Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T21:42:57.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Constitutional Law in 1958–1959: I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

David Fellman
David Fellman*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There was one change in the personnel of the Supreme Court during the 1958 Term. Justice Harold H. Burton of Ohio, who had been appointed by President Truman late in 1945, retired on October 13, 1958. For his place President Eisenhower selected 44-year-old Potter Stewart, a Cincinnati Republican whom he had appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 1954. A graduate of Yale College and the Yale Law School (1941), Justice Stewart was given a recess appointment on October 14, 1958, but it was not confirmed by the Senate until May 5, 1959. The vote was 70 to 17, all Senators voting against confirmation being Southern Democrats. This experience underscored once more, as in the case of Justice Brennan, the risks involved in recess appointments to the Court, since Justice Stewart sat there for most of the Term before confirmation was had. Whether this affected his votes on cases is a matter of sheer speculation, but the occasion for it is highly regrettable. A new Justice should be as independent as an old one, from the very beginning his service.

Public controversy over the Court's recent decisions, particularly in the security field, continued during the 1958 Term. Pressure for legislation designed to overturn specific Court decisions or to curb the Court's powers continued in the First Session of the 86th Congress, but was less intense than in the previous Congress.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 1960 , pp. 167 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 On members of the Court, past and present, see: Warner, Hoyt L., The Life of Mr. Justice Clarke (Cleveland, 1959)Google Scholar; Christman, Henry M., ed., The Public Papers of Chief Justice Earl Warren (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Countryman, Vern, ed., Douglas of the Supreme Court (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Byrnes, James F., All In One Lifetime (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Freund, Paul A., “Mr. Justice Frankfurter,” University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 26, pp. 205–216 (Winter, 1959)Google Scholar; Albert M. Sachs, “Mr. Justice Frankfurter,” ibid., pp. 217–221; Gressman, Eugene, “The Controversial Image of Mr. Justice Murphy,” Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 631–654 (Summer, 1959)Google Scholar; Wallace, Harry L., “Mr. Justice Minton—Hoosier Justice on the Supreme Court,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 145–205 Google Scholar (Winter, 1959), pp. 377–424 (Spring, 1959); Berman, Daniel M., “Mr. Justice Whittaker: A Preliminary Appraisal,” Missouri Law Review, Vol. 24, pp. 1–15 (January, 1959)Google Scholar; Schmidhauser, John R., “The Justices of the Supreme Court: A Collective Portrait,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3, pp. 1–57 (February, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 See Paschal, J. Francis, “Mr. Justice Stewart on the Court of Appeals,” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1959, pp. 325–340 (Summer, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See more generally: Beth, Loren P., “Judge into Justice: Should Supreme Court Appointees Have Judicial Experience?” South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol. 58, pp. 521–527 (Autumn, 1959).Google Scholar

3 For recent evaluations of the Court see: Frank, John P., Marble Palace: The Supreme Court in American Life (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Mason, Alpheus T., The Supreme Court from Taft to Warren (Baton Rouge, 1958)Google Scholar; Symposium, , “The Role of the Supreme Court in the American Constitutional System,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 33, pp. 521–616 (August, 1959)Google Scholar; Reed, Stanley F., “Observations on the Effect of Constitutional Interpretation on American Life,” Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 10, pp. 504–522 (September, 1959)Google Scholar; Pritchett, C. Herman, “The Supreme Court Today: Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Self-Restraint,” South Dakota Law Review, Vol. 3, pp. 51–79 (Spring, 1958)Google Scholar; Mason, Alpheus T., “The Supreme Court: Temple and Forum,” Yale Review, Vol. 48, pp. 524–540 (Summer, 1959).Google Scholar For general surveys of American constitutional law see: Pritchett, C. Herman, The American Constitution (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Mason, Alpheus T. and Beaney, William M., The Supreme Court In a Free Society (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1959).Google Scholar During the period under review there was a veritable flowering of new casebooks in constitutional law: Cushman, R. E. and Cushman, R. F., Cases in Constitutional Law (New York, 1958)Google Scholar; Mendelson, Wallace, The Constitution and the Supreme Court (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Tresolini, Rocco J., American Constitutional Law (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Cahill, Fred V. Jr., and Steamer, Robert J., The Constitution: Cases and Comments (New York, 1959).Google Scholar See also: Clark, Tom C., “Internal Operation of the United States Supreme Court,” Journal of the American Judicature Society, Vol. 43, pp. 45–51 (August, 1959)Google Scholar; Newland, Chester A., “Legal Periodicals and the United States Supreme Court,” Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 3, pp. 58–74 (February, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, reprinted in University of Kansas Law Review, Vol. 7, pp. 477–489 (May, 1959); Vose, Clement E., “Litigation as a Form of Pressure Group Activity,” Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 319, pp. 20–31 (September, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Abraham, Henry J., Courts and Judges (New York, 1959).Google Scholar

4 See “The 86th Congress and Recent Decisions of the U. S. Supreme Court,” Congressional Digest, Vol. 38, pp. 225–256 (October, 1959).

5 Yates v. United States, 354 U. S. 298 (1957).

6 351 U.S. 536 (1956).

7 Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958); Dayton v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 144 (1958). See this Review, Vol. 53, pp. 142–143 (March, 1959).

8 360 U.S. 474 (1959).

9 Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957).

10 Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, 358 U.S. 450 (1959).

11 Act of September 14, 1959, P.L. 86–272, 73 Stat. 555.

12 See Menez, Joseph F., “A Brief in Support of the Supreme Court,” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 54, pp. 30–59 (March–April, 1959)Google Scholar; Losos, Joseph O., “The Supreme Court and its Critics: Is the Court Moving Left?” Review of Politics, Vol. 20, pp. 495–510 (July, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 For the text of the recommendations see New York Times, February 25, 1959. The full report has been published separately by the American Bar Association, Special Committee on Communist Tactics, Strategy and Objectives, Resolution and Report (Chicago, February, 1959).Google Scholar

14 Setting aside Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956).

15 Above, note 5.

16 Setting aside Cole v. Young, above, note 6.

17 Setting aside United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194 (1957).

18 Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957).

19 See: “A Report of the Committee on Federal Legislation” of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Vol. 14, pp. 241–268 (June, 1959); “Report of the National Lawyers Guild on the Recommendations of the American Bar Association,” Lawyers Guild Review, Vol. 19, pp. 30–35 (Spring, 1959). For American Civil Liberties Union criticisms see New York Times, April 19, 1959. For a defense of the A.B.A. report see: Roy Cohn, M. and Bolan, Thomas A., “The Supreme Court and the A.B.A. Report and Resolutions,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 233–286 (Summer, 1959).Google Scholar

20 Such as Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422 (1956); Beilan v. Board of Public Education, 357 U.S. 399 (1958); Lerner v. Casey, 357 U.S. 468 (1958); Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U.S. 292 (1956); Wilson v. Loew's Incorporated, 355 U.S. 597 (1958).

21 Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242 (1937).

22 See New York Times, August 13, 1959, p. 54. For the full text see American Bar Association, Report of the Standing Committee on Bill of Rights, August, 1959, Report No. 71.Google Scholar

23 See New York Times, August 26, 1959, p. 30.

24 See ZoBell, Karl M., “Division of Opinion in the Supreme Court: A History of Judi cial Disintegration,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 186–214 (Winter, 1959)Google Scholar; Blaustein, Albert P. and Field, Andrew H., “‘Overruling’ Opinions in the Supreme Court,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 57, pp. 151–194 (December, 1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 See Harlan, John M., “Manning the Dikes—Some Comments on the Statutory Certiorari Jurisdiction and Jurisdictional Statement Practice of the Supreme Court of the United States,” The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Vol. 13, pp. 541–561 (December, 1958)Google Scholar; Ledet, Stephen J. Jr., “Requirement of Substantial Constitutional Question in Federal Three-Judge Court Cases,” Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 19, pp. 813–830 (June, 1959).Google Scholar

26 On civil rights topics see: Konvitz, Milton R. and Rossiter, Clinton, eds., Aspects of Liberty: Essays Presented to Robert E. Cushman (Ithaca, 1958)Google Scholar; Spicer, George W., The Supreme Court and Fundamental Freedoms (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Fellman, David, The Limits of Freedom (New Brunswick, N. J., 1959)Google Scholar; Medina, Harold R., The Anatomy of Freedom (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Perry, Richard L., ed., Sources of Our Liberties (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Curtis, Charles P., “A Natural Law for Today and the Supreme Court as its Prophet,” Boston University Law Review, Vol. 39, pp. 1–51 (Winter, 1959)Google Scholar; Rogge, O. John, “‘Concept of Ordered Liberty,’” California Law Review, Vol. 47, pp. 238–266 (May 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beaney, William M., “Civil Liberties and Statutory Construction,” Journal of Public Law, Vol. 8, pp. 66–80 (Spring, 1959)Google Scholar; Freeman, Harrop A., “Civil Liberties—Acid Test of Democracy,” Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 43, pp. 511–530 (January, 1959)Google Scholar; Wasserman, Jack, “The Universal Ideal of Justice and Our Immigration Laws,” Notre Dame Lawyer, Vol. 34, pp. 1–20 (December, 1958)Google Scholar; Goostree, Robert E., “The Denaturalization Cases of 1958,” American University Law Review, Vol. 8, pp. 87–99 (June, 1959)Google Scholar; Chafee, Zechariah Jr., “Safeguarding Fundamental Human Rights: The Task of States and Nation,” George Washington Law Review, Vol. 27, pp. 519–539 (April, 1959)Google Scholar; Robert G. Dixon, Jr., “Civil Rights: Recent Variations on a Theme of Moderation,” ibid., pp. 540–556.

27 71 Stat. 634. The Report of the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1969, can be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents for $2.00. The Commission's abridgement of the full report, sub nom. With Liberty and Justice for All, is priced at sixty cents.

28 Act of September 29, 1959, P.L. 86–383, 71 Stat. 635.

29 Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959). See Fuchs, Ralph S., “The Barenblatt Decision of the Supreme Court and the Academic Profession,” AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 45, pp. 333–338 (September, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robert K. Carr, “Academic Freedom, the American Association of University Professors, and the United States Supreme Court,” ibid., Vol. 45, pp. 5–24 (March, 1959); Byse, Clark and Joughin, Louis, Tenure in American Higher Education (Ithaca, 1959)Google Scholar; Hyman, Harold M., To Try Men's Souls: Loyally Tests in American History (Berkeley, 1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schwartz, Bernard, “Executive Privilege and Congressional Investigatory Power,” California Law Review, Vol. 47, pp. 3–50 (March, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Above, note 18; see this Review, Vol. 52, pp. 146–148 (March, 1958).

31 358 U.S. 147 (1958).

32 Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955).

33 Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474 (1959). See McKay, Robert B., “The Right of Confrontation,” Washington University Law Quarterly, Vol. 1959, pp. 122–167 (April, 1959).Google Scholar

34 359 U.S. 535 (1959).

35 This was the point established in Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 (1957).

36 Smith v. United States, 360 U.S. 1 (1959). See Watts, Lewis P. Jr., “Grand Jury: Sleeping Watchdog or Expensive Antique?” North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 37, pp. 290–315 (April, 1959)Google Scholar; Wickersham, Cornelius W. Jr., “The Supreme Court and Federal Criminal Procedure,” Cornell Law Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 14–26 (Fall, 1958).Google Scholar

37 Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959). Three Justices dissented.

38 Irvin v. Dowd, 359 U.S. 394 (1959). Four Justices dissented on the ground that the Court misread the state supreme court's opinion. For an extraordinarily penetrating analysis of this case, see Hart, Henry M. Jr., “Foreword: The Time Chart of the Justices,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 73, pp. 84–125 (November, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 18 U.S.C. §3500.

40 Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957).

41 Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343 (1959).

42 In a companion case, Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U.S. 367 (1959), the Court held that even though the exclusion of one particular document was contrary to the Jencks Act, it was harmless error, since the same information came out on cross-examination. Four dissenting Justices thought the error was prejudicial. In still another case decided at the same time, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U.S. 395 (1959), the Court held that the Jencks rule had nothing to do with grand jury proceedings, and that the language of the Act was not intended to encompass grand jury minutes. Three Justices dissented, Justice Brennan arguing that the usual reasons given for grand jury secrecy do not apply here, and that since the government uses the grand jury minutes to further its own interests in litigation, the defense should have the same access to them that the Jencks Act secures for prior statements.

43 Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (1959).

44 Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).

45 Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187 (1959). Attorney General Rogers promptly announced that “the mere existence of the power, of course, does not mean that it should necessarily be exercised.” He declared the policy of the Department of Justice to be against a federal trial after a state prosecution for the same act or acts “unless the reasons are compelling;” and not then unless the District Attorney first clears with the appropriate Assistant Attorney General and the Attorney General. For the text of his statement see New York Times, April 6, 1959, p. 19.

46 Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410 (1847); United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560 (1850); Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13 (1852).

47 United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

48 Mills v. Louisiana, 360 U.S. 230 (1959). See: Mayers, Lewis, Shall We Amend the Fifth Amendment? (New York, 1959)Google Scholar; Kemp, John A., “The Background of the Fifth Amendment in English Law: A Study of its Historical Implications,” William and Mary Law Review, Vol. 1, pp. 247–286 (No. 2, 1958).Google Scholar

49 357 U.S. 371 (1958). See this Review, Vol. 53, pp. 168–169 (March, 1959).

50 Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487 (1944).

51 Brown v. United States, 359 U.S. 41 (1959).

52 161 U.S. 591 (1896).

53 360 U.S. 622 (1959).

54 It is worth noting, however, that the vote of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was 4–3. 260 F.2d 189.

55 Farmers Educational and Cooperative Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U.S. 525 (1959). See Friedenthal, Jack H. and Medalie, Richard J., “The Impact of Federal Regulation on Political Broadcasting: Section 315 of the Communications Act,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 72, pp. 445–493 (January, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 260 U.S. 564 (1959).

57 Howard v. Lyons, 360 U.S. 593 (1959).

58 358 U.S. 498 (1959).

59 Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513 (1958). See this Review, Vol. 53, pp. 162–164 (March, 1959).

60 Federal Housing Authority v. The Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S. 84 (1958).

61 Plumbers, Steamfitters, Refrigeration, Petroleum Fitters, and Apprentices of Local 298 v. County of Door, 359 U.S. 354 (1959).

62 Mitchell v. Lublin, McGaughy & Associates, 358 U.S. 207 (1959).

63 Baker v. Texas & Pacific R. Co., 359 U.S. 227 (1959).

64 Moore v. Terminal Railroad Assoc., 358 U.S. 31 (1958).

65 Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 360 U.S. 246 (1959).

66 Evers v. Dwyer, 358 U.S. 202 (1958).

67 Dick v. New York Life Insurance Co., 359 U.S. 437 (1959).

68 Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). See Hill, Alfred, “The Erie Doctrine and the Constitution,” Northwestern University Law Review, Vol. 53, pp. 427–456 (September–October, 1958)Google Scholar, pp. 541–609 (November-December, 1958).

69 Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural Electrical Co-op, Inc., 356 U.S. 525 (1958).

70 Magenau v. Aetna Freight Lines, 360 U.S. 273 (1959).

71 Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Commission, 359 U.S. 275 (1959).

72 The Court cited Keifer & Keifer v. RFC, 306 U.S. 381 (1939), as illustrating the new and prevailing climate of opinion.

73 City of Meridian v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co., 358 U.S. 639 (1959).

74 Harrison v. NAACP, 360 U.S. 167 (1959). See Murphy, Walter F., “The South Counterattacks: The Anti-NAACP Laws,” Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 371–390 (June, 1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

75 Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25 (1959).

76 360 U.S. 185 (1959).

77 Martin v. Creasy, 360 U.S. 219 (1959).

78 Lee v. Madigan, 358 U.S. 228 (1959). See Wiener, Frederick Bernays, “Courts-Martial and the Bill of Rights: The Original Practice,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 72, pp. 1–49 (November, 1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pp. 266–304 (December, 1958).

79 As in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), and U. S. ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955).

80 Kahn v. Anderson, 255 U.S. 1, 10 (1921).

81 Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354 (1959).

82 The Harrisburg, 119 U.S. 199 (1886).

83 The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U.S. 588 (1959).

84 Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625 (1959).

85 United States v. Radio Corporation of America, 358 U.S. 334 (1959).

86 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Day, 360 U.S. 548 (1959).

87 Union Pacific R. Co. v. Price, 360 U.S. 601 (1959). See Kramer, Robert, “The Place and Function of Judicial Review in the Administrative Process,” Fordham Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 1–95 (Spring, 1959)Google Scholar; Davis, Kenneth Culp, Administrative Law Treatise (4 vols., St. Paul, 1958).Google Scholar

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.