Justice Stevens Tries to Rehabilitate His Unpopular Record

John Paul Stevens has kept busy since retiring from the Supreme Court in 2010. In addition to penning a memoir, he regularly travels around the country giving speeches on various legal topics, including defenses of his own judicial record and attacks on cases where he believes his former colleagues got it wrong. South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman has dubbed this the Stevens’ “rehabilitation tour,” and as Blackman notes, the latest stop came in Florida, where Stevens “directed his ire at Justice Scalia and his vote in McDonald v. Chicago, Chief Justice Rehnquist on the 11th Amendment, and for good measure Chief Justice Vinson and Justice Jackson on the 14th Amendment.” Blackman argues that Stevens is being disrespectful to his former colleagues, and concludes, “JPS needs to stop this chicanery.”

I confess to having my own special interest in Stevens’ rehab tour. That’s because the former Supreme Court justice was kind enough to make me a part of it. In a November 2011 speech at the University of Alabama School of Law (which I was not aware of at the time), Stevens responded to my criticism of his 2005 majority opinion in the Kelo eminent domain case, which I had described as an “eminent domain debacle.” Citing me twice by name, Justice Stevens offered a lengthy justification for his ruling where he argued “that Kelo adhered to the doctrine of judicial restraint, which allows state legislatures broad latitude in making economic policy decisions in their respective jurisdictions.”

I won’t repeat my criticism of Stevens’ Kelo decision here—you can read it for yourself in my review of his memoir—but I will say that the comments he made in defense of the ruling in Alabama continue to raise troubling concerns about Stevens’ commitment to the written Constitution.

While it is true that the Supreme Court has, since the New Deal era, generally deferred to federal and state lawmakers when it comes to the constitutionality of economic regulations, that approach originated in the Court’s overturning of a legal theory known as liberty of contract. Described briefly, liberty of contract held that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law served to protect the unenumerated right to seek lawful employment free from arbitrary and unnecessary government regulation. In the 1937 ruling which voided the liberty of contract doctrine, West Coast Hotel v. Parish, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes declared that because “the Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract...the legislature is entitled to its judgment.”

In other words, according to West Coast Hotel, if the Supreme Court protects an unenumerated economic right, it is engaging in an inappropriate form of conservative (or libertarian) judicial activism. But as Justice Stevens also knows, the constitutional right at stake in Kelo was not an unenumerated provision, but a specifically enumerated one, the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which includes these words: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

Under a process known as incorporation, most of the written provisions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable against the states over the last century via the 14th Amendment, which forbids state governments from violating due process, equal protection, and the privileges or immunities of citizens. Therefore the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to state and local governments just like it applies to the federal government.

So if Stevens (and others who share his view) is correct that the Takings Clause should be cabined in order to grant “state legislatures broad latitude,” why not also limit the reach of the First Amendment in order to allow those same state officials the leeway to regulate speech as they see fit?

If the courts ever decide to consistently apply Stevens’ pro-government deference, the Bill of Rights would be transformed into an afterthought.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    Citing me twice by name, Justice Stevens offered a lengthy justification for his ruling where he argued “that Kelo adhered to the doctrine of judicial restraint, which allows state legislatures broad latitude in making economic policy decisions in their respective jurisdictions.”

    To the ears of anyone who can remember or knows anything about the decades of the 60s and 70s when courts literally took over school districts, imposing taxes and setting school curricula in the name of equal protection that is just Stevens saying "fuck you that is why". How fucking dare he claim judicial restraint after being a part of the court's excess in the 70s.

  • Finrod||

    The only judicial restraint that Justice Stevens was ever a part of was putting us all in government chains.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Bill o' Rights is all about giving the state broad latitude. People for some reason consider the legislature "the people" and thus think that the Constitution is set up to protect them from, I don't know, the other two branches?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    IIRC the argument of the Kelo majority was that the determination of whether the taking was for a "public use" should be left to the legislatures, not the constitutional text itself. The primary point of the 5th amendment is that just compensation must be given, which wasn't an issue in this case; if you read the 5th literally it doesn't prohibit takings for non-public uses at all.

  • John||

    nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    If you read that section literally and to mean that it doesn't cover or prohibit the takings for private use, then the government doesn't even owe compensation for takings for private use and it can't mean that. It has to mean that government can only take property for public use.

  • mustard||

    I agree, but that's a lot of supposition. It's not the black-and-white argument that a lot of originalists use on this issue.

  • Virginian||

    No, it's just men like Jefferson and Madison would have deposed the government if they'd ever tried to take a man's property to give it to someone else. They didn't ban internal checkpoints either, because they never expected we would get so sheeplike as to tolerate this with mewling words instead of hot lead and cold steel.

  • sgs||

    "if you read the 5th literally it doesn't prohibit takings for non-public uses at all."

    I suspect that's because any transaction the government is involved in would make it "public use", even if only to take then transfer to a private entity.

  • Finrod||

    Taking of private property for private uses is known as theft.

  • ChrisO||

    Stevens' major opinions scream huge ego. He wasn't a mere interpreter of the law; he WAS the law.

  • Finrod||

    Which is why he, like Obama, is on a publicity propaganda tour.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement