Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-14T09:09:55.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Voting on the Merits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 August 2018

Matthew E. K. Hall
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, Indiana
Get access

Summary

On May 17, 1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren announced the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, declaring that “in the field of public education, ‘separate but equal’ has no place.” According to some legal experts, the Court's unanimity in Brown was “[s]econd in importance only to what the Supreme Court decided” that day. For example, “[p]opular books and pamphlets supporting the [desegregation] decisions pointed to unanimity as evidence of the legitimacy of the rulings.” But unanimity in Brown was never a foregone conclusion. Just six months earlier, when the Court discussed the Brown case in conference, several justices still opposed a decision mandating desegregation. The clearest opposition came from Justice Stanley F. Reed, “who made it plain … that his views remained what they had been – against closing up Jim Crow schools.”

What happened in the months between the conference discussion and the announcement of the Court's opinion? Why did Justice Reed change his mind and join the majority? Surprisingly, the explanation most commonly offered by historians, biographers, and legal scholars has little to do with constitutional law or politics. Justice Reed did not experience an ideological transformation, nor was he convinced by a legal argument. Instead, the most prominent accounts of Reed's evolution in Brown suggest that Chief Justice Warren persuaded him to change his vote through a steady dialogue that included frequent lunches between the would-be dissenter, the chief justice, and Warren's ally, Justice Harold H. Burton. Eventually, Warren coaxed Reed into joining the majority by appealing to his sense of duty.

Justice Reed was a “conscientious, hard-working jurist, conservative by temperament and respectful of precedent.” He was known as an “incredibly methodical” and “prodigious worker, laboring often at night.” And Reed's “conscientious manner” also included a strong sense of duty. As Justice Felix Frankfurter once put it, “Reed was a soldier and glad to do anything that the interest of the Court might require.”

Never was Reed's devotion to the Court more important than in Brown. “Because he was a Southerner, even a lone dissent by him would give a lot of people a lot of grist for making trouble.”

Type
Chapter
Information
What Justices Want
Goals and Personality on the U.S. Supreme Court
, pp. 109 - 130
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Voting on the Merits
  • Matthew E. K. Hall, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: What Justices Want
  • Online publication: 22 August 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108621410.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Voting on the Merits
  • Matthew E. K. Hall, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: What Justices Want
  • Online publication: 22 August 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108621410.007
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Voting on the Merits
  • Matthew E. K. Hall, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book: What Justices Want
  • Online publication: 22 August 2018
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108621410.007
Available formats
×