The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Justice Souter's Papers Will Be Available In The Year 2075
The Justice was "emphatic" that his papers would be available only fifty years after his death.
Today the Supreme Court announced that Justice David H. Souter passed away at his home in New Hampshire. I expect there will be many remembrances of the Justice. But today does mark something of a countdown.
In 2015, Justice Souter told my colleague Gerard Magliocca that his papers would become available fifty years after his death:
"I have given such papers as I've retained to the New Hampshire Historical Society, to be opened for inspection after the 50th anniversary of my death. By that time, they will be of interest only to the historians taking the long view."
Tony Mauro offered more details at the defunct Blog of the Legal Times:
Bill Veillette, the historical society's executive director in 2009, also confirmed on Wednesday that Souter's wish all along was for release of his papers 50 years after his death, not his retirement.
"He was very emphatic about it," Veillette recalled. "He told me, 'I've got an incinerator outside my house, and either you agree to 50 years after my death, or they go into the incinerator.'" Since many papers are donated by families decades or centuries after a notable person's death, Veillette said Souter's 50-year delay seemed relatively brief. Veillette is now the executive director of the Northeast Document Conservation Center in Massachusetts.
(I miss BLT.)
Start the clock. Souter's papers will be available at the earliest in the year 2075--just in time for the Tricentennial. If I am still on planet earth then, I would be about 90 years old. I am skeptical anyone in the year 2075 will have much interest in those papers, as all of Souter's other colleagues will have likely released their papers by then.
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
"they will be of interest only to" almost no one. Maybe some local historian.
Same as today basically.
I can understand why this was personally a big deal of Souter. I'm not sure why anyone else should care that the clock has started. I do not feel cheated that we don't have immediate access to his papers.
In the immortal words of Minnesota Viking coach Denny Green: "They are who we thought they were". Really doubtful anything in them would surprise me about Souter.
...and you'll never know.
Barring, as I like to say, certain advances in the field of gerontology.
Already said I didn't care.
My original comment was mocking Blackmun taking note of this, as if it had any great significance.
Touching obituary, professor Blackman. One hopes his family finds some comfort in this tribute.
Well, at least it's not 70 years, 95 years, or 120 years.
Yes. Compare copyright protections.
Judicial papers provide a look inside the Marble Palace as seen by the release of more Stevens papers.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/harlan-crow-clarence-thomas-souter-plutocracy.html
They will also have remarks specific to the particular justice, which adds further context, details, and trivia.
Researchers welcome additional material even if nothing earth shattering is provided. If we want to do a bit of bad taste, and perhaps this is the entry for it, Souter noted cameras would come to the SCOTUS "over his dead body."
In his honor, Roberts will okay C-SPAN's request to televise the oral argument next week. (Not really)
Well we know justice is not blind based on the recent antics of the federal courts, and it looks like transparency isn't that big a priority either.
Of Supreme Court Justices in my lifetime, David Souter remains my favorite. I believe he saw his role as one of quiet resistance against the excess and dramatic change so many of his colleagues chase. And I don't apologize for admiration of someone I considered a similar soul, conservative by temperament rather than ideology, with a worldview of general restraint.
He was not a stereotypically theatrically distinguished looking judge like was Trump's tie-breaker in nominating Gorsuch. It was commonly observed that Souter was a slight, soft-spoken man with frugal tastes. Me too. We were also similar in taking a voluntarily early retirement from jobs we liked and remained good at (me at 63, Souter at an early-for-SCOTUS 69, though for several years he heard cases on the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, and I took the occasional Security & Privacy solo consulting engagement for old clients).
And it seems our retirements were likely for similar reasons. He probably did the fewest interviews & book tours, and sponsored travel for lectures of anyone on the court (and certainly at least tied for least luxury-travel-funded-by-billionaires, because 0=0). As he wrote to retired Justice Harry Blackmun: “In a perfect world, I would never give another speech, address, talk, lecture or whatever as long as I live.” Same here.
Souter retired to the small farmhouse (in what's, seemingly by law, always referred to as "the tiny hamlet of Weare, New Hampshire") where, when the court was out of session, he'd spent most of his time reading and hiking (for me it's reading, every-other-day disc golf, and pretty much my only group activity, singing with a quality small-choral group). When I retired, Ms. Purple and I downsized to a quiet, may I say unassuming working-class neighborhood, chosen for its walkability anchored by a minor small private college. After 40+ years of constant worldwide travel in a military, then consulting career, I don't get out much and like it that way (I've put only 31k miles on the used Mini Cooper I bought 11 years ago).
Justice Souter “...never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task — reaching a just result in the case that was before him.*”
It's a pity that no longer consistently applies to any of the Court's current members. Justice Amy Coney Barrett may be closest though, and perhaps becoming more so. That really seems to trigger Josh Blackman's constant, screamingly whiny distress, as he sallies forth from the Harlan Institute and South Texas College of Law Houston, in support of radical revanchist destructionism—yesterday's alt-right consuming the once broader right and currently demonstrating such self-delight in making so much chaos of what they once considered worth conserving.
------------
*Barack Obama, in remarks on Justice Souter's retirement.
Justice Souter was a smart man an smar enough to realize that it is historians that write a persons legacy, not newspapers. He smartly recognized this fact and bypasses the quick news for long term history.
Who does Souter think he is? Pfizer?
It is inconceivable to Josh that a successful person would not care to be in the spotlight as early and often as possible.
Is this just because of a quirk of Josh’s personality, I wonder? Or is it the conditioning on what it Takes to Get Ahead among movement conservatives of recent decades? You be the judge.
In fifty years, that box will still have the scent of the lamp to it. The Boston Globe obit is worth a read. Eternal rest grant him.
Mr. D.