Vol. 1, No. 4 (June, 1991) pp. 65-68
THE CONSTITUTION IN THE SUPREME COURT: THE SECOND CENTURY,
1888-1986 by David P. Currie. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1990. 668 pp. Cloth $70.00.
Reviewed by Ronald Kahn, Department of Government, Oberlin
College.
Professor Currie has written an original, scholarly, subtle, and
brilliantly documented volume on the history of Supreme Court
doctrine from the era of Chief Justice Fuller, 1888-1910, through
that of Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1969-1986. Currie's stan-
dards for evaluating each Court era and its Justices, and the
writing, are refreshing in their lucidity -- especially in this
age of non-interpretivism, presentism, complex constitutional
theories, and polemics on originalist interpretation. Each Part,
one for each Chief Justice, and each chapter, is organized under
titles and sub-headings which highlight major doctrinal develop-
ments, allowing the book to be used as a reference work in
addition to being read as a complete work.
Currie offers a critique of the Supreme Court and its Justices
"from a modern lawyer's point of view." Cases, Justic-
es, and Court eras are evaluated primarily as to the craftsman-
ship of opinions, consistency of approach to doctrinal questions,
and whether Court reasoning fits with a liberal originalist and
textual analysis approach, one not too different from that of
Justice Black. The unstated assumption of the book, as with most
originalist approaches, is that electoral accountability, not
respect for fundamental rights or the open ended and polysemic
language, is at core of the constitutional interpretation. Judges
are cautioned to neither disregard constitutional limita- tions
on government nor invent others that it does not.
Professor Currie offers exquisite alternative arguments to those
offered by the Court. He seeks to demonstrate how craft, the
following of precedent, and a more sensitive reading of the words
of the Constitution, in light of Founders' principles, can lead
the Court to quite similar results to those of most modern
non-originalist jurisprudence. Currie criticizes the Court for
substituting its own principles for those laid down by the
sovereign people, as with abortion rights and economic substan-
tive due process. He writes, "To strike down a law on
grounds lacking support in the Constitution is unacceptable, not
only because it is illegitimate, but also because it weakens
public confidence in the Court and thus impairs its ability to
enforce the Constitution.(604)" Despite its weaknesses and
dangers, Currie believes, on balance, judicial review has served
us well.
The strength of the book is Currie's careful analysis of how
polity principles, or parts of the Constitution relating to
institutional power such as separation of powers and federalism,
have been misapplied throughout the history of the Court. Currie
cogently argues why separation of powers principles should not to
be interpreted through an open-ended dialectical reading of the
Constitution, in which
Page 66 follows
government is mistakenly viewed as a modern pluralist bargaining
regime in which reciprocal relationships among branches of
gov-ernment are emphasized. Currie argues that separation of
powers principles require a positive reading of constitutional
language, to ensure that each branch of government is strong in
its own area of authority and that checks and balances continue
as safeguards for individual rights.
One can see these standards of evaluation at work in Currie's
views as to who were the great Justices. Twentieth Century
Justices Holmes and Brandeis, Cardozo and Hughes, Stone and
Jackson, Frankfurter and Black belong with Marshall, Story,
Curtis, and Miller from an earlier century in the pantheon of
great Justices. The second Justice Harlan, who set a high
standard of intellectual integrity, and Justice Brennan, who
fought an impassioned and often successful thirty-year battle for
liberty, democracy, and equality, are also singled out as great
jurists. Justice Stone is particularly noteworthy for writing the
modern law of intergovernmental immunity, commerce clause
preemption, full faith and credit, extra-territorial taxation,
and personal jurisdiction, and for the theoretical innovation of
his preferred position analysis.
Currie is simply elegant in showing seeds of contemporary
jurisprudence in the early days of this century -- even when he
opposes many of the doctrinal changes. He is a rigorous and
disciplined master of doctrinal analysis and Blackian
originalism. Under Chief Justice Taft, 1921-1930, we are offered
a subtle analysis of the seeds of modern day equal protection
analysis with its different levels of scrutiny and how rights
changed from `thou shalt not' limits on government to affirmative
responsibilities for courts and government to protect positive
liberties -- a development which Currie questions.
Under Chief Justice Hughes, 1930-41, Currie laments the granting
of the right to counsel in Powell v. Alabama (1932), and what he
views as the poorly argued and debatable conclusion that the
Fourteenth Amendment protects speech against state abridgment in
Stromberg v California (1931). Currie's analysis of the Stone
era, 1941-46, demonstrates how wartime jurisprudence can provide
unanticipated doctrinal consequences, such as innovation in equal
protection, judicial review of agency action, and First Amendment
principles. Faith in federalism and protecting state autonomy is
demonstrated in Currie's conclusion that Wickard v Filburn (1942)
is a "mockery of the Tenth Amendment"(287). Finally,
one re- ceives a subtle introduction into the basic contours of
modern First Amendment doctrines in Currie's analysis of the
White, Taft, Hughes, Stone, and Vinson eras, 1910-1953.
Chief Justice Warren is praised for Brown v Board of Educa- tion
(1953). However, Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) is criticized because
equal protection guarantees are read into the due process
(liberty) clause of Fifth Amendment. This meant substantive due
process was back, and in its most troubling
Page 67 follows:
form. The Warren Court is viewed as not as rights protective as
many people believe, because it allowed literacy tests, was weak
on Communist subversion cases, and supported the censorship of
pornography. Also, Currie deplores the blurring of the
public-private distinction in school cases and the encroachment
on state powers in its zeal to root out race discrimination, as
in Hunter v. Erickson (1969). Griswold v. Conn. (1965) is viewed
as the most egregious example of Warren Court excesses because
the use of contraceptives have nothing to do with unreasonable
searches or self-incrimination. However Currie concludes,
overall, that the "Warren Court reached its revolutionary
conclu- sions within the confines of fair interpretation of the
relevant constitutional provisions -- often indeed, fulfilling
the promise of provisions that earlier decisions had given an
excessively cramped application(457)."
Currie's analysis of what he calls "The Real Warren
Court," the Court after Frankfurter retired, is less
imaginative than his work on earlier Courts. It seems to fit into
the conventional, and I believe oversimplified, view that the
Warren Court was dominated by a concern for equality. He does not
report on the rather complex interplay of polity and rights
principles in Warren Court jurisprudence. Nor does he link Warren
Court jurisprudence to the pluralist political institutions and
schol- arly thought of the day.
Currie also offers a quite conventional view of the Burger Court
-- that its greatest accomplishment is that it did not engage in
a counter revolution against Warren Court jurispru- dence. The
right to abortion choice in Roe v Wade (1973) is viewed as
analytically suspect, just as "its illiberal forebears"
in the Lochner period. The right to abortion choice is neither a
right in the constitution, dictated by precedent, nor required by
the process reinforcement theory of Stone. However, Currie, true
to his standards of evaluation, criticizes the abortion payment
cases and Bowers v Hardwick (1986), the homosexual rights case,
as not following precedent and as poorly argued. Finally, Currie
opposes Plyler v. Doe (1982), a case in which children who
illegally entered the United States from Mexico were granted the
right to a free education. Currie supports arguments by the dis-
senters opposing such a right on separation of powers and feder-
alism principles and rejects the majority's affirmative rights
arguments which were based on complex and quite innovative
political process malfunction grounds, which one could argue
follow Stone's famed Carolene Products footnote.
By reading this important book, one gains a renewed under-
standing of what constitutes judicial craft. However, no system-
atic or textured arguments for craft, for Blackian originalism,
or for the study of Chief Justice eras as standards of evalua-
tion, are presented. Currie assumes, rather than demonstrates
convincingly, that better crafted opinions, a "liberal"
originalist interpretation of the Constitution`s text, and the
Supreme Court's rejection of affirmative rights which are not
directly tied to words in the Constitution, would add to the
legitimacy and effectiveness of the Supreme Court, limit citizen
abuse by public officials, or better protect individual rights.
Page 68 follows:
Nor is Currie's critique of modern opinion writing, and his
explanation of changes in internal Court processes as the cause,
compelling. The Burger Court is criticized for writing too many
concurring and dissenting opinions and too many opinions on
unimportant subjects. He views Burger Court Justices as
"self-indulgent" and not sufficiently concerned with
doctrinal coherence; their opinions are viewed as
"competent, but dull and faceless," lacking in
"personality and forcefulness." Currie explains this
problem as an outgrowth of the increased role of law clerks in
researching and writing Supreme Court opinions. There is no
attempt to explain Burger Court choices systematical- ly on the
basis of changes in the wider political and social system or on
the Court's dialogue with the interpretive community of
constitutional scholars and political scientists, with their more
complex and critical constitutional theories and interpreta-
tions of American politics than those present in the Warren Court
era.
Because one can view seeds of future doctrine in the past does
not mean the past doctrine "explains" future doctrine.
To view the Burger Court as merely a working out of Warren Court
principles, or to look at doctrine as at the center of one's
analysis, devoid of interpretations of American politics and
institutions and constitutional theory of each age, or of the
social forces with which the Court had to contend, does not offer
a sufficient explanation of doctrinal change, nor of the struc-
tural role of the Supreme Court in our system of government. When
Currie does venture into the wider political system as a source
of explanation for Court choices, we are offered a rather general
view that the Court follows politics -- or public opin- ion. We
are left with the unsatisfying view that misguided choices by
conservative Republican presidents explain the Burger Court.
This book is recommended reading for presentist, non-originalist,
feminist, critical legal studies, and civic republican legal
scholars and practitioners, as well as more traditional scholars
and practitioners, not because they will agree with the standards
of evaluation used by Professor Currie. But rather they will
appreciate, with renewed vigor, the place of judicial craft or
the lack of it, on the development of constitu- tional
principles. This book also is a needed antidote against the
presentism of much modern constitutional scholarship and the
tendency to see each Court era as a kingdom unto itself. Final-
ly, one gains an opportunity to review cases that are not part of
the usual litany of law textbooks -- because they are not
"the law" now, but were central to the development of
modern jurispru- dence. This book will be of great interest to
scholars of individual Justices, Court eras, and doctrine, and to
the in- formed lay jurist and lawyer, and is a must for all
college, university, and law school libraries. However, political
scien- tists, especially those who are interested in explaining
Court behavior, will find this volume less informative. They will
have to graft their theories of Court decision-making onto
Currie's historical tapestry of doctrinal change.