Warren Court the So-Called Warren

Warren Court The so-called "Warren Court" refers to the Supreme Court of the United States when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice. This period of 1953 to 1969 was a tumultuous period in American history, and this was reflected in some of the most dramatic, and controversial, changes in Constitutional interpretation, judicial power, Civil Rights, individual liberties, and Federal and Judicial power (Horwitz, into). Controversy arose because a number of the decisions made resulted in changes in society that affect us even today.

For example, during the Warren years racial segregation ended, the Bill of Rights was applied to State Law, prayer was banned in public schools, and a greater separation of Church and State became law. Scholars, in fact, often recognize this period as a high point in judicial power that the Supreme Court has not seen since (Sunstein). The Chief Justice of the Court does not always guide the Court to its decisions. In fact, in many cases, the Chief Justice is in the minority.

However, there is a certain culture, certain pedagogy, and even a certain tone that the high court adopts based on its leadership. This was certain the case with Justice Earl Warren. Warren, unlike many Justices, was an elected official -- he served three terms as Governor of California during its most explosive growth period. This gave Warren a strong belief in using legal means to enforce the Constitution, but also to establish equitability and fairness.

Warren seemed most comfortable when ruling on issues that involved the issue of individual rights (e.g. minorities,) and the fact that he saw the Supreme Court as having the duty to ensure Constitutional integrity even if Congress acted inappropriately (Schwartz, 5).

Other scholars see the Warren Court as setting the vision for post-World War II America in a way that would establish a more national interpretation of legal issues as opposed to one that has a northern or southern bent / for example, in a footnote to United States v Carolene Products, a 1938 decision that deal with interstate commerce and due process, the Court wrote that it was appropriate for the Supreme Court to have greater and more heightened judicial scruitiny in "three types of cases: those where a law was challenged as a deprivation of a specifically enumerated right (such as a challenge to a law because it denies "freedom of speech," a phrase specifically included in the Bill of Rights); those where a challenged law made it more difficult to achieve change through normal political processes; and those where a law impinged on the rights of "discrete and insular minorities" (United States v.

Carolene Products). The Warren Court's doctrine certainly moved aggressively in these general directions: its aggressive reading of the first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights (as "incorporated" against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment); its commitment to unblocking the channels of political change ("one-man, one-vote"), and its vigorous protection of the rights of racial minority groups. (Ely). In general, there were eight legal areas in which the Warren Court made significant decisions that changed American society: Racial Segregation -- Declared segregation in schools unconstitutional in Brown v.

Board of Education of Topeka. Voting rights -- Insisted that any changes in reallocation of voting districts follows due process and is a Federal issue in Baker v. Carr. Criminal Procedure -- Greater scrutiny with defendant's rights and due process in Brady v. Maryland. Free Speech -- Established malice standard which has to be met prior to press or other writings to be considered libel in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The Establishment Clause -- Bans prayer from public schools in Engel v. Vitale.

The Free Exercise Clause -- Requires greater burden on government and issues of hiring/firing based on religion in Sherbert v. Verner. Right to Privacy -- Established that the Constitution protects privacy, in this case regarding contraception, in Griswold v. Connecticut. Cruel and Unusual Punishment -- Limited punishments for crimes that did not warrant the excess of current legislation, in this case, incarceration due to substance abuse in Robinson v. California. Works.