Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T00:20:03.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Justice Harlan and the Uses of Dissent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Loren P. Beth
Loren P. Beth
Affiliation:
University of Florida
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The appointment of John M. Harlan of New York to the Supreme Court bench came not only as something of a surprise, but as a rather timely and significant one. It is not merely that he is the first justice who is a direct descendant of a previous member of the Court, but that in a fitting sense his appointment may be regarded as a long-overdue tribute to the services his grandfather rendered to the Court and to the nation, and to the causes which the elder Harlan so ably represented.

Of all the more prominent justices in Supreme Court history, John Marshall Harlan of Kentucky has been, for no obvious reason, the most neglected. The recently published biography of Justice William Johnson has restored to his place in history the only other justice who perhaps could compete with Harlan in the lack of attention paid a significant career.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , December 1955 , pp. 1085 - 1104
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1955

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 Harlan was nominated on January 10 and confirmed by the Senate on March 16, 1955.

2 Morgan, Donald, Justice William, Johnson, The First Dissenter (Columbia, S. C., 1954)Google Scholar.

3 By Professor David Farrelly of the University of California (Los Angeles).

4 The more important recent articles are: Waite, Edward F., “How ‘Eccentric’ Was Mr. Justice Harlan?”, Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 37, pp. 173–87 (Feb., 1953)Google Scholar; Farrelly, David G., “Justice Harlan's Dissent in the Pollock Case,” Southern California Law Review, Vol. 24, pp. 175–82 (Feb., 1951)Google Scholar; Watt, Richard F. and Orlikoff, Richard M., “The Coming Vindication of Mr. Justice Harlan,” Illinois Law Review, Vol. 44, pp. 13–40 (1949)Google Scholar; Document, “The Appointment of Mr. Justice Harlan,” Indiana Law Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 46–74 (Fall, 1953)Google Scholar.

5 Mason, Alpheus T., Brandeis and the Modern State (Washington, 1936), p. 120Google Scholar.

6 Quoted in Waite, op. cit. n. 4, pp. 180–81.

7 Holmes-Pollock Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 7–8 (April 5, 1919)Google Scholar.

8 Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 157–58 (Jan. 7, 1910), referring to Harlan's concurring opinion in Kuhn v. Fairmont Coal Co., 215 U. S. 349 (1910).

9 In Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 (1947), concurring opinion.

10 See Cushman, Robert E., “Harlan, John Marshall,” Dictionary of American Biography, Vol. 8, p. 269Google Scholar.

11 33 years, 10 months and 25 days.

12 He wrote 316 dissents, according to Swisher, Carl, American Constitutional Development (New York, 1954), p. 564Google Scholar.

13 109 U. S. 3 (1883).

14 Munn v. Illinois, 94 U. S. 113 (1877).

15 163 U. S. 537 (1896).

16 Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954); Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954).

17 Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45 (1908).

18 Henderson v. U. S., 339 U. S. 816 (1950), dealing with segregation on interstate dining cars.

19 Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373 (1946), dealing with segregation on interstate busses.

20 334 U. S. 1 (1948).

21 See McKay, Robert B., “Segregation and Public Recreation,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 40, pp. 697–731 (Oct., 1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 95 U. S. 485 (1878).

23 133 U. S. 587 (1890).

24 333 U. S. 28 (1948).

25 189 U. S. 474 (1903).

26 James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127 (1903).

27 100 U. S. 303 (1879).

28 100 U. S. 313 (1879).

29 100 U. S. 339 (1879).

30 103 U. S. 370 (1881).

31 106 U. S. 629 (1883).

32 175 U. S. 528 (1899).

33 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601 (1894).

34 See Farrelly, op. cit., n. 4.

35 Ibid.

36 162 U. S. 197 (1896).

37 ICC v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 479 (1897).

38 168 U. S. 144 (1897).

39 East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Ry. Co. v. ICC, 181 U. S. 1 (1901).

40 Harriman v. ICC, 211 U. S. 407 (1908).

41 U. S. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366 (1909).

42 221 U. S. 448 (1911).

43 Adair v. U. S., 208 U. S. 161 (1908).

44 207 U. S. 463 (1907).

45 Pusey, Merlo J., Charles Evans Hughes (New York, 1951), Vol. 1, p. 277Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., p. 278.

47 U. S. v. E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., et al., 126 F. Supp. 235 (1954). While Judge LaBuy's decision held there was no restraint of trade in this case, he also remarked (at p. 335) that the Sherman and Clayton Acts “broadly condemn conspiracies [etc.] … that result in monopoly or unreasonable restraint of trade” (my italics).

48 U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1 (1894).

49 175 U. S. 211 (1899).

50 Swift & Co. v. U. S., 196 U. S. 375 (1905).

51 Mandeville Island & Farms v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219 (1948).

52 U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U. S. 290 (1897).

53 U. S. v. Joint-Traffic Association, 171 U. S. 505 (1898).

54 Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197 (1903).

55 The Mind and Faith of Justice Holmes, ed. Lerner, Max (Boston, 1943), p. 218Google Scholar.

56 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. U. S., 221 U. S. 1 (1911); U. S. v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106 (1911).

57 123 U. S. 623 (1887).

58 127 U. S. 678 (1888).

59 135 U. S. 100 (1890).

60 144 U. S. 323 (1892).

61 169 U. S. 466 (1897).

62 Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905).

63 Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (1905).

64 Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873).

65 110 U. S. 516 (1883).

66 See Knight, Thomas J., “The Dissenting Opinions of Justice Harlan,” American Law Review, Vol. 51, pp. 481–506 (1917)Google Scholar.

67 176 U. S. 581 (1899).

68 302 U. S. 319 (1937).

69 211 U. S. 78 (1908).

70 165 U. S. 275 (1896).

71 219 U. S. 219 (1911).

72 190 U. S. 197 (1903).

73 195 U. S. 138 (1904).

74 327 U. S. 304 (1946).

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.