Stephen Breyer | |
|---|---|
 Official portrait,c. 2006 | |
| Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States | |
| In office August 3, 1994 – June 30, 2022 | |
| Nominated by | Bill Clinton |
| Preceded by | Harry Blackmun |
| Succeeded by | Ketanji Brown Jackson |
| Chief Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | |
| In office March 1990 – August 3, 1994 | |
| Preceded by | Levin H. Campbell |
| Succeeded by | Juan R. Torruella |
| Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit | |
| In office December 10, 1980 – August 3, 1994 | |
| Nominated by | Jimmy Carter |
| Preceded by | Seat established |
| Succeeded by | Sandra Lynch |
| Personal details | |
| Born | Stephen Gerald Breyer (1938-08-15)August 15, 1938 (age 87) San Francisco, California, U.S. |
| Political party | Democratic[1] |
| Spouse | |
| Children | 3 |
| Relatives | Charles Breyer (brother) |
| Education | |
| Signature |  |
| Military service | |
| Branch/service | |
| Years of service | 1957–1965 |
| Rank | Corporal |
| Unit | Army Strategic Intelligence |
| Battles/wars | Vietnam War |
Breyer delivering the decision ofWashington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc. Recorded March 19, 2019 | |
Stephen Gerald Breyer (/ˈbraɪ.ər/BRY-ər; born August 15, 1938) is an American lawyer and retired jurist who served as anassociate justice of theU.S. Supreme Court from 1994 until his retirement in 2022. He was nominated by PresidentBill Clinton, and replaced retiring justiceHarry Blackmun. Breyer was generally associated with theliberal wing of the Court.[2] Since his retirement, he has been the Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process atHarvard Law School.[3]
Born inSan Francisco, Breyer attendedStanford University and theUniversity of Oxford, and graduated fromHarvard Law School in 1964.[4] After aclerkship with Associate JusticeArthur Goldberg in 1964–65, Breyer was a law professor and lecturer at Harvard Law School from 1967 until 1980.[4] He specialized inadministrative law, writing textbooks that remain in use today. He held other prominent positions before being nominated to the Supreme Court, including special assistant to theUnited States assistant attorney general forantitrust and assistant special prosecutor on theWatergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. Breyer became afederal judge in 1980, when he was appointed to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In his 2005 bookActive Liberty, Breyer made his first attempt to systematically communicate his views on legal theory, arguing that the judiciary should seek to resolve issues in a manner that encourages popular participation in governmental decisions.
On January 27, 2022, Breyer and President Joe Biden announced Breyer's intention to retire from the Supreme Court.[5] On February 25, 2022, Biden nominatedKetanji Brown Jackson, a judge on theU.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and one of Breyer's formerlaw clerks, to succeed him.[6] Breyer remained on the Supreme Court until June 30, 2022, when Jackson succeeded him.[7][8] Breyer wrote majority opinions in landmark Supreme Court cases such asMahanoy Area School District v. B.L.,United States v. Lara, andGoogle v. Oracle and notable dissents questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty in cases such asGlossip v. Gross.
Breyer was born on August 15, 1938, in San Francisco, California, to Anne A. (née Roberts) and Irving Gerald Breyer.[9][10] Breyer's paternal great-grandfather emigrated from Romania to the United States, settling in Cleveland, Ohio, where Breyer's grandfather was born.[11] Breyer was raised in amiddle-classReform Jewish family.[12][13] His father was a lawyer who served as legal counsel to theSan Francisco Board of Education.[14]
Breyer and his younger brotherCharles Breyer, who later became afederal district judge, were active in theBoy Scouts of America and achieved theEagle Scout rank.[15][16] In 2007, he received theDistinguished Eagle Scout Award.[17] Breyer attendedLowell High School, where he was a member of theLowell Forensic Society anddebated regularly in high school tournaments, including against future California governorJerry Brown and future Harvard Law School professorLaurence Tribe.[18]
After graduating from high school in 1955, Breyer studiedphilosophy atStanford University. He graduated in 1959 with aBachelor of Arts degree with highest honors and membership inPhi Beta Kappa.[19] Breyer was awarded aMarshall Scholarship, which he used to studyphilosophy, politics, and economics atMagdalen College, Oxford, receiving aB.A. withfirst-class honors in 1961.[20] He then returned to the United States to attendHarvard Law School, where he was an articles editor of theHarvard Law Review and graduated in 1964 with aBachelor of Laws degree,magna cum laude.[21]
Breyer spent eight years in theUnited States Army Reserve during theVietnam War, including six months on active duty in theArmy Strategic Intelligence. He reached the rank ofcorporal and washonorably discharged in 1965.[22]
In 1967, Breyer married Joanna Freda Hare, apsychologist and member of theBritish aristocracy, younger daughter ofJohn Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham and granddaughter ofRichard Hare, 4th Earl of Listowel.[23] They have three adult children: Chloe, anEpiscopal priest; Nell; and Michael.[24]
After law school, Breyer served as alaw clerk to U.S. Supreme Court justiceArthur Goldberg from 1964 to 1965. During his clerkship, Breyer wrote the first draft of Goldberg's concurrence inGriswold v. Connecticut (1965), which argued that theright to privacy could be derived from theNinth Amendment.[25] Breyer served briefly as a fact-checker for theWarren Commission, followed by two years in theU.S. Department of Justice'sAntitrust Division as a special assistant to itsassistant attorney general.[26][24]
In 1967, Breyer returned to Harvard Law School as an assistant professor. He taught at Harvard Law until 1980, and he held a joint appointment atHarvard Kennedy School from 1977 to 1980.[24] At Harvard, Breyer was known as a leading expert onadministrative law.[27] While there, he wrote two highly influential books on deregulation:Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation andRegulation and Its Reform.[28] In 1970, economistBen Kaplan spurred Breyer to write "The Uneasy Case for Copyright", one of the most widely cited skeptical examinations of copyright.[29] In 1979, Breyer co-wroteAdministrative Law and Regulatory Policy with Richard Stewart. Breyer was a visiting professor atthe College of Law in Sydney, Australia; theUniversity of Rome;[24] andTulane University Law School.[30]
While teaching at Harvard, Breyer took several leaves of absence to serve in the U.S. government. He served as an assistantspecial prosecutor on theWatergate Special Prosecution Force in 1973. Breyer was a special counsel to theU.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary from 1974 to 1975 and served as chief counsel of the committee from 1979 to 1980.[24] He worked closely with the chairman of the committee, SenatorEdward M. Kennedy, to pass theAirline Deregulation Act that closed theCivil Aeronautics Board.[14][31]
In the last days of PresidentJimmy Carter's administration, on November 13, 1980, after he had been defeated for reelection, Carter nominated Breyer to the First Circuit, to a new seat established by 92 Stat. 1629, and theUnited States Senate confirmed him on December 9, 1980, by an 80–10 vote.[32] He received his commission on December 10, 1980. From 1980 to 1994, Breyer was a judge on theU.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; he was the court'schief judge from 1990 to 1994.[24] One of Breyer's duties as chief judge was to oversee the design and construction of a newfederal courthouse for Boston, beginning an avocational interest in architecture.[33] In 2018, he was named to chair thePritzker Architecture Prize jury, succeedingGlenn Murcutt.[34][35]
Many of Breyer's First Circuit decisions followed principles expressed in Goldberg's opinions, though some were reversed on appeal by an increasingly conservative Supreme Court. During Breyer's Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Ohio SenatorHoward Metzenbaum criticized him for never voting in favor of an antitrust claim while on the First Circuit.[33]
Breyer served as a member of theJudicial Conference of the United States between 1990 and 1994 and theUnited States Sentencing Commission between 1985 and 1989.[24] In the latter role, he oversaw the initialFederal Sentencing Guidelines, which sought uniformity in sentencing.[36] Breyer successfully opposed a Republican proposal to include the death penalty as mandatory punishment for some crimes.[37]
In 1993, on the recommendation ofOrrin Hatch, PresidentBill Clinton considered both Breyer andRuth Bader Ginsburg for the seat vacated byByron White.[38] Clinton ultimately appointed Ginsburg,[39] fearing that Breyer's focus on administrative law would lead to conservative rulings.[40]
AfterHarry Blackmun retired in 1994, Clinton initially offered the nomination toGeorge Mitchell, theSenate Majority Leader, but Mitchell declined in order to make a final attempt to pass theClinton health care plan.U.S. Secretary of the InteriorBruce Babbitt also declined to avoid compelling his wife,Harriet C. Babbitt, to resign asU.S. Ambassador to the Organization of American States.[40] Clinton next turned toRichard S. Arnold, then serving aschief judge of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, as Arnold had also been considered to replace White.[41] However, Arnold withdrew himself the day before the planned announcement because his doctors concluded that his recurrent cancer might lead to an early death.[40]
Breyer was nominated on May 17, 1994, after heavy lobbying by SenatorTed Kennedy. Benefiting from bipartisan recognition of his work for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was confirmed on July 29 by an 87 to 9 vote.[40] Breyer wrote 551 opinions during his 28-year career, not counting those relating to orders or in the "shadow docket".[42] For his first 11 years, the composition of the Court remained unchanged, the longest such stretch in over 180 years.[43] Since the most senior member of the majority chooses its writer, Breyer generally did not produce high-profile majority opinions during the first half of his tenure.[44] In recognition of his service, he was inducted into theAmerican Philosophical Society in 2004.[45]
In 2015, Breyer broke a federal law that bans judges from hearing cases when they or their spouses or minor children have a financial interest in a company involved. His wife sold about $33,000 worth of stock inJohnson Controls a day after Breyer participated in the oral argument. This brought him back into compliance and he joined the majority in ruling in favor of the interests of a Johnson Controls subsidiary which was party toFERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass'n.[46]
As "an unequivocal defender of abortion rights," Breyer wrote for the majority inStenberg v. Carhart (2000) to strike down a Nebraska ban onpartial-birth abortion, and he dissented toGonzales v. Carhart (2007) upholding a federal ban.[33] InWhole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) andJune Medical Services v. Russo (2020), Breyer led the majority in striking down state restrictions on abortion by finding that their burdens on reproductive care outweighed their benefits to patients.[47][48] In response toDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. (2020) overturningRoe v. Wade (1973), Breyer jointly wrote the dissent with Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.[49]
InGratz v. Bollinger (2003), Breyer concurred in the judgment that universities could not quantitatively advantage minority applicants, yet he joined the majority inGrutter v. Bollinger (2003), which held that educational diversity was a compelling government interest. He also concurred in the judgment ofSchuette v. BAMN (2014) that theMichigan Civil Rights Initiative's ban onaffirmative action atpublic universities was enforceable, prompting criticism that the Court only defers to the political process when the outcome matches its preference.[50]
InParents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), Breyer wrote the lead dissent against holdingdesegregation busing unconstitutional unless remedyingde jure segregation, arguing thatde facto segregation deserved equal attention.[51] At a 2014 symposium celebrating his first twenty years on the Supreme Court, Breyer lamented that hisParents Involved dissent was his most important opinion, yet none submitted essays on it, which constitutional law scholarMark Tushnet interpreted as the majority winning the fight to interpretBrown v. Board of Education (1954).[52]
Breyer has consistently opposedcapital punishment as often violating theEighth Amendment's prohibition oncruel and unusual punishment, voting with the majority inAtkins v. Virginia (2002) andRoper v. Simmons (2005).[25] InGlossip v. Gross (2015), he dissented against a requirement that prisoners challenging the method of their execution must provide a known and available alternative. Breyer's dissent argued that evolving international standards likely made all impositions of the death penalty unconstitutional, reviving a position shared by his predecessor, Justice Blackmun.[53]
During Breyer's confirmation hearings, law professor Thomas McGarity cautioned that he might be "hazardous to our health" based on his drafting of theNatural Gas Policy Act of 1978, whichderegulatednatural gas.[54] Consumer advocateRalph Nader similarly testified that Breyer's emphasis oncost-benefit analysis would make him hostile to federal environmental laws.[44] However, upon Breyer's retirement, professorRichard Lazarus concluded that he had left a friendly legacy for environmental law.[44] The only case in which Breyer's vote determined the outcome against environmentalists wasPennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey (2021), which ruled that theFederal Energy Regulatory Commission could grant natural gas companies the authority to useeminent domain over land owned by state governments.[44][55]
In the two most important cases onstanding in environmental cases during his tenure,Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., Inc. (2000) andMassachusetts v. EPA (2007), Breyer voted with the majority to support environmentalists suing polluters and government agencies.[44] InCounty of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (2020), Breyer wrote for the majority that theClean Air Act requiredMaui County to have a permit for its release ofgroundwater pollution into the ocean.[44] Although the ruling was less broad than theNinth Circuit's approach, environmentalist groups praised the decision as affirming the Clean Water Act.[56][57]
Under Breyer's framework of "active liberty", political speech would receive stronger First Amendment protections than commercial speech to ensure that people could freely elect their representatives and then have that democratic government impose effective business regulations. In concurrences toSnyder v. Phelps (2011) andUnited States v. Alvarez (2012), Breyer rejected liability for protests against same-sex marriage and lies about military awards as restrictions on political speech that should fail for overbreadth. In comparison, his dissent inSorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011) argued that legislatures should be free to protect their constituents' privacy by restricting the sale of medical data.[58]
Breyer's balancing of the speaker's interest in spreading their message against the government's regulatory interest draws from the free speech analysis of European courts. Accordingly, his concurrence in the judgment ofReed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) favored a balancing test for content-based regulations, rather than uniform application ofstrict scrutiny.[59] InMahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021), he held that schools generally cannot punish students' off-campus speech, establishing "rules of thumb" rather than a categorical limitation.[60] First Amendment litigatorFloyd Abrams faults this proportionality analysis for ignoring the community's interest in hearing diverse perspectives. Legal scholarJohn Hart Ely had previously criticized balancing tests in free speech cases as furthering the judge's preferred viewpoint.[59]
In free speech cases, Breyer was consistently deferential to the government's invocation of theobscenity exception. InUnited States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000), he dissented against striking down a requirement that cable operators restrict sexually oriented programming to nighttime. Breyer also concurred inUnited States v. American Library Ass'n (2003) that Congress could require public schools and libraries receivingE-Rate discounts to install anInternet filter.[25]
Breyer's rulings inintellectual property cases showcased his continuing skepticism of copyright. In dissents toEldred v. Ashcroft (2003) andGolan v. Holder (2012), Breyer criticized retroactive extensions of copyright as economically unproductive and contrary tofree speech. InKirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013), he held that thefirst sale doctrine allowed owners of textbooks sold abroad to resell them in the United States without the copyright holder's permission.[61]
InMGM Studios v. Grokster (2005), the Court unanimously heldpeer-to-peer file sharing companiesGrokster andStreamcast liable for copyright infringement because of they marketed their products for such uses. In his concurrence, Breyer argued without such intent,Sony v. Universal (1984) would protect these companies from liability because of their software's substantial non-infringing uses.[62]
Praised for adapting copyright law to new technologies, Breyer's holding inGoogle v. Oracle (2021) assumed thatcomputer code was copyrightable but deemedGoogle's use of code from theJavaprogramming language for theirAndroidoperating system as protectedfair use. In a rare instance of siding with copyright owners, Breyer held inABC v. Aereo (2014) thatAereo'sstreaming ofterrestrial television was sufficiently analogous tocable television to leave it liable for violating theCopyright Act of 1976.[61]
Breyer was also described as "the patent law judge on the Court".[63] Writing for a unanimous court inMayo v. Prometheus (2012), Breyer held that because alaw of nature is notpatentable subject matter, adiagnostic test which merely observes a patient'smetabolization of a drug cannot be patented.[64] The following year, Breyer joined the majority inAssociation for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, which applied his framework to invalidategene patents for naturally occurringDNA sequences.[63]
Breyer's positions in cases involving Native American were varied. InChickasaw Nation v. United States (2001), his majority opinion denying the tax exemption for government-run lotteries to tribalpull-tab gambling was viewed as "the potential demise of the Indian canon of construction", which dictates that statutes should be interpreted in favor of Native Americans.[65] InUnited States v. Lara (2004), Breyer held that the federal and tribal governments may prosecute non-member Native Americans for the same charges without violating theDouble Jeopardy Clause, interpreting theIndian Civil Rights Act as deference totribal sovereignty. He was criticized for concurring inAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (2013) that theIndian Child Welfare Act's additional procedures for ending parental rights do not apply to non-custodial Native American biological fathers.[66]
Breyer was praised for the difference between his votes in the 2005 casesVan Orden v. Perry andMcCreary County v. ACLU, which dealt with public displays of theTen Commandments. In the former, he concurred in the judgment to allow their display outside theTexas State Capitol, and in the latter, he deemed their display inside Kentucky county courthouses unconstitutional.[67] Framing the First Amendment as meant to reduce religious divisiveness, Breyer focused on the greater and immediate objection to the latter display.[12][68]
Breyer dissented to the plurality holding inVieth v. Jubelirer (2004) that partisan gerrymandering is non-judiciablepolitical question, and he joined the dissent inRucho v. Common Cause (2019) against a majority opinion reaching the same conclusion.[69] Writing for the majority inAlabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2015), Breyer held that racial gerrymandering claims must be looked at district by district, rather than at the state level.[70] Breyer joined dissents inShelby County v. Holder (2013) andBrnovich v. DNC (2021), both of which criticized decisions weakening portions of theVoting Rights Act of 1965.[71]
.jpg)
After Democratic victories in the 2020presidential andSenate elections, progressive activists and Democratic members of Congress called on Breyer to retire so that President Biden could nominate a younger liberal justice.[72][73] In an August 2021New York Times interview, Breyer said he wished to retire before his death, and recounted a conversation he had with JusticeAntonin Scalia in which Scalia mentioned that he did not want his successor to "reverse everything I've done for the last 25 years". Breyer said that Scalia's point will "inevitably be in the psychology" of his decision to retire.[74] In a September 2021 interview withFox News'sChris Wallace, Breyer said activists calling for his retirement are "entitled to their opinion" and "I didn't retire because I had decided on balance I wouldn't retire". He said he took several factors into account when deciding his retirement plans, and reiterated that he did not plan to "die on the court".[75]
On January 27, 2022, Breyer announced that he would retire from the Supreme Court.[76] To succeed him, BidennominatedKetanji Brown Jackson, a judge of theU.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who had once clerked for Breyer.[77] The Senate confirmed her by a vote of 53–47 on April 7, 2022.[78] Breyer's retirement took effect at noon on June 30, following the court's final opinions and orders for the term.[79][80]
On July 2, 2022, it was announced that Breyer had been appointed Byrne Professor of Administrative Law and Process atHarvard Law School. Breyer had previously attended and taught at Harvard Law School.[81] In May 2024, he received an honoraryDoctor of Laws degree fromYale University in recognition of his contributions to the field of law and his nearly three decades of service on the Supreme Court.[82] As a retired Supreme Court justice, Breyer can still sit as a judge in lower federal courtsby designation. He first returned to the bench in 2025 in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the court on which he was a judge before his Supreme Court appointment.[83] Breyer attended thesecond inauguration of Donald Trump in 2025, appearing with the nine sitting Supreme Court justices.[84]
Breyer is known for hispragmatic approach to legal interpretation, which emphasizes practical consequences and the purpose of legislation.Cass Sunstein described this outlook as one that "will tend to make the law more sensible" and praised Breyer's critiques oforiginalism as "powerful and convincing".[85] In showcasing how Supreme Court decisions would have complex real-world effects, Breyer often posed complex hypotheticals during oral arguments and proposed multi-factor balancing tests in his opinions.[67][86] While these hypotheticals were sometimes criticized for being meandering, Breyer continued this approach to oral arguments when he returned to the First Circuit in 2025.[87][88]
Breyer consistently voted in favor ofabortion rights,[89][90] one of the most controversial areas of the Supreme Court's docket. He also defended the Court's use of foreign law andinternational law as persuasive authority in its decisions.[91][92][93] Breyer advocated forcooperative federalism in his dissents to theRehnquist Court's narrowing of Congress'sCommerce Clause authority inUnited States v. Lopez (1995) andUnited States v. Morrison (2000).[25][94] He demonstrated a consistent pattern of deference to Congress, voting to overturn congressional legislation at a lower rate than any other justice since 1994.[95]
Breyer's extensive experience inadministrative law is accompanied by his staunch defense of theFederal Sentencing Guidelines. He rejects the strict interpretation of theSixth Amendment espoused byJustice Scalia that all facts necessary to criminal punishment must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.[96] In many other areas on the Court, too, Breyer's pragmatism was considered the intellectual counterweight to Scalia'stextualism.[97] For example, inNLRB v. Noel Canning (2014), Breyer led a 5-4 majority in interpreting theRecess Appointment Clause based on its purpose of filling vacancies, whereas Scalia dissented in favor of the clause'splain meaning.[98][99]
In describing his interpretive philosophy, Breyer has sometimes noted his use of six interpretive tools: text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences of competing interpretations.[100] He has noted that only the last two differentiate him from textualists such as Scalia. Breyer argues that these sources are necessary, however, and in the former case (purpose), can in fact provide greater objectivity in legal interpretation than looking merely at what is often ambiguous statutory text.[101] With the latter (consequences), Breyer argues that considering the impact of legal interpretations is a further way of ensuring consistency with a law's intended purpose.[85]
.jpg)
In 2005, Breyer publishedActive Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution, which urges judges to interpret legal texts in light of their purpose and the consequences of a ruling. The book is considered a response toAntonin Scalia's 1997 bookA Matter of Interpretation, emphasized adherence to the original meaning of the text alone.[89][102] InActive Liberty, Breyer argues that theFramers of the Constitution sought to establish a democratic government that would maximize both "negative liberty" (freedom from government coercion) and "positive liberty" (freedom to participate in government). In Breyer's terminology, the latter is the "active liberty" that judges should champion by supporting the public's self-governance with their decisions.[103]
Political scientistPeter Berkowitz has criticized Breyer's view that theDue Process Clause confers aright to abortion as restraining democratically elected state legislatures and Congress from enacting abortion restrictions.[104] Legal scholarCass Sunstein has rebutted that among the nine justices of theRehnquist Court, Breyer had the highest percentage of votes to uphold acts of Congress and defer toExecutive Branch decisions.[105] Legal authorJeffrey Toobin framed Breyer's view as upholding judges' responsibility to enforce the limits of the Constitution.[19] In a 2006 discussion atNew York Historical, Breyer noted that democratic means did not end slavery and that judicial intervention was needed to enforce "one man, one vote" and broadercivil and political rights that provide the basis for democratic decision-making.[106]
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 Justice Stephen Breyer: The Court And The World, 1:14:57,WGBH Forum Network[107] |
In 2010, Breyer published a second book,Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View.[108] In it, he argues that judges have six tools they can use to determine a legal provision's proper meaning: (1) text; (2) historical context; (3)precedent; (4) tradition; (5) purpose; and (6) consequences of potential interpretations.[109]Textualists, such asAntonin Scalia, feel comfortable using only the first four of these tools, while pragmatists, like Breyer, believe that "purpose" and "consequences" are particularly important interpretative tools.[110]
Breyer cites several watershed moments in Supreme Court history to show why the consequences of a particular ruling should always be in a judge's mind. He notes thatPresident Jackson ignored the Court's ruling inWorcester v. Georgia, which led to theTrail of Tears and severely weakened the Court's authority.[111] He also cites theDred Scott decision, an important precursor to theAmerican Civil War.[111] When the Court ignores the consequences of its decisions, Breyer argues, it can lead to devastating and destabilizing outcomes.[111]
In 2015, Breyer publishedThe Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities, which argues that globalization requires that U.S. courts show greater appreciation of foreign and international law.[112][113] On March 26, 2024, Breyer publishedReading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. In an interview coinciding with its release, he lamented that textualism "will not help achieve the goals of those who write statutes or those who wrote and adopted the Constitution".[114]
As his decision to characterize both the New Deal and Warren Courts as centrally committed to democracy and 'active liberty' makes clear, Justice Breyer identifies his own constitutional agenda with that of these earlier courts, and positions himself, in significant respects, as a partisan of midcentury constitutional liberalism.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)Breyеr received bachelor's degrees fromStanford University (1959) and theUniversity of Oxford (1961), which he attended on aRhodes Scholarship, and a law degree fromHarvard University (1964). In 1964–65 he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court JusticeArthur J. Goldberg. He taught law at Harvard University from 1967 to 1994.
Breyer thinks that, as compared with a single-minded focus on literal text, his approach will tend to make the law more sensible, almost by definition. He also contends that it 'helps to implement the public's will and is therefore consistent with the Constitution's democratic purpose.' Breyer concludes that an emphasis on legislative purpose 'means that laws will work better for the people they are presently meant to affect. Law is tied to life, and a failure to understand how a statute is so tied can undermine the very human activity that the law seeks to benefit.'Quote is at p. 1726.
Media from Commons
Quotations from Wikiquote
Texts from Wikisource| Legal offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| New seat | Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 1980–1994 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Chief Judge of theUnited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit 1990–1994 | Succeeded by |
| Preceded by | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 1994–2022 | Succeeded by |
| U.S. order of precedence (ceremonial) | ||
| Preceded byas Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court | Order of precedence of the United States as Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court | Succeeded byas Secretary of the Treasury |
