The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Breyer Cites His Boss's Concurrence in Heart of Atlanta Motel
Six decades ago, a young Stephen Breyer clerked for Justice Goldberg on a very, very different Supreme Court.
Today the Supreme Court decided Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller. The case concerned whether damages for emotional distress are available in suits brought under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court split 6-3. The majority, per Chief Justice Roberts, says no. The dissent, per Justice Breyer, says yes. I don't have much to say about the specific nuances of contract law. But I did chuckle when Justice Breyer included a very personal citation:
As a Member of this Court noted in respect to the CivilRights Act of 1964, Congress' antidiscrimination laws seek "the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics." Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U. S. 241, 291 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring). Quoting the Senate Commerce Committee, Justice Goldberg observed:
"'Discrimination is not simply dollars and cents, hamburgers and movies; it is the humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment that a person must surely feel when he is told that he is unacceptable as a member of the public because of his race or color. It is equally the inability to explain to a child that regardless of education, civility, courtesy, and morality he will be denied the right to enjoy equal treatment, even though he be a citizen of the United States and may well be called upon to lay down his life to assure this Nation continues.'" Id., at 292 (quoting S. Rep. No. 872, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 16 (1964)).
It is difficult to believe that prospective funding recipients would be unaware that intentional discrimination based on race, sex, age, or disability is particularly likely to cause emotional suffering.
Heart of Atlanta Motel was decided during the October 1964 Term. And, during that time, a young Stephen Breyer clerked for Justice Arthur Goldberg. I think it safe to say that Breyer worked on that landmark decision. There were only two law clerks for each Justice at the time, and the case was decided two months after it was argued. It is remarkable how much the Court has changed in the six decades since Breyer clerked. I doubt Heart of Atlanta would be unanimous today. And we should never lose sight of the fact that Breyer later took Goldberg's seat. And Breyer's clerk, KBJ, will take his seat.
Speaking of which, yesterday Chief Justice Roberts gave an emotional farewell to Justice Breyer. (C-SPAN has the recording.) Roberts began:
As many of you may know, Justice Breyer has announced his retirement from the Court effective when we rise for the summer recess. That means that the oral argument we concluded will be the last we hear with Justice Breyer on the bench.
Ehh… Not only is John Roberts content to rewrite the acts of Congress. Now he is taking it upon himself to rewrite the handiwork by members of the Judiciary! Justice Breyer did not announce his retirement when the Court rises for the recess. His statement was premised on several nested conditionals:
"I intend this decision to take effect when the Court rises for the summer recess this year (typically late June or early July) assuming that by then my successor has been nominated and confirmed.
Perhaps Roberts is taking the OLC view that since Judge Jackson was confirmed to fill a vacancy that does not yet exist, and was commissioned, Breyer is now deemed to have retired. Or something to that effect. In any event, I think now Breyer is more or less stuck with stepping down, given the Chief's poignant farewell. Unless Breyer pulls a Tom Brady!
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"Breyer later took Goldberg's seat. And Breyer's clerk, KBJ, will take his seat."
Good summary of one of the major problems with the Supreme Court, in-breeding and hence a mono-culture.
Goldberg was a labor lawyer and cabinet officer. No Ivy, no multiple clerkships.
Of course, these people are awful. After this dignity was decided, discrimination worsened. Racial disparities in social pathologies went from 10% to 400%. Breyer and these Ivy indoctrinated bookworms killed 20 millions of black babies by abortion and a million black young male by elevating their murder rates. These are not mere clueless dumbasses. They are lunatic mass murderers. If some reason you just hate black people, you strongly support the Jackson nomination. She will certainly carry on the work of these racist mass murderers.
It is remarkable how much the Court has changed in the six decades since Breyer clerked.
You say that as if it's some development that fell spontaneously from the sky, rather than the result of a relentless and very effective campaign by conservative politicians and lobbyists spanning decades.
I don't think that's the entirety of what Prof. Blackman was referring to. The immediate referent was that Justices had 2 clerks and took only a couple of months to issue a unanimous opinion in a big case. Of those facts, only the unanimity of the opinion is something you could argue conservative campaigns had an effect on.
Well, yes. The very next line after the sentence I quoted was "I doubt Heart of Atlanta would be unanimous today", which is the effect of conservative campaigning on the judiciary.
I seem to recall early on in the Robert's Court there was a remarkable degree of unanimity. That may have faded, I haven't followed it closely.
Why do you assume that's the referent rather than the sentence before?
Instead of the last antecedent rule, Martinned prefers the first postcedent rule.
Because I read a silent "after all" (or something like that) between them. Don't you? Don't you reckon that an entirely new topic would have come in a new paragraph?
Conservative politicians lobbied to give the justicies more clerks and have them take longer to decide important cases?
Don't be obtuse.
That relentless campaign is because the leftist judges (which include many GOP appointees) have gotten more relentless in their imposing of their policy preferences on the country.
You mean policy preferences like equal protection of the laws?
"Unless Breyer pulls a Tom Brady!"
If only he would: priceless!
Yes, I continue to think this whole process is very weird, and the OLC doesn't seem to have handled it very well. What's to stop the next President with a Senate majority to just nominate 9 new justices right at the start of his term, just in case?
Also, you can bet that if one of the current justices (other than the Chief) were to drop dead tomorrow KJB would immediately go on the court.
I hope that the market remains unresolved, but I would happily bet any sum of money you care to name against that proposition.
I share your sentiment, but my limit would be $100,000.00.
Nothing prevents a president from nominating 9 new justices and asking the senate to consent to their being appointed, should any vacancies arise. But I can't imagine anyone agreeing to go through the grueling process of a supreme court confirmation just on spec, with no guarantee or even likelihood of an appointment at the end of it. Nor can I imagine the senate agreeing to waste its time like that.
If it becomes habitual to toss out 9 SCOTUS nominations every session - or more! - then it becomes a normal thing, rather than the crazy circus they've been the past few decades. It's hard to gather the effort and outrage about something when you do it a half-dozen times a year. The Senators get bored, the media gets bored, and the people get really bored.
But then he would magically become a racist and a sexist.
(because he knows what a woman is)
"Unless Breyer pulls a Tom Brady!"
Is there any indication Breyer is a cheater?
Can he be traded to the Canadian Supreme Court? For draft picks and future considerations?
You should be so lucky.
Not at all unusual.
Senior military positions are routinely nominated and confirmed well in advance of the incumbent retiring. In fact, with respect to the position of Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, there was angst last year when a nominee was not announced and confirmed several months before the incumbent's term ended.
As for rewriting acts of Congress, conservative Republicans judges do it all the time. Take, for example, WV Supreme Court Justice Tim Armstead. He was previously the WV Republican Speaker of the House of Delegates. In an opinion from earlier this month, he completely rewrote a state statute. (State v Conn, 21-0382). To quote from the dissent by Justice Wooton,
"Despite this unambiguous recognition that should have easily resolved this case, the Court determines that the petitioner nonetheless must register as a sex offender for life "because he was convicted of a qualifying offense[]" - even though the Legislature has never identified the offense as such. See id. § 15-12-2(b) (enumerating qualifying offenses; discussed infra in greater detail). The majority has rewritten a clear and unambiguous statute to include a new qualifying offense, which action not only directly contradicts the language of the Act, but also violates any semblance of fundamental fairness. Therefore, I respectfully dissent to the majority's decision."
https://casetext.com/case/state-v-conn-1192021
For an incumbent who has a pre-defined term of office, I should think the difficulty isn't as obvious. But that's not how the Supreme Court works.
Was there a circuit split on this issue? It seems odd that the Supreme Court would take a case to affirm both the district and circuit decisions.
I don't think its odd at all. Whether the Civil Rights Act is constitutional is a question of major national significance and the Court may have just wanted to make that clear from the outset.
"It is equally the inability to explain to a child that regardless of education, civility, courtesy, and morality he will be denied the right to enjoy equal treatment, even though he be a citizen of the United States…"
White parents are explaining this to their sons these days:
"No one in authority will ever give you an extra helping hand, even if they wanted to, because they’d be sued for not giving the same extra help to one of the special people. You need to learn to play along, fit in, mouth their slogans and go through the motions. Otherwise they’ll never let you achieve anything, and if you build anything on your own they'll tear it down."
I would advise any 17-year-old wrong-race, wrong-sex individual to forget about attending University in the US and explore opportunities in Japan or Singapore or other countries where he won’t be treated like an enemy every day.
Yes, white people in America have it tough...
Nicole Simpson sure did
Sure, and every black man is O.J. Simpson. You've identified the scourge of savage Negroes who murder pretty young white women who only wanted them to break up a chifforobe.
"As a Member of this Court noted in respect to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress' antidiscrimination laws seek "the vindication of human dignity and not mere economics." "
"And that's why violators should give more money to victims"
?
The sense of white fragility and racial threat with this guy...
One of the funny things about this is he's literally making the comment on a blog chock full of white guys who seemed to have done okay in academe!
Lol. So in addition to being completely delusional about what life is like at an American university you're also completely delusional about what it would be like for white guys at a university in an Asian country. I mean they likely won't be treated like an "enemy" but they will still be an outsider and will feel pressure to fit in with Japanese or Malay culture. Also how many white 17 year olds speak/read/write Malay and would adjust easily to life in Singapore?
" White parents are explaining this to their sons these days: "
Heterosexual white Christian males are the persecuted victims in modern America . . . from the perspective of a white, male blog that flatters bigoted, downscale, grievance-consumed clingers.
So many of these clingers' arguments boil down to, "but I've always had the right to swing my fist wherever I want, even if that includes where your nose is, and it's unfair that now I can't swing it there".
Umm, yeah, hear that Argument a lot.
Always with random capitalization?
I would advise any 17-year-old wrong-race, wrong-sex individual to forget about attending University in the US and explore opportunities in Japan or Singapore...
What color is the sky in your universe?
This fucking guy.
Quoted his boss, or quoted himself?
The most important observation in today's opinion is that Robert wrote it, which means he doesn't have Dobb's
5-4 without Roberts will cause a lot of wailing and knashing of teeth
"knashing of teeth"
I think you mean "knishing of teeth" - mashing your teeth together and getting all heated.
There is also the word "gnashing", but that's for more goyishe blogs so is probably not what you meant 😉
I meant gnashing.
I learned it as "wailing" not weeping.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeping_and_gnashing_of_teeth
Of course there is the much better "What is best in life...to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women."
https://youtu.be/_XUu3_pLPUE
Hopefully Thomas does some crushing.
In some ways, I hope so, too. It would likely expedite the enlargement of the Court and the liberal-libertarian mainstream's overdue diminution of the undeserved structural amplification of hayseeds votes in our system (Senate, House, Electoral College).
Why not just get this -- the reckoning precipitated by the result of the American culture war -- over with?
Uh, the conditionals Justice Breyer specified have been or certainly will be met. His successor has been confirmed, and the Court will certainly rise for the recess. Is there any realistic suggestion that this was not Breyer's final oral argument, or is Professor Blackman engaged in mere sophistry?
Prof. Blackman couldn't reach sophistry with a 40 foot ladder.