{"title":"The Great Dissenter: The Story of John Marshall Harlan, America’s Judicial Hero by Peter S. Canellos (review)","authors":"P. Kens","doi":"10.1353/sch.2022.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/sch.2022.0016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 1","pages":"65 - 70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44585995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"An Accident of History: The Fourth Amendment as Applied to Schools and New Jersey v. T.L.O.","authors":"Andrew H. Meck","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12308","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12308","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 3","pages":"305-323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42506850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Helen J. Knowles, Making Minimum Wage: Elsie Parrish versus the West Coast Hotel Company. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2021, 257 pp. + acknowledgements, notes, bibliography, and index","authors":"Paul Kens","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12309","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12309","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 3","pages":"324-329"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46499947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
On January 27, 1950, a woman invited three friends to lunch. Eighty-six-year-old Mary Church Terrell asked William Jernigan, Geneva Brown, and David Scull to meet at Thompson’s Cafeteria, a few blocks from the White House, at 14th Street and New York Avenue, NW.1 As they presented their trays to the cashier, the manager at Thompson’s, one of a national chain head quartered in Chicago, told the group they would not be served (only Scull was white). “Why not?” asked Jernigan. “Because we don’t serve colored people here,” replied the manager. Terrell pressed. “Is Washington in the United States? Doesn’t the Consti tution of the United States apply here?”2 Thompson’s would not budge and Terrell’s party found itself back on the street. But the would-be hostess had something better than a bowl of soup with friends. Terrell had a case. Challenges to hydra-headed Jim Crow flared across the nation. America was two classes. One enjoyed the best offerings of transportation, public schools, and public accommodations. The other suffocated under generations of custom and law, enduring inferior treatment and shunted to the margins. In chambers of state and local governments and federal courtrooms, ripples of resistance to segregation were loosed. Largely hidden from public view by more widely covered segregation clashes, one civil rights battle— over the right to eat anywhere in the nation’s capital city—was fought long and fiercely. Within the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, some judges strained to preserve the city’s entrenched custom of seg regation and others pressed for its extinction. When Terrell asked John R. Thompson Co. for racial equality, she could not have known she had sparked the Supreme Court case— District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co.—that would help set the course for justices about to decide Brown v. Board of Education.
{"title":"“Lost Laws” to “Eat Anywhere”: D.C. v. Thompson and the Road to Brown","authors":"Charles J. Sheehan","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12307","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12307","url":null,"abstract":"On January 27, 1950, a woman invited three friends to lunch. Eighty-six-year-old Mary Church Terrell asked William Jernigan, Geneva Brown, and David Scull to meet at Thompson’s Cafeteria, a few blocks from the White House, at 14th Street and New York Avenue, NW.1 As they presented their trays to the cashier, the manager at Thompson’s, one of a national chain head quartered in Chicago, told the group they would not be served (only Scull was white). “Why not?” asked Jernigan. “Because we don’t serve colored people here,” replied the manager. Terrell pressed. “Is Washington in the United States? Doesn’t the Consti tution of the United States apply here?”2 Thompson’s would not budge and Terrell’s party found itself back on the street. But the would-be hostess had something better than a bowl of soup with friends. Terrell had a case. Challenges to hydra-headed Jim Crow flared across the nation. America was two classes. One enjoyed the best offerings of transportation, public schools, and public accommodations. The other suffocated under generations of custom and law, enduring inferior treatment and shunted to the margins. In chambers of state and local governments and federal courtrooms, ripples of resistance to segregation were loosed. Largely hidden from public view by more widely covered segregation clashes, one civil rights battle— over the right to eat anywhere in the nation’s capital city—was fought long and fiercely. Within the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, some judges strained to preserve the city’s entrenched custom of seg regation and others pressed for its extinction. When Terrell asked John R. Thompson Co. for racial equality, she could not have known she had sparked the Supreme Court case— District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co.—that would help set the course for justices about to decide Brown v. Board of Education.","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 3","pages":"284-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48226598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In reflecting upon her historic confirma tion as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged that she stood “on the shoul ders” of many “true pathbreakers.”1 While Justice Jackson undoubtedly had in mind Black Supreme Court advocates turned mem bers of the federal judiciary like Constance Baker Motley (first Black female federal judge) and Thurgood Marshall, one cannot ignore the rich legacy left by nineteenth cen tury Black lawyers who appeared before the Court. While the history of lawyers generally has been too long regarded as “a White man’s history”2 and Black lawyers’ “names and contributions remained unknown,”3 the history of Black Supreme Court advocates has been particularly neglected.4 Occasional mentions are made of pioneers like John Swett Rock (who in 1865 became the first Black lawyer admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court) or Emmanuel M. Hewlett and Cornelius J. Jones (early Black Supreme Court advocates who on December 13, 1895, argued Gibson v. Mississippi and Smith v. Mississippi, respectively). But for too long, the question of “who was the first Black lawyer to ague before the United States Supreme Court?” has gone unanswered—or worse, incorrectly answered.5 This article seeks to rectify historical oversight and give due credit to this forgotten first: Everett J. Waring of Maryland, who in 1890 argued the case of Jones v. United States. The case he brought transcended garden variety criminal defense and the mis treatment of Black workers to raise important questions about sovereignty and jurisdiction in the early days of U.S. imperialism that still resonate today. But in order to appreciate Waring’s achievement, and place it in histor ical perspective, we must first examine the complicated circumstances that launched his
大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊（Ketanji Brown Jackson）在回顾她作为美国最高法院首位黑人女性的历史性身份时承认，她站在许多“真正的开拓者”的“肩膀上”。“1毫无疑问，杰克逊大法官考虑到了最高法院的黑人支持者，如康斯坦斯·贝克·莫特利（第一位黑人女联邦法官）和瑟古德·马歇尔，他们后来成为了联邦司法机构的成员，但人们不能忽视出庭的十九世纪黑人律师留下的丰富遗产。虽然律师的历史通常被认为是“白人的历史”2，黑人律师的“名字和贡献仍然未知”3，但黑人最高法院辩护人的历史尤其被忽视。4偶尔会提到约翰·斯威特·洛克等先驱（1865年，他成为第一位在美国最高法院执业的黑人律师）或Emmanuel M.Hewlett和Cornelius J.Jones（1895年12月13日，早期黑人最高法院辩护人，分别为Gibson诉密西西比和Smith诉密西西比辩护）。但很长一段时间以来，“谁是第一位在美国最高法院出庭的黑人律师？”这个问题一直没有得到回答，或者更糟的是，回答错误。5这篇文章试图纠正历史上的疏忽，并对这个被遗忘的第一人给予应有的赞扬：马里兰州的埃弗雷特·J·沃林，他在1890年为琼斯诉美国案辩护。他提起的案件超越了普通的刑事辩护和对黑人工人的不当待遇，提出了美帝国主义早期关于主权和管辖权的重要问题，这些问题至今仍能引起共鸣。但为了欣赏沃林的成就，并将其放在历史的角度来看，我们必须首先审视引发他创作的复杂环境
{"title":"A Forgotten First: Everett J. Waring, First Black Supreme Court Advocate, and the Case of Jones v. United States","authors":"John G. Browning","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12306","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12306","url":null,"abstract":"In reflecting upon her historic confirma tion as the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson acknowledged that she stood “on the shoul ders” of many “true pathbreakers.”1 While Justice Jackson undoubtedly had in mind Black Supreme Court advocates turned mem bers of the federal judiciary like Constance Baker Motley (first Black female federal judge) and Thurgood Marshall, one cannot ignore the rich legacy left by nineteenth cen tury Black lawyers who appeared before the Court. While the history of lawyers generally has been too long regarded as “a White man’s history”2 and Black lawyers’ “names and contributions remained unknown,”3 the history of Black Supreme Court advocates has been particularly neglected.4 Occasional mentions are made of pioneers like John Swett Rock (who in 1865 became the first Black lawyer admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court) or Emmanuel M. Hewlett and Cornelius J. Jones (early Black Supreme Court advocates who on December 13, 1895, argued Gibson v. Mississippi and Smith v. Mississippi, respectively). But for too long, the question of “who was the first Black lawyer to ague before the United States Supreme Court?” has gone unanswered—or worse, incorrectly answered.5 This article seeks to rectify historical oversight and give due credit to this forgotten first: Everett J. Waring of Maryland, who in 1890 argued the case of Jones v. United States. The case he brought transcended garden variety criminal defense and the mis treatment of Black workers to raise important questions about sovereignty and jurisdiction in the early days of U.S. imperialism that still resonate today. But in order to appreciate Waring’s achievement, and place it in histor ical perspective, we must first examine the complicated circumstances that launched his","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 3","pages":"265-283"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46749040","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Imagine The Washington Post headline: “In the next presidential election, the most promising candidates for a nomination in clude Elena Kagan for the Democrats and Samuel Alito for the Republicans.” The idea sounds preposterous today, and yet, in the 1848 election, two associate justices of the Supreme Court, representing different par tisan constituencies, were front-runners for a presidential nomination: John McLean of Ohio and Levi Woodbury of New Hampshire. Nor was their experience unique: in the first one hundred years of the nation, nearly a quarter of Supreme Court justices considered or were considered for a presidential run, with candidates from every major political party. These presidential campaigns did not represent judicial corruption, nor were they simply about ambition or vanity; judges ran for president because enough Americans be lieved they would be good candidates. Polit ical leaders, partisan newspapers, and even other judges advocated for the benefits of particular justices as presidential nominees. In fact, the idea of a Supreme Court jus tice becoming president seemed completely unremarkable to politicos; political support ers treated judges the same way they did governors, congressmen, or cabinet members who ran for office. Party leaders traded daily letters analyzing, promoting, or detracting from the candidacies of these men with only an occasional reference to their positions on the Bench. A few noted modest hesitation about a judge’s impartiality, but the vast majority of partisans expressed no concern about the idea of a Supreme Court justice as a presidential candidate. The sheer ordinariness of running a Supreme Court justice for president was representative of how Americans understood
{"title":"Anatomy of a Presidential Campaign from the Supreme Court Bench: John McLean, Levi Woodbury, and the Election of 1848","authors":"Rachel A. Shelden","doi":"10.1111/jsch.12305","DOIUrl":"10.1111/jsch.12305","url":null,"abstract":"Imagine The Washington Post headline: “In the next presidential election, the most promising candidates for a nomination in clude Elena Kagan for the Democrats and Samuel Alito for the Republicans.” The idea sounds preposterous today, and yet, in the 1848 election, two associate justices of the Supreme Court, representing different par tisan constituencies, were front-runners for a presidential nomination: John McLean of Ohio and Levi Woodbury of New Hampshire. Nor was their experience unique: in the first one hundred years of the nation, nearly a quarter of Supreme Court justices considered or were considered for a presidential run, with candidates from every major political party. These presidential campaigns did not represent judicial corruption, nor were they simply about ambition or vanity; judges ran for president because enough Americans be lieved they would be good candidates. Polit ical leaders, partisan newspapers, and even other judges advocated for the benefits of particular justices as presidential nominees. In fact, the idea of a Supreme Court jus tice becoming president seemed completely unremarkable to politicos; political support ers treated judges the same way they did governors, congressmen, or cabinet members who ran for office. Party leaders traded daily letters analyzing, promoting, or detracting from the candidacies of these men with only an occasional reference to their positions on the Bench. A few noted modest hesitation about a judge’s impartiality, but the vast majority of partisans expressed no concern about the idea of a Supreme Court justice as a presidential candidate. The sheer ordinariness of running a Supreme Court justice for president was representative of how Americans understood","PeriodicalId":41873,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Supreme Court History","volume":"47 3","pages":"241-264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45175779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：