DOCSLIB.ORG

Hugo Black's Vision of the Lawyer, the First Amendment, and the Duty of the Judiciary: the Bar Applicant Cases in a National Security State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hugo Black's Vision of the Lawyer, the First Amendment, and the Duty of the Judiciary: the Bar Applicant Cases in a National Security State William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 20 (2011-2012) Issue 3 Article 3 March 2012 Hugo Black's Vision of the Lawyer, the First Amendment, and the Duty of the Judiciary: The Bar Applicant Cases in a National Security State Joshua E. Kastenberg Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation Joshua E. Kastenberg, Hugo Black's Vision of the Lawyer, the First Amendment, and the Duty of the Judiciary: The Bar Applicant Cases in a National Security State, 20 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 691 (2012), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol20/iss3/3 Copyright c 2012 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj HUGO BLACK’S VISION OF THE LAWYER, THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE DUTY OF THE JUDICIARY: THE BAR APPLICANT CASES IN A NATIONAL SECURITY STATE Joshua E. Kastenberg* INTRODUCTION .................................................691 I. THE COURT AND ATTORNEY GOVERNANCE ........................698 II. THE COURT, THE COLD WAR, AND CHALLENGES TO THE HISTORIC MODEL OF ATTORNEY GOVERNANCE ...................................712 A. Anticommunist Legislation .................................715 B. Federal Law on Economic Regulation and the Criminalization of Speech ...............................................718 C. Dennis v. United States....................................721 D. The Court Under Attack ...................................727 E. United States v. Sacher....................................728 F. In re Isserman ...........................................738 G. Other Prosecutions: Black’s Fears of a Double Standard .........742 1. Rosenberg Trial ......................................743 2. Cammer v. United States ...............................744 H. State Loyalty Programs Affecting Public Employment ............745 III. THREE PETITIONERS, FOUR DECISIONS: THE COURT DETERMINES ITS ROLE IN ATTORNEY LICENSING AND BLACK DEFINES THE IMPORTANCE OF ATTORNEYS IN PRESERVING DEMOCRACY .........................748 A. Konigsberg I............................................752 B. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners..........................759 C. Interregnum: In re Sawyer .................................766 D. Konigsberg II............................................770 E. In re Anastaplo ..........................................774 CONCLUSION ..................................................784 INTRODUCTION Between 1957 and 1961, the Supreme Court issued four attorney licensure deci- sions involving three separate petitioners and three state bar admissions processes. The decisions, Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (Konigsberg I),1 Schware v. * Joshua E. Kastenberg, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF, is a military judge assigned to Joint Base Andrews. He thanks his wife, Elizabeth A. Kastenberg, and dedicates this Article to her. 1 353 U.S. 252 (1957). Konigsberg I was argued on January 14, 1957 and decided on May 6, 1957. Id. 691 692 WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL [Vol. 20:691 Board of Bar Examiners,2 Konigsberg v. State Bar of California (Konigsberg II),3 and role of attorneys in a democratic society. Decided at the height of the Cold War— when In re Anastaplo,4 evidenced how the Justices on the Warren Court viewed the fears of Communist espionage, subversion, and the potential for atomic warfare were keenly felt in the three branches of government and society as a whole—the Justices sought to influence the ability of the legal profession to determine who was eligible for bar admission, and, therefore, what might be the role of the zealous advocate. In particular, state bar associations had begun to restrict admission of people who had been affiliated with the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA),5 but the CPUSA was not the only political entity targeted for bar exclusion.6 Within the Court, two opposing camps led by Justice Hugo Black and Justice John Harlan sparred over the ability of state judicial branches to determine bar admission based on political affiliation and loyalty oaths.7 One recent study characterized In re Anastaplo as “exemplif [ying] the conflict between those who, like Justice Black, placed absolute faith in the First Amendment, and others who, like Justice John Harlan, felt that its freedoms had to be balanced against societal needs.”8 The same could be said for all four decisions. Harlan’s belief in the necessity of balance was not wholly original. He was guided and coached by Justice Felix Frankfurter,9 and his approach was a continuation of Justice Robert Jackson’s jurisprudence.10 In the first two cases de- cided in 1957, Black appeared to prevail.11 But Harlan’s ideology formed the majority, and, therefore, the law in the second two cases, which were also decided together.12 Although Black was an absolutist in First Amendment jurisprudence, he believed 2 353 U.S. 232 (1957). Schware was argued on January 14 and 15, 1957 and decided on May 6, 1957, the same date as Konigsberg I. Id. 3 366 U.S. 36 (1961). Konigsberg II was argued on December 14, 1960 and decided on April 24, 1961. Id. 4 366 U.S. 82 (1961). In re Anastaplo was argued on December 14, 1960 and decided on April 24, 1961, the same dates as Konigsberg II. Id. 5 See In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. at 83–84; Konigsberg I, 353 U.S. at 270; Schware, 353 U.S. at 234 (“connection with subversive organizations”). 6 Baird v. State Bar of Ariz., 401 U.S. 1, 4–5 (1971) (“or any organization ‘that advocates over-throw of the United States Government by force or violence’”). 7 See RONALD K.L. COLLINS AND SAM CHALTAIN, WE MUST NOT BE AFRAID TO BE FREE: STORIES OF FREE EXPRESSION IN AMERICA 5 (2011). 8 Id. 9 See Daniel A. Farber & John E. Nowak, Justice Harlan and the First Amendment, 2 CONST. COMMENT. 425, 429–30 (1985) (stating that Harlan appeared to have been strongly influenced by Justice Frankfurter). 10 See Patrick Schmidt, “The Dilemma to a Free People”: Justice Robert Jackson, Walter Bagehot, and the Creation of a Conservative Jurisprudence, 20 LAW & HIST. REV. 517, 523–24 (2002) (describing Justice Jackson’s jurisprudence). 11 Schware v. Bd. of Bar Exam’rs, 353 U.S. 232 (1957); Konigsberg I, 353 U.S. 252 (1957). 12 Konigsberg II, 366 U.S. 36 (1961); In re Anastaplo, 366 U.S. 82 (1961). 2012] HUGO BLACK’S VISION 693 the four attorneys’ admission decisions represented more than the Amendment.13 He argued that the independent bar was the guardian of the Bill of Rights, and judicially imposed restraints on bar admission based on political belief was a tenuous path to the erosion of those rights.14 Centered on Justice Black, this Article is a legal history of the decisional processes, political influences, and jurisprudential ideologies involved in these four cases. It also provides a window into what the Justices saw as the role of the legal profession in the criminal justice system, as well as in national security. That said, although Black failed to build a sustained majority, his ideology ultimately prevailed over time through other decisions and independent acts of state bars, which, in turn, significantly modi- fied Harlan’s jurisprudential ideology. There were two changes on the Court between the first two decisions and the second two. In 1957, the Court consisted of Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justices Hugo Lafayette Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William Orville Douglas, Harold Hitz Burton, Tom Campbell Clark, John Marshall Harlan, and William J. Brennan, Jr.15 By 1960, Reed and Burton had left the Court and were replaced by Justices Charles Evans Whittaker and Potter Stewart.16 However, neither Whittaker nor Stewart played a dispositive role in the decisions; though, in a contempt decision, Stewart’s concurrence effectively deflated Frankfurter’s and Harlan’s dissents.17 A brief note on this Article’s legal history methodology is important. Lawrence M. Friedman, one of the late twentieth-century’s prominent legal historians, aptly ob- served that legal history is far more than the passage and enforcement of laws; it is also about the people on both ends of the process.18 This Article is written with Friedman’s view of legal history. Likewise, Bernard Schwartz, another of the twentieth century’s leading legal historians, noted in his study on the Burger Court that because much of the important work of the Court is done in private, studying the correspondences from the conference sessions after the cases have been argued are critical to assessing how the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions were formulated and what the Justices intended, in addition to the consensus opinions.19 The same could be said for the pre- ceding Warren Court, and where possible, this Article relies on original documents such as conference memorandum and personal correspondences, rather than secondary 13 For more on Black’s jurisprudence see HOWARD BALL, HUGO L. BLACK: COLD STEEL WARRIOR 28 (1996). 14 Id. at 115; see also ROGER K. NEWMAN, HUGO BLACK: A BIOGRAPHY 412–13 (1994). 15 MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, http://www.supremecourt .gov/about/members_text.aspx (last visited Mar. 15, 2012). 16 Id. 17 In re Sawyer, 360 U.S. 622, 646–47 (1959) (Stewart, J., concurring and Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan, and Whittaker, JJ., dissenting). 18 LAWRENCE M. FRIEDMAN, LAW IN AMERICA: A SHORT HISTORY 4 (2002). 19 BERNARD SCHWARTZ, THE ASCENT OF PRAGMATISM: THE BURGER COURT IN ACTION 11 (1990). 694 WILLIAM & MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL [Vol. 20:691 sources.20 This Article does not conclude, as some recent scholarship has done, with the claim that since September 11, 2001, Konigsberg II and Anastaplo have been given new life, or that the government is pursuing an agenda similar to the Cold War attempts to limit the bar.21 On the contrary, the bar is far freer today than in most of its history to defend notorious cases despite the wishes of some government officials.22 To the extent this Article advocates any cause, it is that of historical accuracy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law with Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject
    Louisiana State University Law Center LSU Law Digital Commons Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 1982 Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law With Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject O. W. Wollensak Paul R. Baier Louisiana State University Law Center, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Wollensak, O. W. and Baier, Paul R., "Hugo Lafayette Black and John Harlan - Two Faces of Constitutional Law With Some Notes on Teaching of Thayer's Subject" (1982). Journal Articles. 372. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/faculty_scholarship/372 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HUGO LAFAYETTE BLACK AND JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN: TWO FACES OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-WITH SOME NOTES ON THE TEACHING OF THAYER'S SUBJECT Bv 0. W. WoLLENSAK* I. It was a great surprise last semester when Supreme Court Justices Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan visited the LSU Law Center for what turned out to be a heated dialogue on color video tape. The program was hosted by LSU's media mastermind, Professor Paul Baier,** who apparently has given up suing hospitals, see Baier v. Woman's Hospital, 1 and turned to producing television shows, his latest entitled "Hugo Lafayette Black and John Marshall Harlan: Two Faces of Constitutional Law."2 Professor Baier believes that constitutional law includes • Editor's note: Professor Baier is following Karl Llewellyn in using a pseudo­ nym.
    [Show full text]
  • In Defence of the Court's Integrity
    In Defence of the Court’s Integrity 17 In Defence of the Court’s Integrity: The Role of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the Defeat of the Court-Packing Plan of 1937 Ryan Coates Honours, Durham University ‘No greater mistake can be made than to think that our institutions are fixed or may not be changed for the worse. We are a young nation and nothing can be taken for granted. If our institutions are maintained in their integrity, and if change shall mean improvement, it will be because the intelligent and the worthy constantly generate the motive power which, distributed over a thousand lines of communication, develops that appreciation of the standards of decency and justice which we have delighted to call the common sense of the American people.’ Hughes in 1909 ‘Our institutions were not designed to bring about uniformity of opinion; if they had been, we might well abandon hope.’ Hughes in 1925 ‘While what I am about to say would ordinarily be held in confidence, I feel that I am justified in revealing it in defence of the Court’s integrity.’ Hughes in the 1940s In early 1927, ten years before his intervention against the court-packing plan, Charles Evans Hughes, former Governor of New York, former Republican presidential candidate, former Secretary of State, and most significantly, former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, delivered a series 18 history in the making vol. 3 no. 2 of lectures at his alma mater, Columbia University, on the subject of the Supreme Court.1 These lectures were published the following year as The Supreme Court: Its Foundation, Methods and Achievements (New York: Columbia University Press, 1928).
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    T a b l e C o n T e n T s I s s u e 9 s u mm e r 2 0 1 3 o f pg 4 pg 18 pg 26 pg 43 Featured articles Pg 4 abraham lincoln and Freedom of the Press A Reappraisal by Harold Holzer Pg 18 interbranch tangling Separating Our Constitutional Powers by Judith s. Kaye Pg 26 rutgers v. Waddington Alexander Hamilton and the Birth Pangs of Judicial Review by David a. Weinstein Pg 43 People v. sanger and the Birth of Family Planning clinics in america by Maria T. Vullo dePartments Pg 2 From the executive director Pg 58 the david a. Garfinkel essay contest Pg 59 a look Back...and Forward Pg 66 society Officers and trustees Pg 66 society membership Pg 70 Become a member Back inside cover Hon. theodore t. Jones, Jr. In Memoriam Judicial Notice l 1 From the executive director udicial Notice is moving forward! We have a newly expanded board of editors Dearwho volunteer Members their time to solicit and review submissions, work with authors, and develop topics of legal history to explore. The board of editors is composed J of Henry M. Greenberg, Editor-in-Chief, John D. Gordan, III, albert M. rosenblatt, and David a. Weinstein. We are also fortunate to have David l. Goodwin, Assistant Editor, who edits the articles and footnotes with great care and knowledge. our own Michael W. benowitz, my able assistant, coordinates the layout and, most importantly, searches far and wide to find interesting and often little-known images that greatly compliment and enhance the articles.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University Of
    Rare Books & Special Collections Tarlton Law Library University of Texas at Austin 727 E. 26th St., Austin, Texas 78705-3224 512/471-7263 SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES, 1823-1955, Bulk 1860-1939 Inventory Date printed: SUPREME COURT NOMINATIONS RESEARCH FILES Inventory Extent: 1.25 linear ft. (3 boxes). Frank, John P., 1917-2002- John P. Frank, a noted attorney and constitutional scholar, was born in 1917. He received his LL.B. at the University of Wisconsin, and his J.S.D. from Yale University. He was law clerk to Justice Hugo L. Black at the October, 1942 term, among other prominent positions. He taught law from 1946 to 1954 at Indiana and Yale Universities. He has authored 12 books on the Supreme Court, the Constitution and constitutional law. A senior partner with the Phoenix firm of Lewis and Roca, which he joined in 1954, Frank was lead counsel on the ground-breaking Miranda v. Arizona case, and served as counsel to Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. While serving on the Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure, Frank led a group that worked on drafting revisions to Rule 11 attorney sanctions. Frank also served from 1960 to 1970 on the Advisory Committee of Civil Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. Scope and Content: The collection consists of research into U.S. Supreme Court nominations of the 19th and 20th centuries, and includes 8 inches of printed materials and 7 microfilm reels (35mm), 1823-1939 (bulk 1860-1939), collected by Frank, for a research project concerning Supreme Court nominations.
    [Show full text]
  • A Tribute to the Fordham Judiciary: a Century of Service
    Fordham Law Review Volume 75 Issue 5 Article 1 2007 A Tribute to the Fordham Judiciary: A Century of Service Constantine N. Katsoris Fordham University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Constantine N. Katsoris, A Tribute to the Fordham Judiciary: A Century of Service, 75 Fordham L. Rev. 2303 (2007). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol75/iss5/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Tribute to the Fordham Judiciary: A Century of Service Cover Page Footnote * This article is dedicated to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed ot the U.S. Supreme Court. Although she is not a graduate of our school, she received an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Fordham University in 1984 at the dedication ceremony celebrating the expansion of the Law School at Lincoln Center. Besides being a role model both on and off the bench, she has graciously participated and contributed to Fordham Law School in so many ways over the past three decades, including being the principal speaker at both the dedication of our new building in 1984, and again at our Millennium Celebration at Lincoln Center as we ushered in the twenty-first century, teaching a course in International Law and Relations as part of our summer program in Ireland, and participating in each of our annual alumni Supreme Court Admission Ceremonies since they began in 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Mr. Justice Stanton by James W
    At Sidebar Mr. Justice Stanton by James W. Satola I love U.S. Supreme Court history. Sometimes, the more arcane the better. So, for my At Sidebar con- tribution, I want to share a little bit of what I love.1 Perhaps calling to mind the well-known story behind Marbury v. Madison, here is a lesser-known story of a presidential commission not delivered on time (though in this case, it was not anyone’s fault). The story of Mr. Justice Edwin M. Stanton.2 James W. Satola is an As one walks through the Grand Concourse of attorney in Cleveland, Ohio. From 2010 to the Ohio Supreme Court building in Columbus, Ohio 2016, he served as (officially, the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center, an FBA Circuit Vice which had a first life as the “Ohio Departments Build- President for the Sixth ing,” opening in 1933, then restored and reopened as Circuit, and from 2002 the home of the Ohio Supreme Court in 2004), one’s to 2003, he was Presi- dent of the FBA Northern eye is drawn to nine large bronze plaques mounted District of Ohio Chapter. on the East Wall, each showcasing one of the U.S. © 2017 James W. Satola. Supreme Court justices named from Ohio.3 This story All rights reserved. is about the fourth plaque in that series, under which reads in brass type on the marble wall, “Edwin Mc- Masters Stanton, Justice of the United States Supreme Court, 1869-1869.” Justice Stanton? One finds no mention of “Justice Stanton” among the lists of the 113 men and women who have served on the Supreme Court of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • BROWN V. BOARD of EDUCATION: MAKING a MORE PERFECT UNION
    File: Seigenthaler.342.GALLEY(7) Created on: 5/9/2005 4:09 PM Last Printed: 7/5/2005 9:17 AM BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION: MAKING A MORE PERFECT UNION John Seigenthaler* It is impossible for me to reflect on Brown v. Board of Educa- tion1 and its meaning these five decades later without revisiting in my mind’s eye the white Southern racist society of my youth and young adulthood. That was a time when my hometown, Nashville, Tennessee, was as racially segregated as any city in South Africa at the height of Apartheid; when every city in the South, large and small, was the same; when African-American residents of those communities were denied access to any place and every place they might need or wish to go. The legal myth of “separate but equal” had cunningly banned black citizens from every hospital, school, restaurant, trolley, bus, park, theater, hotel, and motel that catered to the white public. These tax-paying citizens were denied access to these places solely on the basis of their race by tradition, custom, local ordi- nance, state statute, federal policy, and by an edict of the United States Supreme Court fifty-eight years before Brown in Plessy v. Ferguson.2 In too many of these cities, black citizens were even denied access to the ballot box on election day. The posted signs of the times read, “White Only.” If you never saw those signs, it is difficult to imagine their visible presence in every city hall, county courthouse, and public building, including many federal buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse Room 1510 400 East 9Th Street Kansas City, MO 64106 E-MAIL
    Updated 11/03 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse Room 1510 400 East 9th Street Kansas City, MO 64106 www.mow.uscourts.gov http://ecf.mow.uscourts.gov E-MAIL ADDRESSES/TELEPHONE NUMBERS - AREA CODE 816 Chief Deputy Clerk - John Cisternino, 512-1851, [email protected] Automated Case Information (24 hours) 512-5110; 1-888-205-2527 Filing requirements 512-1800 341 meeting schedules - Judy Hale 512-1815, [email protected] Procedural Questions- Roberta Kostrow 512-1818, [email protected] FAX 512-1832 JUDGES Division 3 - Chief Judge Arthur B. Federman, Room 6552 512-1910 Judicial Assistant - Joan Brown 512-1911 Law Clerk - Donna Thalblum 512-1913 Courtroom Deputy - Sharon Stanley 512-1924 [email protected] FAX No. 512-1923 Division 2 - Judge Dennis R. Dow, Room 6562 512-1880 Judicial Assistant - Kerry Brown 512-1880 Law Clerk - Lori Locke 512-1886 Courtroom Deputy - Georgia Ann Tarwater 512-1894 [email protected] FAX No. 512-1893 Division 1 - Judge Jerry W. Venters, Room 6462 512-1895 Judicial Assistant -Arlene Wilbers 512-1896 Law Clerk - Ryan Johnson 512-1898 Courtroom Deputy - Jamie Hinkle 512-1909 [email protected] FAX No. 512-1908 Division 1, 2 and 3 Kansas City Chapter 13 cases Courtroom Deputy - Michele Blodig 512-1827 [email protected] APPENDIX 1-00 Appendix Page 1 AGENCIES ADDED TO ALL BANKRUPTCY MATRICES BY COURT Missouri Department of Revenue P.O. Box 475 Jefferson City, MO 65105-0475 DO NOT ADD DEBTOR OR DEBTOR’S ATTORNEY TO MAILING MATRIX FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT MUST BE ADDED TO MATRIX BY DEBTOR, IF APPLICABLE U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 70 13Creightonlrev1057(1979-1980).Pdf (77.01Kb)
    1057 INTRODUCTION Creighton Law Review is to be commended for instituting a survey, intended to be done annually, of the decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Other law reviews have done this* and I think that those projects have been generally successful. The Eighth Circuit, of course, is a rich source of legal materi- als. The circuit, while perhaps not so celebrated as the Second, because of its location away from the Eastern Seaboard and the "name" law schools, has been a staunch and solid court since its founding, has enunciated federal law for a substantial portion of the Nation's heartland and (prior to 1929 when the Tenth Circuit was formed from it) for the Rocky Mountain area as well. The cir- cuit's geographical location, stretching from the Canadian border to the Louisiana line, lends variety and strengthens its Bar in a way not enjoyed by any other circuit except, perhaps to a degree, the Sixth. The Eighth Circuit has produced its share of Justices of the Supreme Court-David Josiah Brewer, Willis Van Devanter, and Charles Evans Whittaker-by elevation from its own ranks and others-Samuel Freeman Miller, Pierce Butler, Wiley Blount Rut- ledge, and Warren E. Burger-from the States that it serves. There have been other equally distinguished figures of the law upon its own bench: the two Sanborns (Walter H. and John B.), Kimbrough Stone, William S. Kenyon, Wilbur F. Booth, Archibald K. Gardner, Harvey M. Johnsen, Martin D. Van Oosterhout, in years past. There are others yet alive, and there will be more in the years yet to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights Through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 28 Issue 4 Article 4 Summer 1953 Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation (1953) "Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 28 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol28/iss4/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL from detruction by Communism, there is vital need to salvage consti- tutionally guaranteed rights from annihilation by these same efforts. Both courts and legislatures should re-examine the Communist threat and should then determine whether recent laws do themselves present more of a threat to our freedom than does subversion. JUDICIAL ACQUIESCENCE IN THE FORFEITURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THROUGH EXPANSION OF THE CONDITIONED PRIVILEGE DOCTRINE Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting in Adler v. Board of Education of the City of New York, declared: "I have not been able to accept the recent doctrine that a citizen who enters the public service can be forced to sacrifice his civil rights. I cannot for example find in our constitutional scheme the power of the state to place its employees in the category of second class citizens by denying them freedom of thought and expres- sion."' It is both surprising and noteworthy that Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Festschrift in Honor of Seymour J. Rubin
    American University International Law Review Volume 10 | Issue 4 Article 3 1995 A Festschrift in onorH of Seymour J. Rubin Claudio Grossman Tom Farer Andreas J. Jacovides Herman Schwartz Bennett Boskey See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Grossman, Claudio, et al. "A Festschrift in onorH of Seymour J. Rubin." American University International Law Review 10, no. 4 (1995): 1215-1274. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Claudio Grossman, Tom Farer, Andreas J. Jacovides, Herman Schwartz, Bennett Boskey, William Diebold, and Christina M. Cerna This article is available in American University International Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr/vol10/ iss4/3 SEYMOUR J. RUBIN FESTSCHRIFT IN HONOR OF SEYMOUR J. RUBIN Opening Remarks Claudio Grossman Dean, Washington College of Law at The American University It is my honor and pleasure to open this issue of The American Uni- versity Journal of International Law and Policy dedicated to Emeritus Professor of Law, Seymour J. Rubin. Professor Rubin has been a distin- guished member of the faculty and long-time friend of the Washington College of Law. It is very difficult to summarize the tremendous contributions Profes- sor Rubin has made to the field of international law and the Washington College of Law.
    [Show full text]