William Rufus Day (April 17, 1849 – July 9, 1923) was an American diplomat and jurist, who served for nineteen years as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Prior to his service on the Supreme Court, Day served as the 36th United States Secretary of State during the administration of President William McKinley and also served as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Circuit Courts for the Sixth Circuit.
Contents
1Education and career
2Court of Appeals and Circuit Courts service
3Supreme Court service
3.1Notable cases
3.2Baseball
4Retirement and death
5Family
6Selected opinions authored by Day
7See also
8References
9Sources
10External links
Education and career
Day was born in Ravenna, Ohio,[1] one of the children of Emily (Spaulding) Day and Judge Luther Day of the Ohio Supreme Court.[2] He graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Michigan in 1870,[1] spent a year studying law with attorney and judge George F. Robinson,[3] and then a year at the University of Michigan Law School.[1] He was admitted to the bar in 1872 and settled in Canton, Ohio, where he began practicing law[1] in partnership with William A. Lynch.[2] For twenty-five years, Day worked as a criminal defense and corporate lawyer in the growing industrial town while participating in Republican politics.[2]
During these years, Day became a good friend of William McKinley.[2] Day became McKinleys legal and political adviser during McKinleys candidacies for the Congress, the Governorship of Ohio, and the Presidency of the United States.[2] After he won the Presidency, McKinley appointed Day to be Assistant Secretary of State under Secretary of State John Sherman.[1] Sherman was considered to be ineffective because of declining health and failing memory,[2] and in 1898, President McKinley replaced Sherman with Day.[1]
Five months later, Day vacated his cabinet position to helm the United States Peace Commission formed to negotiate an end to the Spanish–American War with Spain.[4] After the Spanish–American War was declared, Day had argued that the Spanish colonies, other than Cuba, should be returned to Spain, contrary to McKinleys decision that the United States should take over from Spain control of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam.[3] Day, however, negotiated peace with Spain on McKinleys harsher terms.[3] His final diplomatic effort was to lead the United States Peace Commission into Paris, France and sign the Treaty of Paris ending the war.[3] He was succeeded at the Department of State by John Hay.[3]
Court of Appeals and Circuit Courts service
Day received a recess appointment from President Benjamin Harrison to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on May 24, 1889, but declined the appointment.[1]
Day was nominated by President William McKinley on February 25, 1899, to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Circuit Courts for the Sixth Circuit, to a new joint seat authorized by 30 Stat. 803.[1] He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 28, 1899, and received his commission the same day.[1] His service terminated on February 23, 1903, due to his elevation to the Supreme Court.[1]
Supreme Court service
McKinley was assassinated in September 1901 and the Vice President, Theodore Roosevelt succeeded him as president.[5] In 1903, George Shiras Jr. resigned from the United States Supreme Court and Roosevelt offered his Associate Justice position to William Howard Taft.[5] Taft declined in order to remain in his post as governor of the Philippines.[5] In February, Roosevelt nominated Day, who accepted.[5] The United States Senate confirmed the nomination on February 23, 1903, and Day received his commission the same day.[5] He assumed his seat on March 2, 1903.[1] He served as Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit from March 9, 1903, to March 17, 1912, and as Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit from March 18, 1912, to November 13, 1922.[1]
Notable cases
Day wrote 439 opinions during his tenure on the court, of which only 18 were dissents.[5] He distrusted large corporations and voted with antitrust majorities throughout his time on the court.[5] He sided with the government in the Standard Oil, American Tobacco, and Union Pacific cases in 1911 and 1912 and again in the Southern Pacific case in 1922.[5]
Day delivered the opinion of the Court in Weeks v. United States, where the highest Court ruled that the warrantless seizure of documents from a private home violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in this manner is excluded from use in federal criminal prosecutions.
Baseball
Day was an avid baseball fan.[6] He is recorded as asking his clerk for "regular updates" during the bench hearing of Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States about the final game of the 1912 World Series.[7]
Retirement and death
Day retired from the court on November 13, 1922,[1] and briefly served as an Umpire of the Mixed Claims Commission to Adjudicate War Claims against Germany.[1] He died on July 9, 1923, on Mackinac Island in Michigan, aged 74.[1] He was interred at West Lawn Cemetery in Canton.[8]
Family
Mary Elizabeth Schaefer
In 1875, Day married Mary Elizabeth Schaefer.[2] They were married until her death in 1912, and were the parents of four sons – William, Rufus, Stephen, and Luther.[2]
Selected opinions authored by Day
Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 (1908) – held that contracts for the sales of cotton for future delivery that do not oblige interstate shipments are not subjects of interstate commerce
Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339 (1908) – helped establish "first-sale doctrine" in United States copyright law
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911) – held that there must be an actual controversy between parties for the Federal courts to have jurisdiction
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911) – held privilege of operating in corporate form usine justifies imposition of an income tax
Bauer & Cie. v. ODonnell, 229 U.S. 1 (1913) – held that patent rights could not be extended by the holder by means of a licensing agreement
Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) – held that exclusionary rule is applicable to the federal government for violations of the Fourth Amendment
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917) – held that municipal ordinances segregating neighborhoods were unconstitutional
Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918) – held that laws regulating child labor are beyond the scope of Congresss constitutional power under the commerce clause
See also
List of Justices of the United States Supreme Court
References
William Rufus Day at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
Cushman, Clare, The Supreme Court Historical Society, ed. (2012). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies. CQ Press: Thousand Oaks, CA. pp. 263–265. ISBN 978-1-6087-1833-7 – via Google Books.
Mihalkanin, Edward S., ed. (2004). American Statesmen: Secretaries of State from John Jay to Colin Powell. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. pp. 149–159. ISBN 978-0-3133-0828-4 – via Google Books.
"William Rufus Day". law.jrank.org.
"Profile: The Honorable William R. Day". MILaw. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Law School. Retrieved August 8, 2019.
Ross E. Davies. "A Crank on the Court: The Passion of Justice William R. Day". SSRN 1555017.
The First Fall Classic (2009), ISBN 978-0-385-52624-1, Mike Vaccaro, page 233
Moore, Gay Morgan (2009). Postcard History Series: Canton. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-7385-6029-8 – via Google Books.
Sources
William Rufus Day at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a public domain publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party".[2] The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law.[3] However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions.
Established by Article Three of the United States Constitution, the composition and procedures of the Supreme Court were initially established by the 1st Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789. As later set by the Judiciary Act of 1869, the Court consists of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices. Each justice has lifetime tenure, meaning they remain on the Court until they resign, retire, die, or are removed from office.[4] When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice. Each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases argued before it. When in majority, the chief justice decides who writes the opinion of the court; otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the task of writing the opinion.
The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Its law enforcement arm is the Supreme Court Police.
Contents
1History
1.1Earliest beginnings through Marshall
1.2From Taney to Taft
1.3New Deal era
1.4Warren and Burger
1.5Rehnquist and Roberts
2Composition
2.1Nomination, confirmation, and appointment
2.1.1Recess appointments
2.2Tenure
2.3Size of the court
3Membership
3.1Current justices
3.1.1Length of tenure
3.2Court demographics
3.3Retired justices
3.4Seniority and seating
3.5Salary
3.6Judicial leanings
4Facilities
5Jurisdiction
5.1Justices as circuit justices
6Process
6.1Case selection
6.2Oral argument
6.3Supreme Court bar
6.4Decision
6.5Published opinions
6.5.1Citations to published opinions
7Institutional powers and constraints
8Law clerks
8.1Politicization of the Court
9Criticism
9.1Judicial activism
9.2Individual rights
9.3Power excess
9.4Courts are a poor check on executive power
9.5Federal versus state power
9.6Secretive proceedings
9.7Judicial interference in political disputes
9.8Not choosing enough cases to review
9.9Lifetime tenure
9.10Accepting gifts and outside income
10See also
10.1Landmark Supreme Court decisions (selection)
11References
11.1Citations
11.2Bibliography
12Further reading
13External links
History
Main article: History of the Supreme Court of the United States
It was while debating the separation of powers between the legislative and executive departments that delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention established the parameters for the national judiciary. Creating a "third branch" of government was a novel idea; in the English tradition, judicial matters had been treated as an aspect of royal (executive) authority. Early on, the delegates who were opposed to having a strong central government argued that national laws could be enforced by state courts, while others, including James Madison, advocated for a national judicial authority consisting of various tribunals chosen by the national legislature. It was also proposed that the judiciary should have a role in checking the executives power to veto or revise laws. In the end, the framers compromised by sketching only a general outline of the judiciary, vesting federal judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish".[5][6] They delineated neither the exact powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court nor the organization of the judicial branch as a whole.
The Royal Exchange, New York City, the first meeting place of the Supreme Court
The 1st United States Congress provided the detailed organization of a federal judiciary through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court, the countrys highest judicial tribunal, was to sit in the nations Capital and would initially be composed of a chief justice and five associate justices. The act also divided the country into judicial districts, which were in turn organized into circuits. Justices were required to "ride circuit" and hold circuit court twice a year in their assigned judicial district.[7]
Immediately after signing the act into law, President George Washington nominated the following people to serve on the court: John Jay for chief justice and John Rutledge, William Cushing, Robert H. Harrison, James Wilson, and John Blair Jr. as associate justices. All six were confirmed by the Senate on September 26, 1789. Harrison, however, declined to serve. In his place, Washington later nominated James Iredell.[8]
The Supreme Court held its inaugural session from February 2 through February 10, 1790, at the Royal Exchange in New York City, then the U.S. capital.[9] A second session was held there in August 1790.[10] The earliest sessions of the court were devoted to organizational proceedings, as the first cases did not reach it until 1791.[7] When the nations capital was moved to Philadelphia in 1790, the Supreme Court did so as well. After initially meeting at Independence Hall, the Court established its chambers at City Hall.[11]
Earliest beginnings through Marshall
Main articles: Jay Court, Rutledge Court, Ellsworth Court, and Marshall Court
Chief Justice Marshall (1801–1835)
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving procedure.[12] As the Court initially had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to two).[13] However, Congress has always allowed less than the courts full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four justices in 1789.[14] The court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,[15] a situation not helped by the eras highest-profile case, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which was reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment.[16]
The courts power and prestige grew substantially during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[17] Under Marshall, the court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress,[18] including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[19][20] and making several important constitutional rulings that gave shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and states (notably, Martin v. Hunters Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[21][22][23][24]
The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[25] a remnant of British tradition,[26] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[25] Also during Marshalls tenure, although beyond the Courts control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804–05 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[27][28]
From Taney to Taft
Main articles: Taney Court, Chase Court, Waite Court, Fuller Court, White Court, and Taft Court
The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[29] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[30] which helped precipitate the Civil War.[31] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[24] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[32] Adair v. United States).[33]
Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[34] grappled with the new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States), upheld the constitutionality of military conscription (Selective Draft Law Cases)[35] and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v. Childrens Hospital).[36]
New Deal era
Main articles: Hughes Court, Stone Court, and Vinson Court
The Court seated
The Hughes Court in 1937, photographed by Erich Salomon. Members include Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes (center), Louis Brandeis, Benjamin N. Cardozo, Harlan Stone, Owen Roberts, and the "Four Horsemen" Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter, who opposed New Deal policies.
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the Court gained its own accommodation in 1935[37] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelts New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler).[38][39][40] During World War II, the Court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.
Warren and Burger
Main articles: Warren Court and Burger Court
The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[41] It held that segregation in public schools violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe and Green v. County School Bd.)[42] and that legislative districts must be roughly equal in population (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[43] limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp),[44][45] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[46][47]—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona).[48] At the same time, however, the Court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.[49]
The Burger Court (1969–1986) marked a conservative shift.[50] It also expanded Griswolds right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade),[51] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)[52] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo).[53] It also wavered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[54] but later, that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[54][55][56]
Rehnquist and Roberts
Main articles: Rehnquist Court and Roberts Court
Justices of the Supreme Court with President George W. Bush (center), October 2005.
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[57] emphasizing the limits of the Constitutions affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[58][59][60][61][62] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[63] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roes restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[64] The Courts decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, was especially controversial.[65][66]
The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[67][68][69][70] Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Twombly-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[71] climate change (Massachusetts v. EPA), same-sex marriage (United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges) and the Bill of Rights, notably in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[72] Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment)[73] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment).[74][75]
Composition
Nomination, confirmation, and appointment
Main article: Nomination and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Appointments Clause, empowers the president to nominate and, with the confirmation (advice and consent) of the United States Senate, to appoint public officials, including justices of the Supreme Court. This clause is one example of the system of checks and balances inherent in the Constitution. The president has the plenary power to nominate, while the Senate possesses the plenary power to reject or confirm the nominee. The Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, thus a president may nominate anyone to serve, and the Senate may not set any qualifications or otherwise limit who the president can choose.[76]
Flowchart showing process of appointment of United States Supreme Court justices.
In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the groups views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committees practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[77] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork, nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987.
Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, prior to 2017 a nomination could be blocked by filibuster once debate had begun in the full Senate. President Lyndon B. Johnsons nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice in 1968 was the first successful filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. It included both Republican and Democratic senators concerned with Fortass ethics. President Donald Trumps nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the seat left vacant by Antonin Scalias death was the second. Unlike the Fortas filibuster, however, only Democratic Senators voted against cloture on the Gorsuch nomination, citing his perceived conservative judicial philosophy, and the Republican majoritys prior refusal to take up President Barack Obamas nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.[78] This led the Republican majority to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations.[79]
Not every Supreme Court nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. A president may withdraw a nomination before an actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee; this occurred most recently with President George W. Bushs nomination of Harriet Miers in 2005. The Senate may also fail to act on a nomination, which expires at the end of the session. For example, President Dwight Eisenhowers first nomination of John Marshall Harlan II in November 1954 was not acted on by the Senate; Eisenhower re-nominated Harlan in January 1955, and Harlan was confirmed two months later. Most recently, as previously noted, the Senate failed to act on the March 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland; the nomination expired in January 2017, and the vacancy was filled by Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Trump.[80]
Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[81] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[82] The importance of commissioning is underscored by the case of Edwin M. Stanton. Although appointed to the court on December 19, 1869, by President Ulysses S. Grant and confirmed by the Senate a few days later, Stanton died on December 24, prior to receiving his commission. He is not, therefore, considered to have been an actual member of the court.
Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[83] According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).[84][85]
Recess appointments
When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and eleven associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.[86]
No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts.[87] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a "sense of the Senate" resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in "unusual circumstances".[88] Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congresss views in the hope of guiding executive action.[88][89]
The Supreme Courts 2014 decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning limited the ability of the President to make recess appointments (including appointments to the Supreme Court); the Court ruled that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session (or in recess). Writing for the Court, Justice Breyer stated, "We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business."[90] This ruling allows the Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of pro-forma sessions.[91]
Tenure
The interior of the United States Supreme Court
The interior of the United States Supreme Court
The Constitution provides that justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign, or retire.[92] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[93] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized in 1969), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.[94]
Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis F. Powell Jr. and William Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations, such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyers nomination in 1994 to succeed Harry Blackmun and the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 to fill the seat of Sandra Day OConnor (though Roberts nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for the role of chief justice after Rehnquist died).
Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Likewise, Zachary Taylor died 16 months after taking office, but his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Andrew Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a reduction in the size of the court. Jimmy Carter is the only person elected president to have left office after at least one full term without having the opportunity to appoint a justice. Presidents James Monroe, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush each served a full term without an opportunity to appoint a justice, but made appointments during their subsequent terms in office. No president who has served more than one full term has gone without at least one opportunity to make an appointment.
Size of the court
Article III of the Constitution sets neither the size of the Supreme Court nor any specific positions on it (though the existence of the office of the chief justice is tacitly acknowledged in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Instead, these powers have typically been entrusted to Congress, which initially established a six-member Supreme Court composed of a chief justice and five associate justices through the Judiciary Act of 1789. The size of the Court was first altered by an 1801 act which would have reduced the size of the court to five members upon its next vacancy, but an 1802 act promptly negated the 1801 act, legally restoring the courts size to six members before any such vacancy occurred. As the nations boundaries grew across the continent and as Supreme Court justices in those days had to ride the circuit, an arduous process requiring long travel on horseback or carriage over harsh terrain that resulted in months-long extended stays away from home, Congress added justices to correspond with the growth: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.[95][96]
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase and in an attempt to limit the power of Andrew Johnson, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[97] where it has since remained.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned the appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to "pack" the Court with justices who would support Roosevelts New Deal.[98] The plan, usually called the "court-packing plan", failed in Congress after members of Roosevelts own Democratic Party believed it to be unconstitutional, it was defeated 70-20 in the United States Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee reported that it was "essential to the continuance of our constitutional democracy" that the proposal "be so emphatically rejected that its parallel will never again be presented to the free representatives of the free people of America.”[99][100][101][102] It remains unclear whether it would be at all constitutional or not to expand the size of the Supreme Court in ways understood to be designed to "pack" it with justices that would rule more favorably on a Presidents agenda or to simply change the ideological composition of the court.[103][104]
Membership
See also: List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
Current justices
There are currently nine justices on the Supreme Court: Chief Justice John Roberts and eight associate justices. Among the current members of the Court, Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving justice, with a tenure of 10,794 days (29 years, 201 days) as of May 12, 2021; the most recent justice to join the court is Amy Coney Barrett, whose tenure began on October 27, 2020.[105]
Current justices of the Supreme Court[106]
Justice /
birthdate and placeAppointed bySCVAge atStart date /
length of servicePrevious position or office
(most recent prior to joining the Court)Succeeded
StartPresent
File-Official roberts CJ cropped.jpgJohn Roberts
January 27, 1955
Buffalo, New YorkG. W. Bush78–225066September 29, 2005
15 years, 225 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2003–2005)Rehnquist
Clarence Thomas official SCOTUS portrait (cropped).jpgClarence Thomas
June 23, 1948
Pin Point, GeorgiaG. H. W. Bush52–484372October 23, 1991
29 years, 201 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (1990–1991)Marshall
Stephen Breyer official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpgStephen Breyer
August 15, 1938
San Francisco, CaliforniaClinton87–95582August 3, 1994
26 years, 282 daysChief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1990–1994)Blackmun
Samuel Alito official photo (cropped).jpgSamuel Alito
April 1, 1950
Trenton, New JerseyG. W. Bush58–425571January 31, 2006
15 years, 101 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990–2006)OConnor
Sonia Sotomayor in SCOTUS robe crop.jpgSonia Sotomayor
June 25, 1954
The Bronx, New YorkObama68–315566August 8, 2009
11 years, 277 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1998–2009)Souter
Elena Kagan-1-1.jpgElena Kagan
April 28, 1960
Manhattan, New YorkObama63–375061August 7, 2010
10 years, 278 daysSolicitor General of the United States (2009–2010)Stevens
Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch Official Portrait (cropped 2).jpgNeil Gorsuch
August 29, 1967
Denver, ColoradoTrump54–454953April 10, 2017
4 years, 32 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (2006–2017)Scalia
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh Official Portrait.jpgBrett Kavanaugh
February 12, 1965
Washington, D.C.Trump50–485356October 6, 2018
2 years, 218 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (2006–2018)Kennedy
Amy Coney Barrett.pngAmy Coney Barrett
January 28, 1972
New Orleans, LouisianaTrump52–484849October 27, 2020
197 daysJudge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2017–2020)Ginsburg
Length of tenure
This graphical timeline depicts the length of each current Supreme Court justices tenure (not seniority) on the Court:
Court demographics
Further information: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States
The Court currently has six male and three female justices. Among the nine justices, there is one African-American justice (Justice Thomas) and one Hispanic justice (Justice Sotomayor). One of the justices was born to at least one immigrant parent: Justice Alitos father was born in Italy.[107][108]
At least six justices are Roman Catholics and two are Jewish. It is unclear whether Neil Gorsuch considers himself a Catholic or an Episcopalian.[109] Historically, most justices have been Protestants, including 36 Episcopalians, 19 Presbyterians, 10 Unitarians, 5 Methodists, and 3 Baptists.[110][111] The first Catholic justice was Roger Taney in 1836,[112] and 1916 saw the appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis.[113] In recent years the historical situation has reversed, as most recent justices have been either Catholic or Jewish.
All current justices except for Amy Coney Barrett have Ivy League backgrounds as either undergraduates or law students. Barrett received her bachelors degree at Rhodes College and her law degree at the University of Notre Dame.[114] Three justices are from the state of New York, and one each is from California, New Jersey, Georgia, Colorado, Louisiana and Washington, D.C.[115][116]
The first four female justices: OConnor, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan.
For much of the Courts history, every justice was a man of Northwestern European descent, and almost always Protestant. Diversity concerns focused on geography, to represent all regions of the country, rather than religious, ethnic, or gender diversity.[117] Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the Court increased in the late 20th century. Thurgood Marshall became the first African-American justice in 1967.[113] Sandra Day OConnor became the first female justice in 1981.[113] In 1986, Antonin Scalia became the first Italian-American justice. Marshall was succeeded by African-American Clarence Thomas in 1991.[118] OConnor was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.[119] After OConnors retirement Ginsburg was joined in 2009 by Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic and Latina justice,[113] and in 2010 by Elena Kagan.[119] After Ginsburgs death on September 18, 2020, Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed as the fifth woman in the Courts history on October 26, 2020.
There have been six foreign-born justices in the Courts history: James Wilson (1789–1798), born in Caskardy, Scotland; James Iredell (1790–1799), born in Lewes, England; William Paterson (1793–1806), born in County Antrim, Ireland; David Brewer (1889–1910), born to American missionaries in Smyrna, Ottoman Empire (now Izmir, Turkey); George Sutherland (1922–1939), born in Buckinghamshire, England; and Felix Frankfurter (1939–1962), born in Vienna, Austria-Hungary (now in Austria).[113]
Retired justices
There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: Sandra Day OConnor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. As retired justices, they no longer participate in the work of the Supreme Court, but may be designated for temporary assignments to sit on lower federal courts, usually the United States Courts of Appeals. Such assignments are formally made by the chief justice, on request of the chief judge of the lower court and with the consent of the retired justice. In recent years, Justice OConnor has sat with several Courts of Appeals around the country, and Justice Souter has frequently sat on the First Circuit, the court of which he was briefly a member before joining the Supreme Court.
The status of a retired justice is analogous to that of a circuit or district court judge who has taken senior status, and eligibility of a Supreme Court justice to assume retired status (rather than simply resign from the bench) is governed by the same age and service criteria.
In recent times, justices tend to strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench with personal, institutional, ideological, partisan and sometimes even political factors playing a role.[120][121] The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Courts strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, especially in recent decades, many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a philosophically compatible president holding office, to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed.[122][123]
Retired justices of the Supreme Court[106]
Justice /
Birthdate and placeAppointed byRetired underAge atTenure
StartRetirementPresentStart dateEnd dateLength
Sandra Day OConnor crop.jpgSandra Day OConnor
March 26, 1930
El Paso, TexasReaganG. W. Bush517591September 25, 1981January 31, 200624 years, 128 days
Anthony Kennedy official SCOTUS portrait crop.jpgAnthony Kennedy
July 23, 1936
Sacramento, CaliforniaReaganTrump518284February 18, 1988July 31, 201830 years, 163 days
DavidSouter.jpgDavid Souter
September 17, 1939
Melrose, MassachusettsG. H. W. BushObama516981October 9, 1990June 29, 200918 years, 263 days
Seniority and seating
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Supreme Court of the United States" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The current Roberts Court justices (since October 2020):
Front row (left to right): Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Back row (left to right): Brett Kavanaugh, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett.
For the most part, the day-to-day activities of the justices are governed by rules of protocol based upon the seniority of justices. The chief justice always ranks first in the order of precedence—regardless of the length of their service. The associate justices are then ranked by the length of their service. The chief justice sits in the center on the bench, or at the head of the table during conferences. The other justices are seated in order of seniority. The senior-most associate justice sits immediately to the chief justices right; the second most senior sits immediately to their left. The seats alternate right to left in order of seniority, with the most junior justice occupying the last seat. Therefore, starting in the middle of the October 2020 term, the court will sit as follows from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the Court: Kavanaugh, Kagan, Alito, Thomas (most senior associate justice), Roberts (chief justice), Breyer, Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Likewise, when the members of the Court gather for official group photographs, justices are arranged in order of seniority, with the five most senior members seated in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions, and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions.
In the justices private conferences, current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority, beginning with the chief justice first and ending with the most junior associate justice. By custom, the most junior associate justice in these conferences is charged with any menial tasks the justices may require as they convene alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving beverages and transmitting orders of the court to the clerk.[124] Justice Joseph Story served the longest as junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice Stephen Breyer follows very closely behind serving from August 3, 1994, to January 31, 2006, for a total of 4,199 days.[125] Justice Elena Kagan comes in at a distant third serving from August 6, 2010, to April 10, 2017, for a total of 2,439 days.
Salary
Main article: Federal judge salaries in the United States
As of 2018, associate justices receive a yearly salary of $255,300 and the chief justice is paid $267,000 per year.[126] Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once a justice meets age and service requirements, the justice may retire. Judicial pensions are based on the same formula used for federal employees, but a justices pension, as with other federal courts judges, can never be less than their salary at the time of retirement.
Judicial leanings
Further information: Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices
Although justices are nominated by the president in power, and receive confirmation by the Senate, justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches. Jurists are, however, informally categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such leanings, however, generally refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative one. The nominations of justices are endorsed by individual politicians in the legislative branch who vote their approval[clarification needed] or disapproval of the nominated justice. The ideologies of jurists can be measured and compared with several metrics, including the Segal–Cover score, Martin-Quinn score, and Judicial Common Space score.[127][128]
Following the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020, the Court currently consists of six justices appointed by Republican presidents and three appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and associate justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett appointed by Republican presidents, compose the Courts conservative wing. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, appointed by Democratic presidents, compose the Courts liberal wing. Gorsuch had a track record as a reliably conservative judge in the 10th circuit.[129] Kavanaugh was considered one of the more conservative judges in the DC Circuit prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.[130][131] Likewise, Barretts brief track record on the Seventh Circuit is conservative.[132] Prior to Justice Ginsburgs death, Chief Justice Roberts was considered the Courts median justice (in the middle of the ideological spectrum, with four justices more liberal and four more conservative than him), making him the ideological center of the Court.[133][134]
Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions".[135] He pointed out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also pointed to several cases that defied the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[136] Goldstein further argued that the large number.
COUR SUPRÊME CHÈQUE SIGNÉ WILLIAM DAY AUTOGRAPHE 1880 usine
