Warren Burger Court (1969-1986)
Warren Burger was the 15th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeding Earl Warren. He was nominated on May 23, 1969 by President Richard Nixon. (In an ironic twist, the Burger Court would essentially force Nixon to resign five years later by ordering the production of materials related to the Watergate scandal.) Burger was confirmed by the Senate on June 9, 1969 and was sworn into office on June 23, 1969. He served as Chief Justice until he retired on September 26, 1986 and was succeeded by William Rehnquist.
Burger became Chief Justice only because the Senate had blocked the nomination of then-Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Warren as Chief Justice in the previous year. Fortas then became embroiled in a scandal that forced him to resign from the Court nine days before Burger was nominated.
Since Fortas’ seat remained vacant, the Burger Court consisted of only eight Justices until June 9, 1970. This was the only period in the 20th century when a Supreme Court vacancy lasted for more than a year. The Senate rejected Nixon’s first two efforts to fill the vacancy before confirming Justice Harry Blackmun. A year later, Justices Hugo Black and John Harlan II both left the Court and were replaced by Justices Lewis Powell and Rehnquist.
After this rapid turnover early in its history, the membership of the Burger Court became more stable. Only two more changes were made before Burger retired. Justice John Paul Stevens replaced the retiring Justice William O. Douglas in 1975, and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor replaced the retiring Justice Potter Stewart in 1981. O’Connor was the first female Justice on the Supreme Court.
Nixon had expected Burger to lead a conservative retrenchment of the Supreme Court, but the impact of the Burger Court proved to be more ambiguous. Some of its decisions echoed the activism of the Warren Court, extending individual rights in areas such as due process. For example, the Burger Court recognized a right to abortion buttressed by the constitutional principle of privacy. On the other hand, these Justices chipped away at the legacy of the Warren Court in some areas. For example, the Burger Court established a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in criminal procedure, limiting this shield for defendants. Some observers thus have viewed the Burger Court as a transitional or moderate phase between the liberal Warren Court and the conservative Rehnquist Court.
Associate Justices on the Burger Court:
- Hugo Black (1937-1971)
- William Douglas (1939-1975)
- John Harlan II (1955-1971)
- William Brennan (1956-1990)
- Potter Stewart (1958-1981)
- Byron White (1962-1993)
- Thurgood Marshall (1967-1991)
- Harry Blackmun (1970-1994)
- Lewis Powell (1972-1987)
- William Rehnquist (1972-1986; later served as Chief Justice from 1986-2005)
- John Paul Stevens (1975-2010)
- Sandra Day O’Connor (1981-2006)
Selected Landmark Cases of the Burger Court:
Author: William Brennan
Topic: Voting & Elections
The critical question in a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is whether the use of a contested electoral practice or structure results in members of a protected group having less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.
Batson v. Kentucky (1986)
Author: Lewis Powell
Topic: Criminal Trials & Prosecutions
While a defendant has no right to a jury composed in whole or in part of persons of their own race, the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the defendant that the state will not exclude members of their race from the jury venire on account of race, or on the false assumption that members of their race as a group are not qualified to serve as jurors. In addition, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race or on the assumption that black jurors as a group will be unable impartially to consider the State's case against a black defendant.
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Author: Byron White
Topic: Search & Seizure
A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting them dead. However, when an officer has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.
City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc. (1985)
Author: Byron White
Topic: Equal Protection
Requiring a special use permit for a proposed group home for mentally retarded people violated equal protection. Although the mentally retarded, as a group, are different from those who occupy other facilities that are permitted in the zoning area in question without a special permit, such difference is irrelevant unless the proposed group home would threaten the city's legitimate interests in a way that the permitted uses would not.
Strickland v. Washington (1984)
Author: Sandra Day O’Connor
Topic: Criminal Trials & Prosecutions
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel, and the benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result. A convicted defendant's claim that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of a conviction or setting aside of a death sentence requires that the defendant show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC (1984)
Author: John Paul Stevens
Topic: Government Agencies
If a statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to a specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. If Congress has explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, the regulation is given controlling weight unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute. If the legislative delegation to an agency is implicit, a court may not substitute its own construction of a statutory provision for a reasonable interpretation by the administrator of an agency.
U.S. v. Leon (1984)
Author: Byron White
Topic: Search & Seizure
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not be applied to bar the use in the prosecution's case in chief of evidence obtained by officers acting in reasonable reliance on a search warrant issued by a detached and neutral magistrate but ultimately found to be invalid.
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)
Author: Warren Burger
Topic: Religion
A city's inclusion of a creche in its annual Christmas display in a private park, which also included secular symbols, did not violate the Establishment Clause.
INS v. Chadha (1983)
Author: Warren Burger
Topic: Separation of Powers
When it was clear that an action by the House of Representatives was not within any of the express constitutional exceptions authorizing one House to act alone, and equally clear that it was an exercise of legislative power, that action was subject to the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I of the Constitution.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982)
Author: Thurgood Marshall
Topic: Property Rights & Land Use
When the character of a governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, there is a taking to the extent of the occupation regardless of whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only a minimal economic impact on the owner.
Michael M. v. Superior Court (1981)
Author: William Rehnquist
Topic: Equal Protection
A statute will be upheld when the gender classification is not invidious but instead realistically reflects the fact that the sexes are not similarly situated in certain circumstances.
Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980)
Author: Warren Burger
Topic: Patents
A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter.
City of Mobile v. Bolden (1980)
Author: Potter Stewart
Topic: Voting & Elections
Racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation. The Amendment does not entail the right to have African-American candidates elected but prohibits only purposefully discriminatory denial or abridgment by government of the freedom to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)
Author: William Brennan
Topic: Property Rights & Land Use
There is no set formula for determining when justice and fairness require that economic losses caused by public action be compensated by the government. Factors to consider include the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
Craig v. Boren (1976)
Author: William Brennan
Topic: Equal Protection
Classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
Author: Per Curiam
Topic: Separation of Powers; Voting & Elections; Government Agencies; Free Speech
Restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment. However, restrictions on independent expenditures in campaigns, limits on expenditures by candidates from their personal or family resources, and limits on total campaign expenditures violated the First Amendment. Also, any appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an “Officer of the United States” and must be appointed in the manner prescribed by the Appointments Clause.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)
Author: John Paul Stevens, Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart
Topic: Death Penalty & Criminal Sentencing
The punishment of death for the crime of murder does not, under all circumstances, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (This decision ended the temporary moratorium on the death penalty imposed by Furman.)
Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
Author: Byron White
Topic: Criminal Trials & Prosecutions
The requirement that a jury be selected from a representative cross-section of the community is fundamental to the jury trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. This requirement is violated by the systematic exclusion of women from jury panels.
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
Author: Warren Burger
Topic: Separation of Powers
Neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973)
Author: Lewis Powell
Topic: Labor & Employment
In a private, non-class action complaint under Title VII charging racial employment discrimination, the complainant has the burden of establishing a prima facie case, which they can satisfy by showing that they belong to a racial minority, they applied and were qualified for a job that the employer was trying to fill, they were rejected, and the employer continued to seek applicants with their qualifications.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Author: Harry Blackmun
Topic: Due Process; Abortion & Reproductive Rights
The Due Process Clause protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Although the state cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a compelling point at various stages of the woman's approach to term.
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
Author: William Brennan
Topic: Equal Protection; Abortion & Reproductive Rights
If the distribution of contraceptives to married persons cannot be prohibited, a ban on distribution to unmarried persons would be equally impermissible, since the constitutionally protected right of privacy inheres in the individual, rather than the marital couple.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Author: Warren Burger
Topic: Religion
To comply with the Establishment Clause, a law must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)
Author: Warren Burger
Topic: Labor & Employment
An employment practice that operates to exclude members of a protected group is prohibited if it cannot be shown to be related to job performance, even if the employer lacked discriminatory intent.
Goldberg v. Kelly (1970)
Author: William Brennan
Topic: Lawsuits & Legal Procedures; Due Process; Government Agencies
A pre-termination evidentiary hearing is necessary to provide a recipient of welfare benefits with procedural due process. The interest of an eligible recipient in the uninterrupted receipt of public assistance, coupled with the state's interest in not erroneously terminating their payments, clearly outweighs the state's competing concern to prevent any increase in its fiscal and administrative burdens.
