| Advertisement |
WASHINGTON, April 9 (UPI) -- Justice John Paul Stevens, stepping down from the U.S. Supreme Court when this term ends in late June, has been a leader on the high court for nearly 35 years. For most of his later tenure, he has been the leader of the four-member liberal bloc.
Advertisement
Stevens was born to a relatively privileged family in Chicago in 1920 -- his grandfather founded the Illinois Life Insurance Co. and built the Stevens Hotel, which eventually became the Hilton Hotel.
As boys, Stevens and his three older brothers posed for the bronze sculptures in the hotel's grand hall. A young Stevens met celebrities including aviators Amelia Earhart and Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh even gave the 7-year-old Stevens a dove, "Lindy."
Stevens not only met Babe Ruth at the hotel, he was at Wrigley Field for Game 3 of the 1932 World Series when the Babe "called his shot" -- after getting a merciless riding from the Cubs' bench, with the count at 2 and 2, Ruth pointed to center field and smacked a 440-foot home run into the bleachers.
After graduating Phi Beta Kappa in 1941 from the University of Chicago, Stevens became a decorated Naval intelligence officer, serving in the Pacific theater, in World War II.
After the war, the brilliant Stevens graduated in 1947 from the Northwestern School of Law with the highest grade point average in the school's history.
He immediately went to work as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Wiley Blount Rutledge, one of the four members of the court's liberal "Axis" during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration.
Stevens founded his own law firm in Chicago in 1952, then was snatched from lucrative private practice by President Richard Nixon for the federal appeals court in Chicago in 1970.
When Justice William Douglas stepped down after nearly 37 years on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1975, President Gerald Ford used his only opportunity to pick a high court justice by naming Stevens.
Among the prominent opposition to the Stevens nomination -- he was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate -- were women's groups who thought some of his opinions on the appeals court diminished women's rights.
Though usually described during his years on the Supreme Court as a liberal lion, he's hard to put in a box.
For example, in 1990's United States vs. Eichman, a 5-4 majority including conservative Justice Antonin Scalia voted to strike down the federal statute against flag burning as a violation of free speech. Stevens the liberal wrote the dissent.
"The (court narrow majority's) opinion ends where proper analysis of the issue should begin," Stevens wrote in defense of the ban. Citing the majority opinion, he said, "Of course 'the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself disagreeable.'"
On other issues, such as the death penalty, Stevens' ideas seem to have migrated from right to left.
The Supreme Court struck down the death penalty, as it was being applied, in the 1972 term as violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
But in 1976, Stevens was one of three court members credited with writing the prevailing opinion in Gregg vs. Georgia restoring the death penalty as constitutional if fairly applied, saying, "The existence of capital punishment was accepted by the Framers of the Constitution, and for nearly two centuries this court has recognized that capital punishment for the crime of murder is not invalid per se."
By 2008, however, Stevens was writing that he supported the death penalty only because of the doctrine of "stare decisis" -- the issue was settled law.
On abortion, 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey found a broken majority of five justices upholding Roe vs. Wade, 1973's recognition of a woman's right to an abortion. But the majority was comprised of several pluralities, and Stevens wrote his own opinion concurring in the judgment but objecting to its restrictions on when an abortion should be allowed.
"My disagreement with the joint opinion begins with its understanding of the trimester framework established in Roe," Stevens wrote. "Contrary to the suggestion of the joint opinion … it is not a 'contradiction' to recognize that the state may have a legitimate interest in potential human life and, at the same time, to conclude that that interest does not justify the regulation of abortion before viability (although other interests, such as maternal health, may). The fact that the state's interest is legitimate does not tell us when, if ever, that interest outweighs the pregnant woman's interest in personal liberty."
Stevens joined the majority in 2000's Stenberg vs. Carhart striking down Nebraska's ban on "partial-birth abortion." But he wrote separately to cast scorn on the central idea of the Nebraska law, that there is a significant difference between "dilation and evacuation," which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue -- which Nebraska allowed -- and the method which the state tried to partly ban, a variation of D&E, known as "intact D&E," used after 16 weeks.
"Intact D&E" involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," in one pass rather than several passes, including the feet-first method is known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X), ordinarily called "partial birth abortion."
"Although much ink is spilled today describing the gruesome nature of late-term abortion procedures," Stevens wrote, "that rhetoric does not provide me a reason to believe that the procedure Nebraska here claims it seeks to ban is more brutal, more gruesome, or less respectful of 'potential life' than the equally gruesome procedure Nebraska claims it still allows. ... The rhetoric is almost, but not quite, loud enough to obscure the quiet fact that during the past 27 years, the central holding of Roe vs. Wade ... has been endorsed by all but four of the 17 justices who have addressed the issue. That holding -- that the word 'liberty' in the 14th Amendment includes a woman's right to make this difficult and extremely personal decision -- makes it impossible for me to understand how a state has any legitimate interest in requiring a doctor to follow any procedure other than the one that he or she reasonably believes will best protect the woman in her exercise of this constitutional liberty."
Stevens also joined the four-member dissent in the 2007 case that upheld the 2003 federal ban on "partial-birth abortions."
On affirmative action, Stevens also has moved from right to left over the years.
In 1978's University of California Regents vs. Bakke, Stevens wrote a concurrence supporting the plurality opinion striking down the university system's policy that prevented a qualified candidate's admission because he was white.
But in 2003's Grutter vs. Bollinger, Stevens joined the 5-4 majority upholding the affirmative action policy of the University of Michigan's Law School admissions program. The majority opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the policy was "narrowly tailored" to achieve the goal of a diverse student body and did not violate the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment.
On prayer in public schools, Stevens wrote the 6-3 opinion in 1985's Wallace vs. Jaffree that said a state-required "moment of silence" at the beginning of the school day was unconstitutional. The decision struck down an Alabama "moment of silence" law.
In 1992's Cipollone vs. Liggett, Stevens wrote the 7-2 opinion that said cigarette makers who lie about the dangers of smoking or otherwise misrepresent their products can be sued under state law -- opening the door to a flood of suits in smoking-related deaths.
Stevens wrote the unanimous opinion in 1997's Clinton vs. Jones, ruling that Paula Jones's sexual harassment suit against President Clinton could continue.
Stevens said the courts were not required to delay the suit until Clinton left office in 2001, and the lawsuit would not be disruptive. Stevens turned out to be a poor prophet. Clinton's testimony during the suit about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky led to his eventual impeachment by the House and acquittal by the Senate.
Stevens also wrote the unanimous opinion in 1984's Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, universally recognized as the most cited decision in Supreme Court history.
Writing for a 6-0 court -- three justices recused themselves, presumably because of conflicts of interest -- Stevens said: "When a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency's policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges -- who have no constituency -- have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do. The responsibilities for assessing the wisdom of such policy choices and resolving the struggle between competing views of the public interest are not judicial ones."
In other words, when Congress is vague in a law, U.S. agencies can broadly interpret it. "Chevron deference" was born.
Most famously, Stevens was among the four dissenters in 2000's Bush vs. Gore.
Stevens was married to Elizabeth Jane Sheeren in 1942 and they had four children: John Joseph, Kathryn Stevens Jedlicka, Elizabeth Jane and Susan Roberta.
After a divorce, he married Maryan Mulholland Simon in December 1979.
As he approaches 90 -- his 90th birthday is April 20 -- there has been at least one concession to his advancing age: He no longer flies his private plane from Washington to Florida.
