Scholars cast more doubt on controversial Rehnquist memo
Written in 1952, dredged up in 1971 and again in 1986 and now resurrected again in 2012the specter of the memo written by former Chief Justice William Rehnquist for Justice Robert Jackson about his thoughts on segregation cases has haunted him for 60 years. And now, a pair of scholars...
March 20, 2012 at 08:54 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Written in 1952, dredged up in 1971 and again in 1986, and now resurrected again in 2012—the specter of the memo former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for Justice Robert Jackson about segregation cases has haunted Rehnquist for 60 years. And now, a pair of scholars has penned an article revisiting the letter, and cast further doubt on whether or not Rehnquist lied about his intent to gain nomination to the high court and again for chief justice.
Rehnquist wrote his memo at the time the high court was considering the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. Given the question of whether to overrule the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision affirming the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities and the “separate but equal” doctrine, Rehnquist wrote the following controversial line:
“I realize it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.”
When this was brought to light by Newsweek in 1971 prior to the Senate debate over Rehnquist's nomination, it caused a furor that was repeated again in 1986 when President Regan nominated him for chief justice. Rehnquist's defense both times was that the opinions he espoused in the memo were not his own, and they were prepared by him for Justice Jackson, for whom he was a clerk, to tentatively use as his own. Despite his explanation, critics have long had their doubts about Rehnquist's true feelings, and castigate him for lying solely in order to advance himself.
To this end, the argument for those still harboring doubts has been bolstered by an article in the Boston College Law Review, in which authors Brad Snyder and John Barrett recently reconstructed and analyzed another of Rehnquist's letters to Justice Felix Frankfurter from 1955 in which he criticized Justice Jackson.
The story surrounding Rehnquist's letter to Justice Frankfurter has its own long and sordid tale involving its theft in 1972 from the Library of Congress (it was never recovered), but a response to Justice Frankfurter about a letter from a law clerk who succeeded Rehnquist has allowed Snyder and Barrett to reconstruct some of what Rehnquist had written.
The Boston College Law Review article asserts that Rehnquist's disappointment over Brown led to Rehnquist's criticism of Justice Jackson, and that had Rehnquist's letter to Justice Frankfurter come to light in 1971 or 1986, it “would have been a bombshell.”
“We conclude that Rehnquist's letter to Frankfurter primarily reflects Rehnquist's disappointment with Brown and the Warren Court,” Snyder and Barrett wrote. “We base our argument on the following factors: (1) Rehnquist wrote admiring letters to Jackson in July 1953 and just prior to Brown in April 1954, letters that indicate that Rehnquist enjoyed his clerkship and agreed with most of Jackson's opinions and judicial philosophy; (2) Rehnquist apparently never wrote to Jackson after Brown; (3) Rehnquist's letter is consistent with his harsh public comments about Brown and the Warren Court throughout the late 1950s; and (4) Rehnquist, in the mid- to late 1960s, reiterated his admiration for Jackson. In our view, Rehnquist's disappointment with Brown provides the most plausible motivation for his harsh 1955 letter about Jackson.”
For more about Rehnquist's letter to Frankfurter, read the New York Times.
Written in 1952, dredged up in 1971 and again in 1986, and now resurrected again in 2012—the specter of the memo former Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for Justice Robert Jackson about segregation cases has haunted Rehnquist for 60 years. And now, a pair of scholars has penned an article revisiting the letter, and cast further doubt on whether or not Rehnquist lied about his intent to gain nomination to the high court and again for chief justice.
Rehnquist wrote his memo at the time the high court was considering the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. Given the question of whether to overrule the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision affirming the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities and the “separate but equal” doctrine, Rehnquist wrote the following controversial line:
“I realize it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by 'liberal' colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed.”
When this was brought to light by Newsweek in 1971 prior to the Senate debate over Rehnquist's nomination, it caused a furor that was repeated again in 1986 when President Regan nominated him for chief justice. Rehnquist's defense both times was that the opinions he espoused in the memo were not his own, and they were prepared by him for Justice Jackson, for whom he was a clerk, to tentatively use as his own. Despite his explanation, critics have long had their doubts about Rehnquist's true feelings, and castigate him for lying solely in order to advance himself.
To this end, the argument for those still harboring doubts has been bolstered by an article in the Boston College Law Review, in which authors Brad Snyder and John Barrett recently reconstructed and analyzed another of Rehnquist's letters to Justice Felix Frankfurter from 1955 in which he criticized Justice Jackson.
The story surrounding Rehnquist's letter to Justice Frankfurter has its own long and sordid tale involving its theft in 1972 from the Library of Congress (it was never recovered), but a response to Justice Frankfurter about a letter from a law clerk who succeeded Rehnquist has allowed Snyder and Barrett to reconstruct some of what Rehnquist had written.
The Boston College Law Review article asserts that Rehnquist's disappointment over Brown led to Rehnquist's criticism of Justice Jackson, and that had Rehnquist's letter to Justice Frankfurter come to light in 1971 or 1986, it “would have been a bombshell.”
“We conclude that Rehnquist's letter to Frankfurter primarily reflects Rehnquist's disappointment with Brown and the Warren Court,” Snyder and Barrett wrote. “We base our argument on the following factors: (1) Rehnquist wrote admiring letters to Jackson in July 1953 and just prior to Brown in April 1954, letters that indicate that Rehnquist enjoyed his clerkship and agreed with most of Jackson's opinions and judicial philosophy; (2) Rehnquist apparently never wrote to Jackson after Brown; (3) Rehnquist's letter is consistent with his harsh public comments about Brown and the Warren Court throughout the late 1950s; and (4) Rehnquist, in the mid- to late 1960s, reiterated his admiration for Jackson. In our view, Rehnquist's disappointment with Brown provides the most plausible motivation for his harsh 1955 letter about Jackson.”
For more about Rehnquist's letter to Frankfurter, read the
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250