executive, or legislative action to recognize homosexual citizens as a protected class. A trial court issued an injunction against the amendment. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that it was subject to “strict scrutiny” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The state trial court concluded that it could not pass strict scrutiny, and the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with this upon review. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the amendment did not pass strict scrutiny or even the rational basis test in a 6-3 decision. The decision set a precedent that was used in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where the Supreme Court overruled its previous court decision in Bowers. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist in a dissent, which argued that the amendment did not deny access to the political process to homosexuals, but rather it simply made it more challenging to enact laws that were favorable to the minority. The dissent continued by saying that the majority decision completely contradicted the decision made in Bowers v. Hardwick.

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 charges 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. While Justice Clarence Thomas was in the majority, he also had a concurring opinion which expressed concern about Congress appropriating state police powers under the name of commerce regulation.

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. Justice Clarence Thomas joined Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurring opinion, which emphasized that this specific case was unusual than others since the Constitution required the federal courts to decide if a state Supreme Court had correctly interpreted the state legislature’s will. After analyzing this aspect of the case, the concurring opinion then examined and supported the arguments which were made by the judges who dissented in the Florida Supreme Court.

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. The Supreme Court’s majority rule held that the U.S. Constitution did not specifically prohibit narrowly tailored use of race by the school in admissions to promote a compelling interest in obtaining educational benefits that result from a diverse student body. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion was partially concurring and dissenting and argued that if the school could not remain a prestigious institution while admitting students though a race-neutral system, the school should be forced to decide between a classroom aesthetic and exclusionary admissions. He also agreed with the dissent which felt a sense of disbelief in the validity of the claim made by the law school that the system used in admissions was needed to provide a diverse educational environment and create a critical mass of minority students.

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 Clarence Thomas joined Justice Scalia’s dissent, which objected to the decision to relook at the Bowers v. Hardwick case since there were many lower court decisions that could be affected. Justice Scalia also looked at the justification behind overturning the Bowers v. Hardwick and felt that these reasons could have also been used to overturn Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the dissent suggested that other state laws against could become only sustainable with the validation of this previous case, such as same-sex marriage, bigamy, incest, masturbation, prostitution, bestiality, and obscenity. In a separate short dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the law which was struck down by the court was silly, but because he could not find any relevant liberty or general right to privacy in the Constitution, he felt he had to uphold the law. Justice Thomas also mentioned that if he were a part of the Texas Legislature, he would have voted to repeal the sodomy law. However, he also did not feel that the plaintiffs had the standing to bring the case before the Court.

Georgia v. Randolph (2006): A Supreme Court case the Court held that the police did not have a constitutional right to search a house when one resident consented while the other resident objects to the search unless the police have a search warrant. The Supreme Court distinguished this particular case from the precedent established in United States v. Matlock (1974) regarding the “co-occupant consent rule”, which allowed one resident to consent in the absence of the other co-occupant. The case of Georgia v. Randolph was a good example of the continuing competition between proponents of the Living Constitution and Originalist philosophies that are applicable in United States jurisprudence and in the Supreme Court. The Court decided in a 5-3 majority opinion that a co-resident could refuse to give consent to a police search, even when another resident consented, specifically when such an evidentiary seizure is most likely lawful with one occupant’s permission when the other occupant, who seeks to suppress the evidence later, is currently present at the scene and explicitly refuses to consent. In these circumstances, a co-occupant who is physically present can refuse to allow entry, which makes the warrantless search invalid and unreasonable. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and stated that would reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia.

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007): A case in the Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the Supreme Court after Alberto Gonzales, the U.S. Attorney General appealed a ruling of in favor of LeRoy Carhart by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that went against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The majority decision by the Supreme Court, which included Justice Clarence Thomas, upheld Congress’s ban and stated that the act did not impose any sort of undue burden on a woman’s due process right to get an abortion. The opinion also stated that the respondents were unable to show that the U.S. Congress lacked the authority to ban the abortion procedure. This case was broadly interpreted as showing a shift in Supreme Court jurisprudence toward more restrictive abortion rights, partly due to Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement and Samuel Alito acting as her replacement.  Justice Clarence Thomas also filed a concurring opinion which briefly discussed whether Congress had the power to enact this ban under the Commerce Clause. The concurring opinion also stated that Justices Thomas joined the majority opinion because it correctly applied current jurisprudence, although the current abortion jurisprudence did not have a basis in the Constitution.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): A landmark 5–4 decision by the Supreme Court which held that the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the government from censoring any political broadcasts in candidate elections even if those broadcasts are funded entirely by corporations or unions. This Supreme court decision originated in an argument regarding whether Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, had the right to air a film which was critical of Hillary Clinton as well as whether the corporation could advertise the film as a broadcast ad which would feature Hillary Clinton’s image, which was an apparent violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

The case reached the Supreme Court from a 2008 case that was appealed from the District of Columbia District Court. The district court’s decision had allowed the provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform act of 2002, which prevented the featuring Hillary Clinton from being televised within 30 days of Democratic primaries of 2008. The United States Supreme Court reversed the previous decision of the lower court, striking down the provisions of the 2008 act that barred all corporations, including not-for-profit and for-profit corporations as well as and unions from broadcasting any electioneering communications such as a cable, satellite, or broadcast communication which mentioned a candidate in a 60 day period before a general election or 30 days before a primary.

Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority opinion, which stated that the prohibition of all independent expenditures made by both the unions and corporations was invalid and thus was not applicable to spending such as that in the movie. Furthermore, since there was no way to tell apart the media and other corporations, the restrictions could allow Congress to potentially suppress political speech found in books, television, blogs, or newspapers.

Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent where he stated that he would have struck down reporting requirements instead of challenging them on a case-by-case basis in order to protect anonymity for contributions that went to organizations that exercised free speech. The argument for this was that anonymous free speech would be protected, but contributor public lists could subject contributors to retaliation.