Edward Douglass White Court (1910-1921)
Edward Douglass White was the 9th Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeding Melville Weston Fuller. Having served on the Court since 1894, White was the first incumbent Associate Justice to be elevated to Chief Justice. White was nominated for Chief Justice by President William Howard Taft on December 12, 1910. He was confirmed by the Senate on the day of his nomination, and he was sworn into office on December 19, 1910. White served as Chief Justice until he died on May 19, 1921 and was succeeded by former President Taft.
The Supreme Court saw frequent changes in membership during the first several years of White’s tenure. Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar was nominated on the same day that White was nominated as Chief Justice. He ultimately filled a vacancy left by the retirement of Justice William Henry Moody. Meanwhile, Justice Willis Van Devanter filled the Associate Justice position vacated by White.
Less than a year after White became Chief Justice, Justice John Marshall Harlan died and was replaced by Justice Mahlon Pitney. Justice Horace Harmon Lurton died in 1914 and was replaced by Justice James Clark McReynolds. Two more vacancies opened in 1916, when Justice Lamar died and Justice Charles Evans Hughes resigned to run (unsuccessfully) for President. Justices Louis Brandeis and John Hessin Clarke filled those vacancies. The membership of the Court then remained stable for the rest of White’s tenure.
The White Court issued several decisions involving free speech near the end of the First World War, probing the boundaries of the First Amendment. The Court also examined the powers of Congress, including the treaty power, the taxing power, the commerce power, and the power to raise an army. These decisions played a key role in the evolution of constitutional law.
However, perhaps the most famous contribution of the White Court came in the area of antitrust law, which is meant to protect competition in the market. White outlined a “rule of reason” standard for cases under the Sherman Antitrust Act that do not involve blatantly anti-competitive practices. The rule of reason continues to serve as the starting point for analyzing many antitrust cases.
Associate Justices on the White Court:
- John Marshall Harlan (1877-1911)
- Joseph McKenna (1898-1925)
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (1902-1932)
- William Rufus Day (1903-1922)
- Horace Harmon Lurton (1910-1914)
- Charles Evans Hughes (1910-1916; later served as Chief Justice in 1930-1941)
- Joseph Rucker Lamar (1911-1916)
- Willis Van Devanter (1911-1937)
- Mahlon Pitney (1912-1922)
- James Clark McReynolds (1914-1941)
- Louis Brandeis (1916-1939)
- John Hessin Clarke (1916-1922)
Selected Landmark Cases of the White Court:
Author: John Hessin Clarke
Topic: Search & Seizure
Search warrants may not be used as a means of gaining access to a person's house or office and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against them in a criminal or penal proceeding.
Newberry v. U.S. (1921)
Author: James Clark McReynolds
Topic: Voting & Elections
The power to control party primaries for designating candidates for the Senate is not within the grant of power to Congress to regulate the manner of holding elections.
Missouri v. Holland (1920)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Powers of Congress
Treaties made under the authority of the United States, along with the Constitution and laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land.
Eisner v. Macomber (1920)
Author: Mahlon Pitney
Topic: Taxes
Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.
Abrams v. U.S. (Holmes dissent) (1919)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Free Speech
It is only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limit to the expression of opinion when private rights are not concerned.
Debs v. U.S. (1919)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Free Speech
The delivery of a speech in such word and such circumstances that the probable effect will be to prevent recruiting, and with that intent, is not protected because of the fact that the purpose to oppose the war and obstruct recruiting, and the expressions used in that regard, were but incidental parts of a general propaganda of socialism and expressions of a general and conscientious belief.
Frohwerk v. U.S. (1919)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Free Speech
The First Amendment, while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such, was not intended to give immunity to every possible use of language.
Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Free Speech
Words that, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Chicago Board of Trade v. U.S. (1918)
Author: Louis Brandeis
Topic: Antitrust
The true test of legality is whether a restraint merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition, or whether it may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question, a court must consider the facts peculiar to the business, its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, the nature of the restraint, and its effect, actual or probable. The history of the restraint, the evil believed to exist, the reason for adopting the particular remedy, and the purpose or end sought to be attained are all relevant facts.
Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
Author: William Rufus Day
Topic: Powers of Congress
The manufacture of goods is not commerce, nor do the facts that they are intended for interstate commerce and are shipped in interstate commerce make their production a part of that commerce subject to the control of Congress.
International News Service v. Associated Press (1918)
Author: Mahlon Pitney
Topic: Copyrights
One who gathers news at pains and expense, for the purpose of lucrative publication, may be said to have a quasi-property in the results of their enterprise as against a rival in the same business, and the appropriation of those results at the expense and to the damage of one and for the profit of the other is unfair competition, against which equity will afford relief.
Selective Draft Law Cases (1918)
Author: Edward Douglass White
Topic: Powers of Congress; Immigration & National Security
The grant to Congress of the power to raise and support armies includes the power to compel military service.
Herbert v. Shanley Co. (1917)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Copyrights
The performance of a copyrighted musical composition in a restaurant or hotel without charge for admission to hear it but as an incident of other entertainment for which the public pays infringes the public performance right.
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (1916)
Author: Edward Douglass White
Topic: Taxes; Powers of Congress
The Fifth Amendment is not a limitation on the taxing power conferred on Congress by the Constitution.
Guinn & Beal v. U.S. (1915)
Author: Edward Douglass White
Topic: Voting & Elections
A provision in a state constitution recurring to conditions existing before the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment, the continuance of which the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited, and making those conditions the test of the right to suffrage is void under the Fifteenth Amendment.
Weeks v. U.S. (1914)
Author: William Rufus Day
Topic: Search & Seizure
The tendency of those executing federal criminal laws to obtain convictions by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions in violation of federal rights is not to be sanctioned by the courts that are charged with the support of constitutional rights.
Houston East and West Texas Railway Co. v. U.S. (1914)
Author: Charles Evans Hughes
Topic: Powers of Congress
In taking measures necessary to foster and protect interstate commerce, it may be necessary for Congress to control the intrastate transactions of interstate carriers.
Bugajewitz v. Adams (1913)
Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Topic: Immigration & National Security
Deportation is not a punishment but instead a refusal by the government to harbor persons whom it does not want. The constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws has no application to deportation.
Pacific States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Oregon (1912)
Author: Edward Douglass White
Topic: Role of Courts
The enforcement of the constitutional provision that the United States shall guarantee to every state a republican form of government is of a political character and exclusively committed to Congress, so it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts.
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. U.S. (1911)
Author: Edward Douglass White
Topic: Antitrust
The Sherman Antitrust Act should be construed in the light of reason. As so construed, it prohibits all contracts and combinations that amount to an unreasonable or undue restraint of trade in interstate commerce.
U.S. v. American Tobacco Co. (1911)
Author: Edward Douglass White
Topic: Antitrust
The public policy manifested by the Sherman Antitrust Act is expressed in such general language that it embraces every conceivable act that can possibly come within the spirit of its prohibitions, and that policy cannot be frustrated by resort to disguise or subterfuge.
