Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 50 Issue 4 Summer 2019 Article 12 2019 Judge Damon Keith: The Judicial Antidote to Judge Julius Hoffman Challenging Claims of Unilateral Executive Authority Ellen Yaroshevsky Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Yaroshevsky, Judge Damon Keith: The Judicial Antidote to Judge Julius Hoffman Challenging Claims of Unilateral Executive Authority, 50 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 989 (). Available at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol50/iss4/12 This Symposium Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized editor of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. Judge Damon Keith: The Judicial Antidote to Judge Julius Hoffman Challenging Claims of Unilateral Executive Authority Ellen Yaroshefsky* From some of the highly-publicized trials of the 1960s—namely the trials of the Chicago Eight, Panther Twenty-One, and Weathermen—we can draw indispensable lessons about the role of the judges in upholding and promoting a fair justice system. The contrast to Judge Julius Hoffman’s notorious injudicious conduct in the Chicago Eight case is the courageous, thoughtful Judge Damon Keith, in the less publicized White Panther case in Detroit in the early 1970s. Judge Keith’s overriding sense of fairness exemplified the best of judicial independence in considering President Nixon’s claims of unilateral executive authority in United States v. Ayers and United States v. U.S. District Court. Judge Keith’s exemplary judicial conduct is an embrace of judicial independence that provides inspiration in current times.