For what was the warren court known

Or forbid married couples to use contraceptives? Would you really reject the principle of one person, one vote? Do you disagree that the central meaning of the First Amendment is that people must be free to criticize the government? So what was it about the Warren Court that was so activist, or excessive, or illegitimate? They changed the law, and they changed society.

But many of the greatest judges in our legal tradition—John Marshall, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Benjamin Cardozo—are famous precisely because they changed the law. But like other great judges and justices, the justices of the Warren Court did not simply impose that vision on society. Today, especially, it is important to see that these criticisms of the Warren Court are wrong.

Since , the Supreme Court has be- come increasingly conservative. It rationalizes aggressively conservative judicial decisions as a necessary corrective—or, as some self-identified moderates might say, an understandable reaction—to the supposed liberal excesses of the Warren era. All of that is wrong. But that is not what the Warren Court did.

The Warren Court, for example, was conspicuously reluctant to strike down Acts of Congress. But those conservative Courts have repeatedly overruled, or cut back, key Warren Court decisions that gave power to Congress.

But those decisions, too, reflected a deep commitment to democracy. The Warren Court acted on the premise that the role of the Supreme Court is to intervene when American democracy was not truly democratic: when some groups were marginalized or excluded and denied their fair share of democratic political power.

Most important, the Warren Court protected the interests of African Americans in the Jim Crow South, who were effectively kept from voting in many places and were utterly excluded, often violently, from positions of influence.

The Warren Court protected political dissidents, stating unequivocally that free and open debate is a central commitment of any democratic government.

The Warren Court acted on behalf of members of minority religious groups whose interests were disregarded by the majority, and of criminal defendants who were often also members of discriminated-against minority groups and who lacked any effective voice in politics.

Like the Supreme Court of John Marshall, the Warren Court had a vision of the role that the highest court should play in American government. But the justices of the Warren Court did not simply impose that vision on society. To the contrary, even their most controversial decisions had deep roots in American law and traditions. Critics often portray the members of the Warren Court as judicial imperialists who took over policymaking from elected representatives.

The Warren Court was, in fact, conspicuously reluctant to strike down Acts of Congress. But those decisions, too, reflected a deep commitment to democracy. The Warren Court acted on the premise that the role of the Supreme Court is to intervene when American democracy was not truly democratic: when some groups were marginalized or excluded and denied their fair share of democratic political power. Most important, the Warren Court protected the interests of African Americans in the Jim Crow South, who were effectively kept from voting in many places and were utterly excluded, often violently, from positions of influence.

The Warren Court protected political dissidents, stating unequivocally that free and open debate is a central commitment of any democratic government. The Warren Court acted on behalf of members of minority religious groups whose interests were disregarded by the majority, and of criminal defendants who were often also members of discriminated-against minority groups and who lacked any effective voice in politics.

Chief Justice Earl Warren said that his landmark Supreme Court ruling on desegregation above would not have been necessary if his "one person, one vote" decisions, which served as a corrective to minority underrepresentation, had come earlier. Contrary to the critics, this was a principled and appropriate role for the Supreme Court to play. If the courts are to step in, they must have a reason: a reason why a particular issue should not be left to ordinary democratic processes.

American law has always built on foundations laid in the past. The Warren Court built on the past in another way, too. Time and again in their landmark decisions, the Warren Court justices relied on the lessons of experience. Brown v. Mapp v. Ohio extended the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states because decades of experience showed that there was no other effective way to deter unlawful searches.

Reynolds v. Miranda v. New York Times v. In Brown v. Board, however, the Warren Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibited the operation of separate public schools for Whites and Blacks. When some states refused to end the practice, the Warren Court—again unanimously—ruled in the case of Cooper v. Aaron that all states must obey the decisions of the Supreme Court and cannot refuse to follow them.

The unanimity Warren achieved in Brown v. Board and Cooper v. Aaron made it easier for Congress to enact legislation banning racial segregation and discrimination in broader areas, including the Civil Rights Act of and the Voting Rights Act of Especially in Cooper v.

Aaron, Warren clearly established the power of the courts to stand with the Executive and Legislative Branches as an active partner in proactively governing the nation. For years, sparsely populated rural areas had been over-represented, leaving densely populated urban areas under-represented.

By the s, as people moved out of the cities, the sprawling middle class became under-represented. Justice William O. In the landmark apportionment case of Reynolds v. Sims , Warren crafted an decision that stands as a civics lesson today. Despite objections from rural legislators, the states complied quickly, reapportioning their legislatures with minimal problems.

Again during the s, the Warren Court delivered three landmark decisions expanding the constitutional due process rights of criminal defendants. In , Mapp v. In , Gideon v.

Wainwright held that the Sixth Amendment required that all indigent criminal defendants be assigned a free, publicly-funded defense attorney. Finally, the case of Miranda v. However, homicide rates have fallen dramatically since the early s. In two landmark decisions that continue to spark controversy today, the Warren Court expanded the scope of the First Amendment by applying its protections to the actions of the states.

The Engel v. In its Griswold v. Connecticut decision, the Warren Court affirmed that personal privacy, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, is a right granted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

During the first six months of , nine states pressed the boundaries of Roe v. Wade by enacting early abortion bans outlawing abortions when performed after a certain point early in the pregnancy. Legal challenges to these laws will linger in the courts for years. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Use precise geolocation data.

Select personalised content. Create a personalised content profile.