The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2020, Expanded Second Edition is a history of the Court placed within the context of a broader history of the United States and its politics. In contrast to a typical book on US history, where the Supreme Court appears, if at all, as an interruption here and there, or, in a typical history of the Supreme Court, where political events intrude occasionally, Lucas A. Powe, Jr., situates the Court and its work into a broad narrative of American history. Powe places the Court within the context of history and the insights of political science while remaining true to the ways the justices perceived their own work. Instead of viewing the Court as a competitor with the other two branches of government (although occasionally it is), Powe views it as a part of a ruling regime doing its part to implement the regime's policies. Some of its most historically controversial decisions are far less so when set within the politics of the time. Justices are, after all, as subject to the same economic, social, and intellectual currents as other upper-middle-class professional elites. The book's dominant theme is that the Court is a majoritarian institution-that is, it identifies with and serves ruling political coalitions. The justices are for the most part in tune with their times. Relatedly, changes in personnel matter; a president able to appoint several justices can, and does, change the direction of the Court. Thus, the Court and its decisions have moved to the center of presidential politics. This new edition adds two chapters detailing the history of the Court since 2008, including how the Court has changed election law, its entrance into the healthcare controversies, expansion of LBGTQ rights, and the 2020 Census controversies. The first new chapter looks at the centrist jurisprudence of Justice Anthony Kennedy and his dominant presence as the decisive vote in a series of 5-4 decisions. The second looks at the toxic partisan political climate in the aftermath of Justice Scalia's death and Republican control of the Court.

The Supreme Court and the American Elite, 1789-2020, Expanded Second Edition is a history of the Court placed within the context of a broader history of the United States and its politics. In contrast to a typical book on US history, where the Supreme Court appears, if at all, as an interruption here and there, or, in a typical history of the Supreme Court, where political events intrude occasionally, Lucas A. Powe, Jr., situates the Court and its work into a broad narrative of American history. Powe places the Court within the context of history and the insights of political science while remaining true to the ways the justices perceived their own work. Instead of viewing the Court as a competitor with the other two branches of government (although occasionally it is), Powe views it as a part of a ruling regime doing its part to implement the regime's policies. Some of its most historically controversial decisions are far less so when set within the politics of the time. Justices are, after all, as subject to the same economic, social, and intellectual currents as other upper-middle-class professional elites. The book's dominant theme is that the Court is a majoritarian institution-that is, it identifies with and serves ruling political coalitions. The justices are for the most part in tune with their times. Relatedly, changes in personnel matter; a president able to appoint several justices can, and does, change the direction of the Court. Thus, the Court and its decisions have moved to the center of presidential politics. This new edition adds two chapters detailing the history of the Court since 2008, including how the Court has changed election law, its entrance into the healthcare controversies, expansion of LBGTQ rights, and the 2020 Census controversies. The first new chapter looks at the centrist jurisprudence of Justice Anthony Kennedy and his dominant presence as the decisive vote in a series of 5-4 decisions. The second looks at the toxic partisan political climate in the aftermath of Justice Scalia's death and Republican control of the Court.

Why have radio and television never been granted the same First Amendment freedoms that we have always accorded the printed word? In this fascinating work, Lucas A. Powe, Jr., examines the strange paradox governing our treatment of the two types of media. This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press's mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1987.

Texas has created more constitutional law than any other state. In any classroom nationwide, any basic constitutional law course can be taught using nothing but Texas cases. That, however, understates the history and politics behind the cases. Beyond representing all doctrinal areas of constitutional law, Texas cases deal with the major issues of the nation. Leading legal scholar and Supreme Court historian Lucas A. Powe, Jr., charts the rich and pervasive development of Texas-inspired constitutional law. From voting rights to railroad regulations, school finance to capital punishment, poverty to civil liberties, this wide-ranging and eminently readable book provides a window into the relationship between constitutional litigation and ordinary politics at the Supreme Court, illuminating how all of the fiercest national divides over what the Constitution means took shape in Texas.

The Supreme Court follows the election returns, the fictional Mr. Dooley observed a hundred years ago. And for all our ideals and dreams of a disinterested judiciary, above the political fray, it seems Mr. Dooley was right. In this engaging and disturbing book, a leading historian of the Court reveals the close fit between its decisions and the nation s politics.

The story begins with the creation of the Constitution and ends with the June 2008 decisions on the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Rendering crisp (and often controversial) judgments on key decisions from "Marbury v. Madison" to the War on Terror, Lucas Powe shows how virtually every major Supreme Court ruling, however deftly framed in constitutional terms, suited the wishes of the most powerful politicians of the time. This history reflects a changing Court, from the country s early struggles over commerce and transportation to the torturous justifications of slavery before the Civil War, to a post New Deal interest in ending segregation, controlling criminal procedure, and addressing knotty questions arising from the Cold War. Through all of this the Court emerges as part of a ruling regime, doing its best to implement the regime s policies.

Drawing on more than four decades of thinking about the Supreme Court and its role in the American political system, this book offers a new, clear, and troubling perspective on American jurisprudence, politics, and history.

Texas has created more constitutional law than any other state. In any classroom nationwide, any basic constitutional law course can be taught using nothing but Texas cases. That, however, understates the history and politics behind the cases. Beyond representing all doctrinal areas of constitutional law, Texas cases deal with the major issues of the nation. Leading legal scholar and Supreme Court historian Lucas A. Powe, Jr., charts the rich and pervasive development of Texas-inspired constitutional law. From voting rights to railroad regulations, school finance to capital punishment, poverty to civil liberties, this wide-ranging and eminently readable book provides a window into the relationship between constitutional litigation and ordinary politics at the Supreme Court, illuminating how all of the fiercest national divides over what the Constitution means took shape in Texas.

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was the most revolutionary and controversial Supreme Court in American history. But in what sense? Challenging the reigning consensus that the Warren Court, fundamentally, was protecting minorities, Lucas A. Powe, Jr. revives the valuable tradition of looking at the Supreme Court in the wide political environment to find the Warren Court a functioning partner in Kennedy-Johnson liberalism. Thus the Court helped to impose national liberal-elite values on groups that were outliers to that tradition: the white South, rural America, and areas of Roman Catholic dominance. In a learned and lively narrative, Powe discusses over 200 significant rulings: the explosive Brown decision, which fundamentally challenged the Southern way of life; reapportionment (one person, one vote), which changed the political balance of American legislatures; the gradual elimination of anti-Communist domestic security programs; the reform of criminal procedures (Mapp, Gideon, Miranda); the ban on school-sponsored prayer; and a new law on pornography. Most of these decisions date from 1962, when those who shaped the dominant ideology of the Warren Court of storied fame gained a fifth secure liberal vote. The Justices of the majority were prominent individuals, brimming with confidence, willing to help shape a revolution and see if it would last.

In 1964 the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan guaranteeing constitutional protection for caustic criticism of public officials, thus forging the modern law of freedom of the press. Since then, the Court has decided case after case affecting the rights and restrictions of the press, yet little has ben written about these developments as they pertain to the Fourth Estate. Lucas Powe's essential book now fills this gap. Lucas A. Powe, Jr., a legal scholar specializing in media and the law, goes back to the framing of the First Amendment and chronicles the two main traditions of interpreting freedom of the press to illuminate the issues that today ignite controversy: How can a balance be achieved among reputation, uninhibited discussion, and media power? Under what circumstance can the government seek to protect national security by enjoining the press rather than attempting the difficult task of convincing a jury that publication was a criminal offense? What rights can the press properly claim to protect confidential sources or to demand access to information otherwise barred to the public?And, as the media grow larger and larger, can the government attempt to limit their power by limiting their size? Writing for the concerned layperson and student of both journalism and jurisprudence, Powe synthesizes law, history, and theory to explain and justify full protection of the editorial choices of the press. The Fourth Estate and the Constitution not only captures the sweep of history of Supreme Court decisions on the press, but also provides a timely restatement of the traditional view of freedom of the press at a time when liberty is increasingly called into question.