Books like The Schoolhouse Gate

Nobody knows the Supreme Court better than long-time journalist Joan Biskupic. Her biography of Sandra Day O’Connor, our first woman Justice, is both riveting and revealing. 

In the current age of dramatic change at the Court, O’Connor’s careful centrist approach is especially important to consider and remember. O’Connor’s background as an elected official in the Arizona legislature, our last Justice to have electoral experience, which used to be common among Justices, gave her especially valuable insights and experience.

Earl Warren was one of our most consequential Chief Justices.

Serving from 1953 to 1969, he led the way on many country-changing decisions. He deftly forged the Court’s unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education and oversaw other landmark cases, establishing one-person, one-vote for our democracy; banning prayer in public schools; and presiding over a criminal justice revolution, including the famous Miranda decision that gave us warnings that every American knows by heart.

Jim Newton’s lively biography is indispensable in understanding these momentous developments, as well as the intriguing character of Warren, who also served as California’s Governor and the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee in 1948.

Perhaps more than any other Justice, Warren launched the modern era of our jurisprudence.

Every American needs to understand the current Supreme Court's aggressive new “supermajority.” 

The Court has quickly implemented far-reaching changes, eliminating reproductive rights; overturning gun safety laws; and sharply limiting the government’s authority to respond to crises ranging from COVID to climate change.

Michael Waldman brilliantly analyzes the new Court. He vividly places it in historical context, and, drawing on past eras, highlights possible democratic responses. In addition to illuminating the current moment, the book is a superb, readable, and highly informative one-volume history of the Supreme Court.

I believe in having heroes, and the more human and relatable they are, the better. In this book, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor tells her amazing story while also showing that she is not so different from the rest of us.

And while it’s a fascinating and inspiring story, what I love about this book is the same thing that I love about the person who wrote it. She’s normal and relatable, a person who has struggled with diabetes since she was small, who grew up in the most modest of circumstances, and who rose to become the first Hispanic person on the Supreme Court both because she is extraordinary and because she is just like the rest of us. 

This book had a big wow factor for me, revealing the many—many—women who were considered for a US Supreme Court nomination long before the first, Sandra Day O’Connor.

The discoveries were eye-opening from the moment I first heard these two women scholars present their initial research at a conference. The authors dug deep into the archives and newspapers to recover the evidence of the multiple women considered for the Court by multiple presidents.

I enjoyed reading short biographies of each of these first ten women—so much so that the introduction of Florence Allen as the first nominee led me to further exploration that resulted in my book.

How do Supreme Court justices make decisions? Law students are taught that justices apply a consistent and principled jurisprudence to examine the facts of the case before them, precedent, and the statue or constitutional provision at issue. 

Segal and Spaeth argue that this understanding is a myth. Rather, they argue that Supreme Court justices base their decisions on their attitudes, values, and political preferences. Using the highly reliable US Supreme Court Judicial Data Base, compiled by Professor Spaeth, their analysis explains and predicts Supreme Court decisions with a stunning degree of accuracy. 

Their conclusion is that debates over originalism, judicial activism, judicial restraint, and the like are simply a distraction that hides the true reason justices decide cases.

This is a fascinating account of FDR’s confrontation with the Supreme Court after it struck down many New Deal measures as unconstitutional expansions of federal authority. In response, he proposed a court-packing bill enabling him to appoint additional justices supportive of his policies, but this got nowhere in Congress because it threatened the constitutional separation of the powers. Nevertheless, Roosevelt still emerged victorious from the imbroglio. Wary of political backlash if it continuously opposed a popular president, the Supreme Court changed course to accept the New Deal once FDR abandoned efforts to pack it. This outcome preserved the judicial branch as a separate arm of the US government while upholding the ideal of a living Constitution whose interpretation changed with the times to make America’s democracy workable. 

Justice William Brennan reportedly would tell his new law clerks each year that the most important thing to understand about the Supreme Court was the number five. 

He meant that it takes the votes of five justices to set precedent and change the law. In this very readable study Epstein & Knight explore how justices act if they wish to move the law as close as possible to their preferred outcome. 

Based on careful reading of the papers of four Justices, Epstein & Knight make a persuasive case that justices who wish to change the law act strategically. That is, rather than casting a vote based on what they belief is the legally correct outcome, they often join majorities that don’t reflect their genuine beliefs but move the law closer to them.

In this majestic study Friedman explores the relationship between public opinion and Supreme Court decisions over American history. 

Friedman’s central argument is that the Supreme Court does not stand apart from the rest of the society in which it operates. Building on the work of Robert McCloskey and Robert Dahl, Friedman argues that over time the Supreme Court reflects the views of society at large. 

The book is very well-researched and filled with fascinating, sometimes delightful, historical tidbits. It is written for an educated general audience.

The U.S. Supreme Court has often been filled with Justices who issued racist decisions against Indian tribes and their members. In reaching these decisions, these Justices often overlooked significant facts and created new legal principles to suit their purposes.

Mr. Echo-Hawk selected the 10 worst cases the Supreme Court had decided up to that point. He discusses the factual background of each case and explains why the Court’s decision is wrong, often revealing the Justices' known prejudices.

This book is an eye-opener for readers wondering whether Indian tribes have had a fair chance of winning cases in the Supreme Court.