on Feb 4, 2022
at 3:42 pm
Justice Stephen Breyer and his daughter and grandson go to President Barack Obama within the Oval Workplace in 2011. (White Home photograph by Pete Souza)
This text is a part of a symposium on the jurisprudence of Justice Stephen Breyer.
Lincoln Caplan is a senior analysis scholar and a visiting lecturer in legislation at Yale Regulation Faculty and likewise teaches in Yale’s English and political science departments. He’s the creator of six books concerning the legislation, together with American Justice 2016: The Political Supreme Court docket and The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor Common and the Rule of Regulation. He profiled Breyer for Harvard Journal in 2017.
To Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the essential of his a whole bunch of Supreme Court docket opinions was his dissent within the case determined in 2007 often called Mother and father Concerned. By 5-4, in Mother and father Concerned in Group Faculties v. Seattle Faculty District No. 1, the court docket struck down as unconstitutional voluntarily adopted plans for assigning college students to public faculties within the racially numerous cities of Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky. The court docket did so on the grounds that, in utilizing race as a big consider making assignments, the plans’ objective was demographic steadiness reasonably than instructional profit from variety, and that in stopping racial imbalance in faculties, it was utilizing race illegitimately.
Breyer singled out this dissent in 2013 at a Harvard Regulation Faculty symposium about notable opinions of his, as he was about to start out the twentieth of his 28 Supreme Court docket phrases. Professors on the occasion mirrored on opinions about administrative legislation, free speech, patents, and different subjects. No professor selected to speak concerning the Mother and father Concerned dissent. When the court docket handed down the ruling, Linda Greenhouse famous then in The New York Occasions, Breyer stated “that the court docket was taking a pointy and severely mistaken flip. Talking from the bench for greater than 20 minutes, Justice Breyer made his factors to a courtroom viewers that had by no means seen the coolly analytical justice specific himself with such emotion.” Within the lead Harvard Regulation Overview essay concerning the 2007 time period, the late scholar Lani Guinier used Breyer’s oral dissent as a prophetic instance of “demosprudence” — “a vital instrument within the ongoing dialogue between constitutional legislation and constitutional tradition,” to make that legislation “extra democratically accountable.”
His 77-page opinion, which three different justices joined, was his longest as a justice. When Breyer joined the court docket in 1994, his file of 14 years on the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the first Circuit, in Boston, the final 4 as chief decide, was that of a consensus-seeker who disliked choosing fights and dissenting. On the conservative Rehnquist and Roberts courts, his reasonable liberalism led him to develop into a dissenter in about one-third of his opinions. They’re his strongest.
In Mother and father Concerned, the court docket rejected a generation-old rule allowing communities to make use of race as a consider assigning younger folks to public faculties to realize extra racial integration. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the controlling opinion for himself and three different justices. To Roberts, Brown v. Board of Schooling, the totemic ruling about faculty desegregation, outlawed racial discrimination, whether or not benign or invidious. His opinion concluded with these well-known phrases: “The way in which to cease discrimination on the idea of race is to cease discriminating on the idea of race.” To Breyer, Brown outlawed racial subordination, the perpetuation of “a caste system rooted within the establishments of slavery and 80 years of legalized subordination” via relegation of black college students to segregated faculties.
Fiercely and pointedly, because the constitutional scholar Mark Tushnet defined in 2016, Roberts and Breyer have been “contending over historical past.”
“Earlier than Brown,” Roberts wrote, “schoolchildren have been advised the place they might and couldn’t go to high school based mostly on the colour of their pores and skin. The varsity districts in these circumstances haven’t carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should always permit this as soon as once more — even for very completely different causes.”
The Roberts opinion, Breyer countered, engaged in “a merciless distortion of historical past,” by equating the plight of Black college students compelled to go to segregated faculties with that of whites compelled to go to built-in ones. People have equally contended concerning the meanings of the Civil Struggle, the Civil Struggle Amendments to the Structure, and different landmarks of legislation and historical past that body the nation’s battle about what racial equality and social inclusion require.
The chief justice has repeatedly and forcefully expressed his view that the Fourteenth Modification requires a colorblind society that employs no race-conscious insurance policies. Roberts’ victory in Mother and father Concerned, Tushnet judged, indicated that he “has gained the up to date political wrestle” over the that means of Brown and the Fourteenth Modification. In 2007, that victory appeared decisive.
At present, nonetheless, Breyer’s studying of Brown appears extra correct and essential. The authorized historian Michael Klarman defined that, in Brown, the Supreme Court docket transformed “an rising nationwide consensus right into a constitutional command,” deeply influenced by “dramatic, political, financial, social, and ideological forces affecting race relations.” When the court docket determined Mother and father Concerned, Roberts appeared to dam out the up to date reverberations of these mighty forces.
Breyer, then again, acknowledged how they formed the school-assignment plans in Seattle and Louisville. He did what many People are doing now, because the historian Drew Gilpin Faust described: They’re taking a looking out have a look at the nation’s previous and “on the legacy of slavery and race that has made us something however a colorblind society.”
As a justice, Breyer used the method he set out in his 2005 e-book Lively Liberty. Defining that as “participatory self-government,” he referred to as the train of judicial authority a type of participation to “yield higher legislation — legislation that helps a neighborhood of people democratically discover sensible options to up to date issues,” because the districts did in assigning college students to colleges. Lively Liberty provided, because the authorized scholar Cass Sunstein noticed within the Yale Regulation Journal, “a common method” to Breyer’s job, “among the many most spectacular such efforts within the nation’s lengthy historical past” by a justice.
Breyer has typically been described as a pragmatist, extra within the functions of legal guidelines and the results of judicial selections than in a way of interpretation like originalism or textualism. His method does emphasize functions, or the values a legislation seeks to enact, and penalties, or impacts. However language, historical past, and custom — phrases and the way they’re structured; what the phrases meant once they grew to become legislation; and the way the legislation has utilized the phrases — additionally matter to Breyer. The issue is that phrases and the way they’re structured, as textualists concentrate on, are generally opaque or ambiguous of their that means. Historical past and custom, as originalists concentrate on, additionally generally go away a legislation’s that means unclear.
As a result of the legislation generally doesn’t constrain the court docket as textualists and originalists declare, Breyer argued in his 2010 e-book Making Our Democracy Work, one of the simplest ways for justices to maintain judicial overview from turning into judicial supremacy is thru judicial self-restraint. The legitimacy of the Supreme Court docket “in sustaining a workable constitutional system of presidency” (his italics) is dependent upon the court docket’s modesty. That features recognizing that, within the constitutional system, it’s typically finest for the court docket to defer to insurance policies formed by democratically chosen decision-makers. The leaders of the varsity districts in Mother and father Concerned have been such decision-makers.
“Regulation is a social establishment,” Breyer advised me once I interviewed him for a profile about him in Harvard Journal. “It exists to assist folks. If we consider it in that method and of the advantages it may carry folks residing collectively, it is smart to ask what its objective is and what a part of this huge establishment — the courts? the legislature? the town council? — is finest located to resolve the issue.”
Mother and father Concerned required the justices to take a stand on the function of the court docket within the constitutional system — as both a supreme arbiter or a sometimes-restrained participant in democratic governance. It required them to make a judgment concerning the salience of race in American life — as both a receding issue that may lastly be left within the nation’s wake or a persistent, typically graphic drawback that American democracy and legislation should reckon with, so all People can understand the promise of equal and inclusive citizenship, together with entry to racially built-in faculties.
“Justice Breyer’s good intentions, which I don’t doubt,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a footnote to his concurring opinion within the case, “have the shelf lifetime of Justice Breyer’s tenure.” However Breyer’s Mother and father Concerned dissent incorporates rather more than good intentions. It preserves, for much past the justice’s tenure and for Supreme Courts of the long run, his democratic imaginative and prescient of the Structure.