DOCSLIB.ORG

Top of Page Interview Information--Different Title

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Top of Page Interview Information--Different Title Regional Oral History Office University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California Carl D. Lawson THE LAW CLERKS OF CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN: CARL D. LAWSON Interviews conducted by Laura McCreery in 2004 Copyright © 2015 by The Regents of the University of California Since 1954 the Regional Oral History Office has been interviewing leading participants in or well-placed witnesses to major events in the development of Northern California, the West, and the nation. Oral History is a method of collecting historical information through tape-recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. The tape recording is transcribed, lightly edited for continuity and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewee. The corrected manuscript is bound with photographs and illustrative materials and placed in The Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley, and in other research collections for scholarly use. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account, offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is reflective, partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ********************************* All uses of this manuscript are covered by a legal agreement between The Regents of the University of California and Carl D. Lawson dated December 17, 2004. The manuscript is thereby made available for research purposes. All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to The Bancroft Library of the University of California, Berkeley. Excerpts up to 1000 words from this interview may be quoted for publication without seeking permission as long as the use is non-commercial and properly cited. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to The Bancroft Library, Head of Public Services, Mail Code 6000, University of California, Berkeley, 94720-6000, and should follow instructions available online at http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ROHO/collections/cite.html It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Carl D. Lawson “THE LAW CLERKS OF CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN: CARL D. LAWSON” conducted by Laura McCreery in 2004 Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 2015. iii Table of Contents—Carl D. Lawson Interview 1: December 17, 2004 Audio File 1 1 Family Background — Early Education —Attending Harvard College — Attending Stanford Law School — Early Interest in Antitrust Law— Selected for clerkship at the Supreme Court — Clerking for Justice Stanley Forman Reed — Clerking for the Chief Justice — Relationships with other clerks — Recommendation of cert — The Chief Justice as a leadership figure — The Civil Rights Act and the Escobedo Case — The Chief Justice and California — The Miranda decision — Justice Thomas Campbell Clark — Relationship with other justices — Confidentiality — The Von’s Grocery Case — Oral arguments — Memos, opinions, and the Chief — Mrs. Margaret McHugh — Saturday lunches: Sports and politics — Personality of the Chief Justice — Role of the Supreme Court — Judicial activism — Later careers: antitrust law and the FCC — Relationship with the Chief Justice in later years [End of Interview] 1 Interview 1: December 17, 2004 Begin Audio File 1 McCreery: Tape one, on December 17, 2004. This is Laura McCreery speaking, and on this tape I’m interviewing Carl D. Lawson, at his home in Washington, D.C. We’re going to be talking today, for the oral history project Law Clerks of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Mr. Lawson, would you start us off by stating your date of birth and talking a little about where you were born? 01-00:00:37 Lawson: July 20, 1938. I was born in Boise, Idaho. McCreery: Could you say a little about your family circumstance at that time, in the waning Depression years? 01-00:00:49 Lawson: Well, I think the circumstance was that they didn’t have much money. I was the sixth of six. My mother was forty when I was born. My oldest siblings were teenagers. One daughter had died before I was born, and then there was a nine-year-old, and then this huge gap. Since the older siblings had married early, in some ways it was like being an only child; but then in other ways, not. McCreery: Say a little about your early schooling, if you would. 01-00:01:33 Lawson: Ah. Well, I went to the public schools in Boise, from first grade through high school. At that time, they didn’t have a public kindergarten. I don’t think they had it until the seventies. Even then, it was controversial. Some people considered it sort of a frill. McCreery: Okay. Well, I wonder, what were your own interests as a youngster? 01-00:01:56 Lawson: I had a great interest in history. Politics. I followed elections and all that sort of thing from—. Well, I certainly have very vivid memories of [Dwight D.] Eisenhower’s election. So I was very interested in history and politics, and not that interested in the math-science end of things. McCreery: Okay. Well, I see from your bio that you left Idaho and went off to Harvard College. Tell me how that came about. 01-00:02:38 Lawson: Well, I applied and got a scholarship. I think Harvard sent somebody out to Boise to recruit, which most of the Eastern schools would not have been doing at that point. Harvard had a lot more scholarship money than most schools. They’ve always had a big emphasis on geographic diversity. Or at least I think since the 1920s or so. So they were actively trying to get people from distant places, and Idaho was pretty distant. 2 McCreery: That must’ve been quite a change for you. 01-00:03:23 Lawson: Yes. Yes, it was, in some ways, like a foreign exchange. Massachusetts was a very different place from Idaho, and probably still is. McCreery: What did you study at Harvard? 01-00:03:37 Lawson: Government. McCreery: Did you have a particular thing in mind that you wanted to do? Were you interested in the law yet, at that time? 01-00:03:47 Lawson: No, I think when I started college, I thought I wanted to be a journalist. I’d been the editor of the school paper. At some point along the line, I decided maybe going to law school was—. Well, it seemed like everybody was going—if not immediately, later—to graduate school of some kind; that it was just sort of expected. I don’t think that would’ve been my expectation when I started. Well, in some ways, it was sort of a prep school for graduate schools. That it was just an expected thing, that you would do something. A lot of people did academic—. I think at that point, colleges were expanding rapidly and there were jobs in the academic world. So I think there were a lot of people scattered around in various universities, teaching various things. McCreery: Well, I note that you crossed the country again, to attend Stanford Law School. 01-00:04:53 Lawson: Yes. I got the acceptance after a March blizzard in Cambridge. I thought, why not? McCreery: Sounded pretty good, at that time of year. 01-00:05:03 Lawson: Yes, yes. Most law schools had these very dignified brochures with a great cover or something; but Stanford would have pictures of the campus and the sunshine and the tile roofs. McCreery: Perhaps the sun was their main recruiting tool. 01-00:05:23 Lawson: Yes, yes. They were not subtle about it. McCreery: Well, what did you find when you got to Stanford? How was it? 01-00:05:29 Lawson: I liked law school a great deal. Probably more than I enjoyed practicing law. 3 McCreery: Was that a surprise to you? 01-00:05:38 Lawson: Somewhat, yes. I think you don’t really know until you’re into it, what it’s like. Yes, I found it much more stimulating than I had expected. I had been on the debate team in college. Debate is a good preparation for law school, because the thought processes are similar, I think. McCreery: Yeah. Could you say something about the faculty at that time, and who might’ve been influential to you there, if anyone? 01-00:06:17 Lawson: Well, I don’t know if anyone was more influential than others. I think Ed [Edwin] Zimmerman had probably a great deal to do with my getting the clerkship. He was teaching antitrust and securities regulation. A short time later, he was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for antitrust, and then went with Covington [Covington and Burling]; he didn’t go back to teaching. Let’s see. Phil Neal was teaching the first half of constitutional law, before he became dean at Chicago. He was very interesting. McCreery: How so? 01-00:07:02 Lawson: Well, his manner. You only knew that if he was smiling, that the answer was probably wrong. It was very difficult to figure out what he was really conveying. McCreery: Well, I wonder if you developed particular interests in the law while you were still a student. 01-00:07:34 Lawson: Well, antitrust, I think, was always an interest, yes. McCreery: You did, of course, continue to work in that area. 01-00:07:40 Lawson: I did a seminar in that, and then I did some antitrust work in private practice, and then I worked for the Antitrust Division [of the Justice Department] for about five and a half years, in the seventies.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Supreme Court of the United States
    The Supreme Court of the United States Hearings and Reports on the Successful and Unsuccessful Nominations Now Includes the Kavanaugh and Preliminary Barrett Volumes! This online set contains all existing Senate documents for 1916 to date, as a result of the hearings and subsequent hearings on Supreme Court nominations� Included in the volumes are hearings never before made public! The series began with three volumes devoted to the controversial confirmation of Louis Brandeis, the first nominee subject to public hearings. The most recent complete volumes cover Justice Kavanaugh. After two years, the Judiciary Committee had finally released Kavanaugh’s nomination hearings, so we’ve been able to complete the online volumes� The material generated by Kavanaugh’s nomination was so voluminous that it takes up 8 volumes� The definitive documentary history of the nominations and confirmation process, this ongoing series covers both successful and unsuccessful nominations� As a measure of its importance, it is now consulted by staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee as nominees are considered� Check your holdings and complete your print set! Volume 27 (1 volume) 2021 Amy Coney Barrett �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 26 (8 volumes) - 2021 Brett Kavanaugh ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������Online Only Volume 25 (2 books) - 2018 Neil M� Gorsuch ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������$380�00
    [Show full text]
  • All Rise: Factors Affecting Decision Making of United States Supreme Court Justices
    Tenor of Our Times Volume 9 Article 15 Spring 2020 All Rise: Factors Affecting Decision Making of United States Supreme Court Justices Benjamin L. Barker Harding University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/tenor Part of the American Politics Commons Recommended Citation Barker, Benjamin L. (Spring 2020) "All Rise: Factors Affecting Decision Making of United States Supreme Court Justices," Tenor of Our Times: Vol. 9, Article 15. Available at: https://scholarworks.harding.edu/tenor/vol9/iss1/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Arts & Humanities at Scholar Works at Harding. It has been accepted for inclusion in Tenor of Our Times by an authorized editor of Scholar Works at Harding. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Author Bio: Benjamin L. Barker is a senior political science major from McGregor, Texas. He is involved in men’s social club TNT, Pi Sigma Alpha, and the American Studies Institute. After graduation, he will marry his fiancée Anna in June and they will move to Knoxville, Tennessee, where he will attend the University of Tennessee School of Law. 154 ALL RISE: FACTORS AFFECTING DECISION MAKING OF UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICES By Benjamin L. Barker Chapter 1: Introduction American society perceives judges as the paragon of fairness and insulation from petty politics.1 Even Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. holds this view.2 Despite this perception, this supposed fairness and apolitical nature rarely seem to actually happen with the Supreme Court. Bitter debate over highly publicized cases combined with contentious confirmation hearings suggests that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on more than just the law in question and the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2014 1
    ø1970¿ 1970 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1789 TO 2014 1 Years 2 State whence ap- Date of com- Date service Name 3 of pointed mission terminated service CHIEF JUSTICES 1. John Jay ................................. New York .............. Sept. 26, 1789 June 29, 1795 5 2. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... July 1, 1795 Dec. 15, 1795 (4)(5) 3. Oliver Ellsworth .................... Connecticut ........... Mar. 4, 1796 Dec. 15, 1800 4 4. John Marshall ........................ Virginia ................. Jan. 31, 1801 July 6, 1835 34 5. Roger Brooke Taney .............. Maryland ............... Mar. 15, 1836 Oct. 12, 1864 28 6. Salmon Portland Chase ........ Ohio ....................... Dec. 6, 1864 May 7, 1873 8 7. Morrison Remick Waite ........ ....do ....................... Jan. 21, 1874 Mar. 23, 1888 14 8. Melville Weston Fuller .......... Illinois ................... July 20, 1888 July 4, 1910 21 9. Edward Douglas White ......... Louisiana .............. Dec. 12, 1910 May 19, 1921 5 10 10. William Howard Taft ............ Connecticut ........... June 30, 1921 Feb. 3, 1930 8 11. Charles Evans Hughes .......... New York .............. Feb. 13, 1930 June 30, 1941 5 11 12. Harlan Fiske Stone ............... ......do ..................... July 3, 1941 Apr. 22, 1946 5 4 13. Fred Moore Vinson ................ Kentucky ............... June 21, 1946 Sept. 8, 1953 7 14. Earl Warren ........................... California .............. Oct. 2, 1953 June 23, 1969 15 15. Warren E. Burger .................. Virginia ................. June 23, 1969 Sept. 26, 1986 17 16. William Hubbs Rehnquist .... Virginia ................. Sept. 25, 1986 Sept. 3, 2005 5 19 17. John G. Roberts, Jr ............... Maryland ............... Sept. 29, 2005 ........................ ............ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES 1. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... Sept. 26, 1789 Mar. 5, 1791 1 2. William Cushing .................... Massachusetts ...... Sept. 27, 1789 Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • S U Prem E Co U Rt Hi St O Ry
    2003 VOL 28 NO . 2 JOU RNAL OF S U PR E M E CO U RT HI ST O RY 1059-4329 in March, and November by the Court Historical offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA, and 9600 uarslngton 1-800-835-6770 Or 388-8200 or +441865 or +44 1865 381393 (-mail: sut)Scr.ro(aJl:>lackweJ Infurmation for Subscribers copy reguests, claims, ofaddress, and all other )cn"rrmcnr at the nearest Blackwell office addr",,," .:>uoscnpuon Rates for Volume 28, 2003 Institutional Premium Rate print to the current and all available The Americas $104, Rest of World £80; Print and onlIne-only are also available Issue Rates: Insntutions: The Amencas $38, Rest of World £29, Customers in Canada should add 7% GST to the Americas rate or UK and EU should add VAT 5% to the Rest of entitlement to access information and terms and conditions, visit institutions also avaIlable on our website, or on request from our customer service or + 1 781 388-8206 (US office') +44 (0)1865 251866 Keep up wlth new ~ Blackwell we'll send you E-mail Alerts V.#' books yout' field. ::>lgmng IIp IS easy. • choose whlch interests you, and we'll send you a message every other week • OR sdect which books and iournals you'd like to hear aDour, and when your mess;:}gcs Electronic Access Abstract information For information on full-text access, see ----~----~- -~----------~----~~-- Back Issues Back are available from the ng}C-l$SUe rate. mailed Standard Rate, to of world by Deutsche Post Global Mail, Canadian mail bl!cations mail agreement number 40573520.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court Jeffrey S
    Cornell Law Review Volume 96 Article 11 Issue 6 September 2011 Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court Jeffrey S. Rosenthal Albert H. Yoon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jeffrey S. Rosenthal and Albert H. Yoon, Judicial Ghostwriting: Authorship on the Supreme Court, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 1307 (2011) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol96/iss6/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUDICIAL GHOSTWRITING: AUTHORSHIP ON THE SUPREME COURT Jeffrey S. Rosenthal & Albert H. Yoont Supreme Court justices, unlike the President or members of Congress, perfom their work with relatively little staffing. Each justice processes the docket, hears cases, and writes opinions with the assistanceof only their law clerks. The relationship between justices and their clerks is of intense interest to legal scholars and the public, but it remains largely unknown. This Arti- cle analyzes the text of the Justices' opinions to better understand judicial authorship. Based on the use of common function words, we find thatJus- tices vary in writing style, from which it is possible to accurately distinguish one from another. Their writing styles also inform how clerks influence the opinion-writingprocess. CurrentJustices, with few exceptions, exhibit signif- icantly higher variability in their writing than their predecessors, both within and across years.
    [Show full text]
  • Access to the Justices' Papers
    LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:2 [2018-8] 185 186 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL Vol. 110:2 [2018-8] The Justices’ Privacy Interests ........................................202 Supreme Court Clerks’ Privacy Interests ...............................206 Shifting From Privacy to Public Policy ................................207 Proposals for Improvement ............................................208 “Public Papers” as Public Property ....................................208 Congress Changes Ownership Status Only; Judicial Branch Works Out Details ....................................................209 Incentives for Complete Collections and Short Embargos. .210 Archive and Library Guidelines ......................................211 Conclusion . 211 Introduction ¶1 Following the unexpected death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in early 2016,2 it quickly came to the attention of legal scholars that Justice Scalia had not designated a repository for his papers before his passing.3 No law governs the preservation of federal judges’ papers produced in the course of their work as employees of the United States.4 As a result, the fate of Scalia’s papers was left in the hands of his family, who were free to do virtually anything with them. Papers of other Supreme Court Justices have been destroyed, lost, or heavily restricted. We now know that the Scalia family has chosen Harvard Law Library as the repository for the papers, but they have placed restrictions on them that will delay access to many of the papers for an indeterminate (but likely not short) period based on the lifespans of Scalia’s colleagues. This delay will frustrate scholars and other research- ers, and it will hamper further insight into the Court at a time when it appears to be undergoing an ideological shift further to the right. Justice Scalia spent twenty- nine years on the Court participating in many decisions that have shaped modern American society and jurisprudence.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 New York City Bar Association June 22, 2010 on April 9, 2010, Justice
    REPORT ON THE NOMINATION OF SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN New York City Bar Association June 22, 2010 On April 9, 2010, Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States. On May 10, President Barack Obama nominated Elena Kagan, Solicitor General of the United States, to fill the vacancy created by Justice Stevens’ retirement. The New York City Bar Association formed a Subcommittee to Evaluate the United States Supreme Court Nominee in order to assess Solicitor General Kagan’s qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. The New York City Bar, through its Subcommittee and Executive Committee, has evaluated Solicitor General Kagan’s qualifications in accordance with its guidelines and finds her Highly Qualified to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. We reviewed and analyzed information from a variety of sources: Solicitor General Kagan’s work papers, briefs and oral arguments from her service as the Solicitor General; her law review articles from her time at Harvard Law School and the University of Chicago Law School; her papers and analysis generated while she was in the Clinton White House; memos written when she was a clerk for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall; numerous speeches over the past 18 years; her 2009 testimony in the Senate hearings concerning her confirmation as Solicitor General; comments received from New York City Bar members and committees; a wide range of press reports, blogs and commentaries; and interviews with more than 80 individuals who worked with the Solicitor General in various capacities throughout her legal career.
    [Show full text]
  • Authenticating American Democracy Kathleen A
    Pace Law Review Volume 26 Article 2 Issue 2 Spring 2006 April 2006 Authenticating American Democracy Kathleen A. Bergin Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation Kathleen A. Bergin, Authenticating American Democracy, 26 Pace L. Rev. 397 (2006) Available at: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol26/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authenticating American Democracy Kathleen A. Bergin* I. Introduction In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,1 the Supreme Court outlawed the Executive Branch policy of subjecting alleged "enemy combatants" to indefinite detention without formal charges, access to an attorney, or procedural due process protections. The irony of imposing such restraints while the United States fought to "liberate" the people of Iraq was not lost on Justice O'Connor who reminded us that: "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments.., that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.",2 The decision in Hamdi helped repair America's standing in the international community at a time when other nations questioned its commitment to democratic ideals. Hamdi is just one of the many cases decided against a backdrop of extant global insecurity where the Court has measured the constitutionality of domestic governmental practices against international expectations.4 This trend is punctuated by the recent retirement of . Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston, TX; LL.M., New York University Law School; J.D., University of Baltimore School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2008 1
    ø1570¿ 1570 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1789 TO 2008 1 Years 2 State whence ap- Date of com- Date service Name 3 of pointed mission terminated service CHIEF JUSTICES 1. John Jay ................................. New York .............. Sept. 26, 1789 June 29, 1795 5 2. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... July 1, 1795 Dec. 15, 1795 (4)(5) 3. Oliver Ellsworth .................... Connecticut ........... Mar. 4, 1796 Dec. 15, 1800 4 4. John Marshall ........................ Virginia ................. Jan. 31, 1801 July 6, 1835 34 5. Roger Brooke Taney .............. Maryland ............... Mar. 15, 1836 Oct. 12, 1864 28 6. Salmon Portland Chase ........ Ohio ....................... Dec. 6, 1864 May 7, 1873 8 7. Morrison Remick Waite ........ ....do ....................... Jan. 21, 1874 Mar. 23, 1888 14 8. Melville Weston Fuller .......... Illinois ................... July 20, 1888 July 4, 1910 21 9. Edward Douglas White ......... Louisiana .............. Dec. 12, 1910 May 19, 1921 5 10 10. William Howard Taft ............ Connecticut ........... June 30, 1921 Feb. 3, 1930 8 11. Charles Evans Hughes .......... New York .............. Feb. 13, 1930 June 30, 1941 5 11 12. Harlan Fiske Stone ............... ......do ..................... July 3, 1941 Apr. 22, 1946 5 4 13. Fred Moore Vinson ................ Kentucky ............... June 21, 1946 Sept. 8, 1953 7 14. Earl Warren ........................... California .............. Oct. 2, 1953 June 23, 1969 15 15. Warren E. Burger .................. Virginia ................. June 23, 1969 Sept. 26, 1986 17 16. William Hubbs Rehnquist .... Virginia ................. Sept. 25, 1986 Sept. 5, 2005 5 19 17. John G. Roberts, Jr. .............. Maryland ............... Sept. 29, 2005 ........................ ............ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES 1. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... Sept. 26, 1789 Mar. 5, 1791 1 2. William Cushing .................... Massachusetts ...... Sept. 27, 1789 Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • Authenticating American Democracy
    Pace Law Review Volume 26 Issue 2 Spring 2006 Article 2 April 2006 Authenticating American Democracy Kathleen A. Bergin Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation Kathleen A. Bergin, Authenticating American Democracy, 26 Pace L. Rev. 397 (2006) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol26/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authenticating American Democracy Kathleen A. Bergin* I. Introduction In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,1 the Supreme Court outlawed the Executive Branch policy of subjecting alleged "enemy combatants" to indefinite detention without formal charges, access to an attorney, or procedural due process protections. The irony of imposing such restraints while the United States fought to "liberate" the people of Iraq was not lost on Justice O'Connor who reminded us that: "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments.., that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad.",2 The decision in Hamdi helped repair America's standing in the international community at a time when other nations questioned its commitment to democratic ideals. Hamdi is just one of the many cases decided against a backdrop of extant global insecurity where the Court has measured the constitutionality of domestic governmental practices against international expectations.4 This trend is punctuated by the recent retirement of . Associate Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston, TX; LL.M., New York University Law School; J.D., University of Baltimore School of Law.
    [Show full text]
  • Papers of Robert Houghwout Jackson [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress
    Robert Houghwout Jackson A Register of His Papers in the Library of Congress Prepared by Audrey A. Walker Revised and expanded by Connie L. Cartledge Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2005 Contact information: http://lcweb.loc.gov/rr/mss/address.html Finding aid encoded by Library of Congress Manuscript Division, 2003 Finding aid URL: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms003002 Latest revision: 2006 April Collection Summary Title: Papers of Robert Houghwout Jackson Span Dates: 1816-1983 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1934-1954) ID No.: MSS61408 Creator: Jackson, Robert Houghwout, 1892-1954 Size: 75,015 items; 259 containers plus 21 oversize plus 1 classified; 110 linear feet; 26 microfilm reels Language: Collection material in English Repository: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Abstract: Lawyer, solicitor general, attorney general, and associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Correspondence, memoranda, family papers, legal file, subject file, speeches, writings, financial papers, photographs, and other material relating primarily to Jackson's legal career as a private attorney, government attorney, and Supreme Court justice. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by genres and listed alphabetically therein. Names: Jackson, Robert Houghwout, 1892-1954 Alderman, Sidney S. (Sidney Sherrill), b. 1892--Correspondence Arnold, Thurman Wesley, 1891-1969--Correspondence Berge, Wendell, 1903-1955--Correspondence Blair, John L. (John Leo), 1888-1962 --Correspondence Cawcroft, Ernest--Correspondence Craighill, Mary--Correspondence Cummings, Homer S. (Homer Stillé), 1870-1956--Correspondence Dean, Gordon E., 1905-1958 --Correspondence Douglas, William O.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Law V7n1 2017-12-29
    JACKSON, VINSON, REED, AND “REDS” THE SECOND CIRCUIT JUSTICES’ DENIALS OF BAIL TO THE BAIL FUND TRUSTEES (1951) John Q. Barrett† n June 4, 1951, the Supreme Court of the United States an- nounced its final decisions of the term and then began its sum- mer recess. OThe most notable decision that day was Dennis, et al. v. United States.1 The Court, by a 6-2 vote, affirmed the criminal convictions and prison sentences of eleven leaders of the Communist Party of the U.S.A. for con- spiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the U.S. government. In a related matter, the Court also announced that day that, by the same vote, it would not review Sacher, et al. v. United States, the cases of six attorneys who had represented Dennis defendants during their long, contentious trial in New York City.2 Following the trial, the judge had summarily convicted those attorneys of criminal contempt for misconduct during the trial and sentenced them to prison terms. † Professor of Law, St. John’s University School of Law, New York City, and Elizabeth S. Lenna Fellow, Robert H. Jackson Center, Jamestown, New York. In August 2016, I sent an earlier ver- sion of this article as a post to The Jackson List, an email list that I write to periodically, and I sub- sequently posted an updated version of that post on The Jackson List archive website. See John Q. Barrett, The Justice on Vacation, “Shop Closed” (Summer 1951), available at thejacksonlist.com (last visited Dec. 20, 2017).
    [Show full text]