#supreme court history

[deadpresidents]

Could you recommend books on the Supreme Court? I honestly didn’t think there were any.

There are countless numbers of books about the Supreme Court, so it really depends on what exactly you're interested in reading about, whether that might be a general history of the Court itself, biographies of the most influential justices, landmark cases, and so on.

By no means is this a complete list, but here's some suggestions that I can recommend:

GENERAL HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT •A People's History of the Supreme Court: The Men and Women Whose Cases and Decisions Have Shaped Our Constitution by Peter Irons (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Nine Scorpions in a Bottle: Great Judges and Cases of the Supreme Court by Max Lerner and edited by Richard Cummings (BOOK) •The Supreme Court by William H. Rehnquist (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- This history of the Court is especially interesting because it was written by the incumbent Chief Justice. •The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

BOOKS ABOUT SPECIFIC JUSTICES OR COURTS •The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Toobin (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Leaving the Bench: Supreme Court Justices at the End by David N. Atkinson (BOOK) -- A unique book about Justices at the end of their time on the Court and how they ultimately left the Court. Most of them died in office because the Court is a lifetime appointment, but the book looks at how some Justices held on to their seats and remained on the bench despite failing health or faltering cognitive abilities. •First: Sandra Day O'Connor by Evan Thomas (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Sisters In Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World by Linda Hirshman (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- An excellent dual biography about the first two women ever appointed to the Supreme Court and the impact they had on American law. •The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- The legendary journalist from the Washington Post gives the Woodward treatment to the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger. •The Showdown: Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court Nomination That Changed America by Wil Haygood (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- The remarkable life of Thurgood Marshall, who was already a legendary figure in the annals of American justice as a civil rights lawyer who successfully argued the case the led to the Supreme Court striking down Brown v. the Board of Education. Marshall's place in history became even more important when President Lyndon B. Johnson nominated him as the first-ever Black Supreme Court Justice. •Five Chiefs: A Supreme Court Memoir by John Paul Stevens (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) -- This is probably my favorite of the recommendations. John Paul Stevens, the third longest-serving Justice in the history of the Supreme Court, writes about the five Chief Justices (Fred Vinson, Earl Warren, Warren E. Burger, William H. Rehnquist, and John Roberts) that he worked for or with throughout his long career, beginning as a law clerk under Chief Justice Vinson and eventually serving as Associate Justice alongside Chief Justice Burger, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Chief Justice Roberts.

BOOKS ABOUT JOHN MARSHALL (Longest-serving Chief Justice of the United States and arguably the most important judge in American history) •John Marshall: The Chief Justice Who Saved the Nation by Harlow Giles Unger (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and His Times by Joel Richard Paul (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •John Marshall: The Man Who Made the Supreme Court by Richard Brookhiser (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO)

I also strongly recommend checking out James F. Simon's books about the Supreme Court and the Presidency, which focus on the impact that the Court and the Chief Justices at the time had on specific Presidential Administrations. These are all written by James F. Simon: •Eisenhower vs. Warren: The Battle for Civil Rights and Liberties (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States (BOOK | KINDLE | AUDIO) •FDR and Chief Justice Hughes: The President, the Supreme Court, and the Epic Battle Over the New Deal (BOOK | KINDLE)

[shabdshilanews]

Supreme Court: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दिल्ली में पीएम आयुष्मान भारत स्वास्थ्य इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर मिशन पर लगाई रोक

Supreme Court: सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने हाल ही में दिल्ली में पीएम आयुष्मान भारत स्वास्थ्य इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर मिशन (PM-ABHIM) योजना को लागू करने पर रोक लगा दी है। यह निर्णय दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय के उस आदेश को चुनौती देने के संदर्भ में आया, जिसमें केंद्र सरकार और दिल्ली सरकार के बीच इस योजना को लागू करने के लिए समझौता करने का निर्देश दिया गया था। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने उच्च न्यायालय के आदेश पर रोक लगाते हुए केंद्र…

[mysharona1987]

[reality-detective]

History and probably hidden history about Justice Clarence Thomas 🤔

[whenweallvote]

On this day in 1908: Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court Justice of the United States, was born in Baltimore, Maryland.

As the NAACP’s chief counsel from 1938 to 1961, Marshall challenged racial segregation in more than a dozen cases before the Court. He won nearly all of these cases, including a critical victory in Brown v. Board of Education.

Celebrating Justice Marshall’s life and legacy today!

[cyarsk52-20]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by ESSENCE (@essence)

essence

Regal.

The Honorable Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and her robe were the BEST part of the Presidential inauguration.

During the ceremony, she wore cowrie shells, a symbol of wealth, protection, and femininity in African heritage.

But more significantly, when Africans moved from the barter system to trade, some used cowries as a currency.

WEALTHY — And with that, the day is adjourned.

📸: Getty Images

[afriblaq]

@bookersquared

[anotherpapercut]

the girlbossification of ruth bader ginsburg has to be one of the most just plain annoying aspects of white liberal feminism. like it's not as actively harmful as a lot of other shit obviously. but it is soooooo annoying. if I never see another notorious rbg tote bag as long as I live it will be too soon

[deadpresidents]

"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." -- Former President Richard Nixon, 1977 Also: the United States Supreme Court, 2024.

[todaysdocument]

The Supreme Court ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. 

In U.S. v Windsor, SCOTUS held that the federal government could not discriminate against same-sex couples. 

Record Group 267: Records of the Supreme Court of the United States Series: Appellate Jurisdiction Case Files

Transcription: 

[Stamped: " FILE COPY "]

(Bench Opinion)                 OCTOBER TERM, 2012            1  [Handwritten and circled " 1"  in upper right-hand corner]

Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is

being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.

The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been

prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR, EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF SPYER, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 12-307.  Argued March 27, 2013---Decided June 26, 2013

The State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents

Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in

2007. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor.

Windsor sought to claim the federal estate tax exemption for surviv-

ing spouses, but was barred from doing so by §3 of the federal Defense

of Marriage Act (DOMA), which amended the Dictionary Act---a

law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and

the whole realm of federal regulations-to define "marriage" and

"spouse" as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor paid $363,053 in

estate taxes and sought a refund, which the Internal Revenue Service

denied. Windsor brought this refund suit, contending that DOMA vi-

olates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth

Amendment. While the suit was pending, the Attorney General notified

the Speaker of the House of Representatives that the Department

of Justice would no longer defend §3's constitutionality. In re-

sponse, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of

Representatives voted to intervene in the litigation to defend §3's

constitutionality. The District Court permitted the intervention. On

the merits, the court ruled against the United States, finding §3 un-

constitutional and ordering the Treasury to refund Windsor's tax

with interest. The Second Circuit affirmed. The United States has

not complied with the judgment.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case.

This case clearly presented a concrete disagreement between oppos-

ing parties that was suitable for judicial resolution in the District

Court, but the Executive's decision not to defend §3's constitutionali-

[page 2]

2                  UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

ty in court while continuing to deny refunds and assess deficiencies

introduces a complication. Given the Government's concession, ami-

cus contends, once the District Court ordered the refund, the case

should have ended and the appeal been dismissed. But this argu-

ment elides the distinction between Article Ill's jurisdictional re-

quirements and the prudential limits on its exercise, which are "es-

sentially matters of judicial self-governance." Warth v. Seldin, 422

U. S. 490, 500. Here, the United States retains a stake sufficient to

support Article III jurisdiction on appeal and in this Court. The re-

fund it was ordered to pay Windsor is "a real and immediate econom-

ic injury," Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U. S.

587, 599, even if the Executive disagrees with §3 of DOMA. Wind-

sor's ongoing claim for funds that the United States refuses to pay

thus establishes a controversy sufficient for Article III jurisdiction.

Cf. INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919.

Prudential considerations, however, demand that there be "con-

crete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon

which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult consti-

tutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204. Unlike Article

III requirements---which must be satisfied by the parties before judi-

cial consideration is appropriate---prudential factors that counsel

against hearing this case are subject to "countervailing considera-

tions [that] may outweigh the concerns underlying the usual reluc-

tance to exert judicial power." Warth, supra, at 500-501. One such

consideration is the extent to which adversarial presentation of the

issues is ensured by the participation of amici curiae prepared to de-

fend with vigor the legislative act's constitutionality. See Chadha,

supra, at 940. Here, BLAG's substantial adversarial argument for

§3's constitutionality satisfies prudential concerns that otherwise

might counsel against hearing an appeal from a decision with which

the principal parties agree. This conclusion does not mean that it is

appropriate for the Executive as a routine exercise to challenge stat-

utes in court instead of making the case to Congress for amendment

or repeal. But this case is not routine, and BLAG's capable defense

ensures that the prudential issues do not cloud the merits question,

which is of immediate importance to the Federal Government and to

hundreds of thousands of persons. Pp. 5-13.

2. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of

persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 13--26.

(a) By history and tradition the definition and regulation of mar-

riage has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the

separate States. Congress has enacted discrete statutes to regulate

the meaning of marriage in order to further federal policy, but

DOMA, with a directive applicable to over 1,000 federal statues and

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U.S._ (2013)           3

Syllabus

the whole realm of federal regulations, has a far greater reach. Its

operation is also directed to a class of persons that the laws of New

York, and of 11 other States, have sought to protect. Assessing the

validity of that intervention requires discussing the historical and

traditional extent of state power and authority over marriage.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.

Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area

that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the

States," Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404. The significance of state

responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to

the Nation's beginning; for "when the Constitution was adopted the

common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband

and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States,"

Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379, 383-384. Marriage laws

may vary from State to State, but they are consistent within each

State.

DOMA rejects this long-established precept. The State's decision

to give this class of persons the right to marry conferred upon them a

dignity and status of immense import. But the Federal Government

uses the state-defined class for the opposite purpose---to impose re-

strictions and disabilities. The question is whether the resulting injury

and indignity is a deprivation of an essential part of the liberty

protected by the Fifth Amendment, since what New York treats as

alike the federal law deems unlike by a law designed to injure the

same class the State seeks to protect. New York's actions were a

proper exercise of its sovereign authority. They reflect both the

community's considered perspective on the historical roots of the in-

stitution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning

of equality. Pp. 13--20.

(b) By seeking to injure the very class New York seeks to protect,

DOMA violates basic due process and equal protection principles ap-

plicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of

equality "must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de-

sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot" justify disparate

treatment of that group. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413

U. S. 528, 534-535. DOMA cannot survive under these principles.

Its unusual deviation from the tradition of recognizing and accepting

state definitions of marriage operates to deprive same-sex couples of

the benefits and responsibilities that come with federal recognition of

their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose

and effect of disapproval of a class recognized and protected by state

law. DOMA's avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a

disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter

into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority

[page 3]

4           UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR

Syllabus

of the States.

DOMA's history of enactment and its own text demonstrate that

interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, conferred

by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than

an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. BLAG's

arguments are just as candid about the congressional purpose.

DOMA's operation in practice confirms this purpose. It frustrates

New York's objective of eliminating inequality by writing inequality

into the entire United States Code.

DOMA's principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of

state-sanctioned marriages. It contrives to deprive some couples

married under the laws of their State, but not others, of both rights

and responsibilities, creating two contradictory marriage regimes

within the same State. It also forces same-sex couples to live as mar-

ried for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of

federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic

personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and

protect. Pp. 20-26.

699 F. 3d 169, affirmed.

KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG,

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a

dissenting opinion. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which

THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined as to Part I.

ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to

Parts II and III.

[NEW PAGE]

Cite as: 570 U. S. _ (2013)          1

Opinion of the Court

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the

preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to

notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington,

D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order

that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 12-307

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. EDITH SCHLAIN

WINDSOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS EXECUTOR OF THE

ESTATE OF THEA CLARA SPYER, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

[June 26, 2013]

JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Two women then resident in New York were married

in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith

Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New

York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire

estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax

exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from

doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Mar-

riage Act, which excludes a same-sex partner from the

definition of "spouse" as that term is used in federal stat-

utes. Windsor paid the taxes but filed suit to challenge

the constitutionality of this provision. The United States

District Court and the Court of Appeals ruled that this

portion of the statute is unconstitutional and ordered the

United States to pay Windsor a refund. This Court granted

certiorari and now affirms the judgment in Windsor's

favor.

I

In 1996, as some States were beginning to consider the

concept of same-sex marriage, see, e.g., Baehr v. Lewin, 74

[sherdnerd]

So Apparently the UK supreme court holds a mock trial for a classical figure every year; last year was Cicero. This is Amazing

[seldnei]

Fucking SCOTUS.

Honestly, I never thought the Dobbs decision would give me *hope,* but obviously SCOTUS decisions *can* be overturned if you work for it.

So let’s do it, gang. Vote Biden. Vote blue all the way down the ballot. Get the AOCs and Bernies in where we can, get the boring middle-of-the-road Democrats in where they’re the only option. Make it possible to reform the Court, to appoint liberal judges, to overturn these bullshit rulings.

Vote. I know he’s old. I know he’s not your first choice. But we won’t get better choices if we don’t keep voting blue.

[allhailthe70shousewife]

Okay, this is REALLY important. Trump is hogging up so much GOP donor money that local GOP candidates are starving. The upcoming presidential election is an opportunity to really punish republicans IF YOU KIDS ALL VOTE. So please register and vote!!! We need you💙

[usauthoritarianism]

[departmentq]

“...Lithwick referenced a report by CNN's Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote...”