Sandra Day O'Connor

Supreme Court jurisprudence

O'Connor is part of the federalism movement and approaches each case as narrowly as possible, avoiding generalizations that might later "paint her into a corner" for future cases. Although she formed part of the conservative axis during the later years of the Burger Court, with the departure of the last members of the liberal Warren Court, she is now regarded as occupying the ideological center. It is both O'Connor's dedication to asserting her judicial power over that of other federal institutions and her pragmatic circumspection that gave her a deciding centrist vote for many of the Rehnquist Court's cases.

Related Topics:
Federalism movement - Burger - Warren - Rehnquist

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are just some of the cases in which O'Connor has been the deciding vote:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; McConnell v. FEC, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003) : This was the ruling that upheld the constitutionality of most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill regulating "soft money" contributions.

Related Topics:
McConnell v. FEC - 124 S.Ct. 619 - 2003

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. ___ (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) : O'Connor wrote the opinion of the court in Grutter and joined the majority in Gratz. In this pair of cases, the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions program was held to have engaged in unconstitutional reverse discrimination, but the more limited type of affirmative action in the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program was held to have been constitutional.

Related Topics:
Grutter v. Bollinger - 539 U.S. ___ - 2003 - Gratz v. Bollinger - University of Michigan

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002): O'Connor joined the majority holding that the use of school vouchers for religious schools did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Related Topics:
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris - 536 U.S. 639 - 2002

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000): O'Connor joined the majority in holding that New Jersey violated the Boy Scouts' freedom of association by prohibiting it from discriminating against its troop masters on the basis of sexual orientation.

Related Topics:
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale - 530 U.S. 640 - 2000

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995): O'Connor joined a majority holding unconstitutional Gun-Free School Zones Act as beyond Congress's Commerce Clause power.

Related Topics:
United States v. Lopez - 514 U.S. 549 - 1995 - Commerce Clause

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On December 12, 2000, O'Connor joined with six other (ruling to stop the ongoing Florida recount) and four other (ruling to allow no further recounts) justices to rule on the Bush v. Gore case that ceased challenges to the results of the 2000 election. Some charged that the Supreme Court interceded unfairly in a political issue. Others note that the Court specifically restricted the precedent-setting effect of the decision by holding, "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Related Topics:
December 12 - 2000 - Bush v. Gore - 2000 election

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Justice O'Connor has played an important role in other notable cases, such as:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989): This decision held that state regulation of abortion was constitutional if it provided exceptions for the health of the mother and if it didn't ban abortions contrary to the trimester regime of Roe v. Wade. Although O'Connor joined the majority, which also included Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and White, she bluntly declared in a concurring opinion that Roe was correctly decided and that overturning Roe would violate the basic principals of judicial restraint.

Related Topics:
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services - 492 U.S. 490 - 1989 - Roe v. Wade - Roe

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) : O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion contending that state laws that prohibited homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Although she agreed with the majority in holding such laws unconstitutional, she did not join in the opinion that they violated the substantative due process afforded by the Due Process Clause. Under a ruling under the Equal Protection Clause, states could still prohibit sodomy, provided they prohibited both homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy.

Related Topics:
Lawrence v. Texas - 539 U.S. 558 - 2003 - Sodomy - Equal Protection Clause - Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Due Process Clause

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Her rulings on the issue of abortion are those that are perhaps most widely considered controversial. In her confirmation hearings and early days on the court, many believed she opposed abortion rights. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, O'Connor's opinion introduced a new test that reined in the unrestricted freedom from regulation during the first trimester as proscribed by Roe v. Wade. Whereas before the regulatory powers of the State could not intervene so early in the pregnancy, O'Connor opened a regulatory portal where a State could enact measures so long as they did not place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion.

Related Topics:
Planned Parenthood v. Casey - Roe v. Wade

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On February 22, 2005, with Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice John Paul Stevens (who is senior to her) absent, O'Connor presided over oral arguments in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, becoming the first woman to preside over an oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Related Topics:
February 22 - 2005 - John Paul Stevens - Kelo v. City of New London

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

O'Connor's pragmatic case-by-case approach, though it has placed her in the center of the court, has also drawn fire from numerous observers. The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, for instance, describes her as lacking a judicial philosophy and instead displaying "political positioning embedded in a social agenda." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070701898.html

Related Topics:
The Washington Post - Charles Krauthammer

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~