John Paul Stevens

Justice John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is an American jurist who has been a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice since 1975; he is the oldest and longest serving justice currently on the court.

Judicial philosophy

Early in his tenure Stevens ostensibly took a moderate path. He voted to reinstate capital punishment in the United States and opposed the affirmative action program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. On the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens tended to side with the more liberal-leaning Justices on issues such as abortion rights and federalism.

Related Topics:
Capital punishment in the United States - Affirmative action - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Rehnquist - Abortion - Federalism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Stevens's jurisprudence has usually been characterized as idiosyncratic; he often adopts unusual or lonely positions on issues. Stevens, who (according to reports) unlike most justices usually writes the first drafts of his opinions himself, is not an originalist (like fellow Justice Antonin Scalia) nor a pragmatist (like Richard Posner) nor does he believe in "our democratic constitution" (like Justice Stephen Breyer) nor does he pronounce himself a cautious liberal (like Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg). Like most American judges, at various times his approach reflects some or all of these doctrines.

Related Topics:
Antonin Scalia - Richard Posner - Stephen Breyer - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 1983's Michigan v. Long, for example, Stevens dissented from the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the Michigan Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law, arguing that state court decisions granting people rights under the federal constitution that nullify complained-of state action should not be disturbed by federal courts. In 1985's Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Stevens argued against the Supreme Court's famous "strict scrutiny" doctrine for laws involving "suspect classifications", putting forth the view that all classifications should be evaluated on the basis of the "rational basis" test as to whether they could have been enacted by an "impartial legislature."

Related Topics:
Michigan v. Long - Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Stevens's views on obscenity under the First Amendment have changed over the years. Initially quite critical of constitutional protection for obscenity, rejecting a challenge to Detroit zoning ordinances that barred adult theatres in designated areas in 1976's Young v. American Mini Theatres ("ven though we recognize that the First Amendment will not tolerate the total suppression of erotic materials that have some arguably artistic value, it is manifest that society's interest in protecting this type of expression is of a wholly different, and lesser, magnitude than the interest in untrammeled political debate"), Stevens now adheres firmly to a libertarian free speech approach on obscenity issues, voting to strike down a federal law regulating "virtual" child pornography in 2004's Ashcroft v. ACLU.

Related Topics:
Detroit - Ashcroft v. ACLU

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Stevens was once an impassioned critic of affirmative action, voting in 1978 to invalidate the affirmative action program at issue in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. He also dissented in 1980's Fullilove v. Klutznick, which upheld a minority set-aside program. He gradually shifted his position over the years and voted to uphold the somewhat different affirmative action program at the University of Michigan Law School challenged in 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger.

Related Topics:
Affirmative action - Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - 2003 - Grutter v. Bollinger

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Perhaps the most consistent feature of his jurisprudence are his continual references to World War II in his opinions, which Stevens often cites to appeal to shared patriotic, American values. For example, Stevens, a World War II veteran, was visibly angered by liberal attorney William Kunstler's flippant defense of flag-burning in oral argument in 1989's Texas v. Johnson and voted to uphold a prohibition on flag-burning against a First Amendment attack. Wrote Stevens, "The ideas of liberty and equality have been an irresistible force in motivating leaders like Patrick Henry, Susan B. Anthony, and Abraham Lincoln, schoolteachers like Nathan Hale and Booker T. Washington, the Philippine Scouts who fought at Bataan, and the soldiers who scaled the bluff at Omaha Beach. If those ideas are worth fighting for - and our history demonstrates that they are - it cannot be true that the flag that uniquely symbolizes their power is not itself worthy of protection from unnecessary desecration."

Related Topics:
World War II - William Kunstler - Texas v. Johnson - First Amendment

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~