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.

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.

Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr. is a current Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Samuel Alito was born in Trenton, New Jersey and raised in Hamilton Township, New Jersey. He received his undergraduate degree at Princeton University and his Juris Doctor at Yale Law School. Before becoming a Justice, he worked as New Jersey’s district Assistant U.S. Attorney, Assistant to Solicitor General Rex Lee, Deputy Assistant to Attorney General Edwin Meese, and the U.S. Attorney for the New Jersey district. He was nominated on February 20, 1990 by President George H. W. Bush to the Third Circuit  of the U.S. Court of appeals. In 2005, Samuel Alito then received President George W. Bush’s nomination for the Supreme Court.  He began serving on the court since January 31, 2006.

Throughout his first term, Samuel Alito voted rather conservatively, with his opinion aligning well with other conservative justices such as Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Scalia. This was seen particularly in the cases Garcetti v. Ceballos, Rapanos v. United States, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  However, many of his opinions have also diverged from this. In his first decision on the Supreme Court, Alito’s vote was in the 6-3 majority to refuse the request by Missouri to vacate the stay of execution that was issued by the 8th Circuit court for a death-row inmate. 

Furthermore, it seems that Samuel Alito believes that restrictions on an abortion procedure are constitutionally allowed, but he has not indicated a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade. His stance came into play in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart, which was a lawsuit that came out of the 2003 Partial-Birth Abortion Act which was passed by congress. A previous ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart stated that this ban was unconstitutional because it did not allow for an exception to be made if the mother’s health was in danger.   The Supreme Court handed down a ruling on April 18, 2007 with a five-justice majority opinion that stated that Congress had the power to overall ban the procedure, although the court allowed for certain challenges. Samuel Alito was a part of this majority while a concurring opinion was filed by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, which felt that prior court decisions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Roe v. Wade should be reversed and that Congress was overexerting its powers under the Commerce Clause. 

In the 2005 term, Samuel Alito’s views have differed from those of Justice Scalia much more significantly. Justice Scalia is very adamant on his reliance of legislative history when interpreting legislation and the Constitution. He was the only justice in Zedner v. United States to not join any section of Samuel Alito’s opinion which discussed the legislative history of the specific legislation in the case. In Randall v. Sorrell and LULAC v. Perry, two other significant cases that involved the constitutionality of campaign finance reform and political gerrymandering, Samuel Alito declined to join the stronger positions shown by either sides of the Supreme Court.

In the landmark 2007 case Morse v. Frederick which looked at free speech, Samuel Alito joined Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision stating that speech advocating drug use could be banned in public schools, but emphasized that the decision could not interfere with political speech, like a debate regarding medical marijuana.

A third influential majority opinion by Alito was in the Gomez-Perez v. Potter, a 2008 worker protection case that helped federal workers who dealt with retaliation after filing complaints of age discrimination. Alito sided with the more liberal Justices, and agreed with needed protection against this retaliation despite the explicit provision concerning retaliation not existing.

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.