The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, sought to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves; but its first important test did not arise until five years later. That test centered on a vitriolic dispute among the white butchers of mid-Reconstruction New Orleans.

The rough-and-tumble world of nineteenth-century New Orleans was a sanitation nightmare, with the city's slaughterhouses dumping animal remains into local backwaters. When Louisiana authorized a monopoly slaughterhouse to bring about sanitation reform, many independent butchers felt disenfranchised. Framing their case as an infringement of rights protected by the new amendment, they flooded the lower courts with nearly 300 suits. The surviving cases that reached the U.S. Supreme Court pitted the butchers' right to labor against the state's "police power" to regulate public health. The result was a controversial decision that for the first time addressed the meaning and import of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Speaking for the majority in the Court's 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel F. Miller upheld the state's actions as a fair use of its "police power." He also argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended exclusively as a means of protecting and redressing the suffering of former slaves. The result was a very restricted interpretation of the amendment's "privileges and immunities," "due process," and "equal protection" clauses. In striking contrast, the minority, led by Justices Stephen Field and Joseph Bradley, claimed that the Fourteenth Amendment had been intended to apply to all Americans, not just former slaves, and therefore protected the butchers' right to labor in their chosen profession.

Engagingly written and concisely crafted for students and general readers, this newly abridged edition provides a very accessible guide to one of the Supreme Court's most famous cases.

In this new biographical study of the only American ever to have been both President and Chief Justice of the United States, Jonathan Lurie reassesses William Howard Taft's multiple careers, which culminated in Taft's election to the presidency in 1908 as the chosen successor to Theodore Roosevelt. By 1912, however, the relationship between Taft and Roosevelt had ruptured. Lurie reexamines the Taft-Roosevelt friendship and concludes that it rested on flimsy ground. He also places Taft in a progressive context, taking Taft's own self-description as a believer in progressive conservatism as the starting point. At the end of his biography, Lurie concludes that this label is accurate when applied to Taft."

In The Chief Justiceship of William Howard Taft, 1921-1930, Jonathan Lurie offers a comprehensive examination of the Supreme Court tenure of the only person to have held the offices of president of the United States and chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Taft joined the Court during the Jazz Age and the era of prohibition, a period of disillusion and retreat from the idealism reflected during Woodrow Wilson's presidency. Lurie considers how conservative trends at this time were reflected in key decisions of Taft's court. Although Taft was considered an undistinguished chief executive, such a characterization cannot be applied to his tenure as chief justice. Lurie demonstrates that Taft's leadership on this tribunal, matched by his productive relations with Congress, in effect created the modern Supreme Court. Furthermore he draws on the unpublished letters Taft wrote to his three children, Robert, Helen, and Charles, generally once a week. His missives contain an intriguing mixture of family news, insights concerning contemporaneous political issues, and occasional commentary on his fellow justices and cases under consideration. Lurie structures his study in parallel with the eight full terms in which Taft occupied the center seat. Lurie examines key decisions while avoiding legal jargon wherever possible. The high point of Taft's chief justiceship was the period from 1921 to 1925. The second part of his tenure was in fact a period of slow decline, with his health worsening with each passing year. By early 1930 he was forced to resign, and his death soon followed. In the epilogue Lurie explains why Taft is still regarded as an outstanding chief justice - if not a great jurist - and details why this distinction is important.

This book addresses the body of statutory and case law covering both the military and military conduct. Four chapters discuss the relationship between the Supreme Court and military justice, covering the Civil War era, World War II, the post-war period from 1956 to 1987, and developments since the September 11, 2001, attacks. Each chapter also includes a set of documents that shed light on these periods of U.S. history. Excerpts from key Supreme Court briefs and rulings are complemented by articles from the Army Times, the Armed Forces Journal, and mass media including the New York Times and The Nation. Incisive introductions to these documents explain the evolution of constitutional law and the ways in which federal and state statutes have lessened the effectiveness of both civilian control over the military and civilian judicial oversight.

A revealing examination of the Supreme Court's justices and their "cautiously moderate" jurisprudence during the ten-year tenure of Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase. The Chase Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy examines the workings and legacies of the Supreme Court during the tenure of Chief Justice Salmon Portland Chase. Accompanying an in-depth analysis of the Chase Court's landmark rulings on Civil War and Reconstruction issues that shaped U.S. history-such as military commissions and the status of seceding states-are detailed discussions of the Court's rulings on government-issued paper currency "greenbacks" and the newly ratified 14th Amendment. Salmon Portland Chase's role as the first chief justice to preside over the impeachment of a president is carefully examined. Profiles of the 13 Chase Court justices describe their rise to prominence, controversies surrounding their nominations, work on the court, judicial philosophies, important decisions, and overall impacts. A-Z entries include the significant rulings involving Reconstruction and restoration of the Union such as Ex parte Milligan (1866), the Test Oath Cases (1867), Ex parte McCardle (1868), and Texas v. White (1869) An analysis of the historical impact and continuing legacy of decisions such as the Court's narrow interpretation of the 14th Amendment in the famous Slaughterhouse Cases

A unique but largely neglected part of the American legal system, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Services marks its fiftieth anniversary in 2001. "In Military Justice in America," Jonathan Lurie chronicles the struggles leading to the Court's creation, as well as its subsequent efforts to fulfill a difficult and sometimes controversial mission. Illuminating and fairminded, Lurie's work provides a new and valuable perspective on the uneasy relations between civil and military authority.

Both comprehensive and detailed, Military Justice in America explores the history of the Court, which finally emerged in the wake of the national debates over the confrontation between civilian commitment to due process and individual rights and the military's demand for discipline. Deftly summarizing the Court's prehistory, Lurie then examines the Court's performance during its early years, amidst a growing civil rights movement and an increasingly unpopular war in Vietnam. He also shows how the Court matured as an institution, with its own procedures and personality, and analyzes its stormy relationship with the office of the Judge Advocate General. Along the way, he gives due attention to civilian control of the military, the essential differences between civilian and military jurisprudence, the ongoing interplay between law and politics.

Drawing on a wide range of manuscript collections, court files, and personal interviews, Lurie's work also critically assesses the Court's overall effectiveness. In particular, Lurie looks closely at the Court's efforts to maintain its independence, to insulate the courts-martial process from improper influence, and to fashion a just jurisprudence based on the Bill of Rights. He argues that, despite its undeniable achievements, the Court's performance has not lived up to its full potential and, further, has been seriously compromised by its continued accountability to the Senate Armed Services Committee. In the end, however, he points to the Court as an essential example (and reminder) of how, in our democracy, even the military must, in theory at least, answer to civilian authority.

"Military Justice in America" substantially abridges and revises two previous and heavily annotated volumes-Arming Military Justice and Pursuing Military Justice-originally commissioned by the Court for a much more limited readership. This new one-volume paperback edition has been prepared with a considerably wider readership in mind. Much more accessible and affordable than its predecessors, it will be especially appealing for anyone interested in American law, military history, and civil-military history.

According to the US Constitution, if a bill is not returned to Congress by the president within ten days of receiving it and Congress has adjourned, the bill is effectively vetoed. The so-called pocket veto dates at least as far back as the presidency of James Madison (1808-1816), but the constitutionality of its use had not been considered by the Supreme Court until Okanogan et al. v. United States was decided in 1929, during the last year of Chief Justice Taft's tenure. Despite responding to a situation in American Indian law, the Pocket Veto Case is notable for the fact that its final decision had nothing whatsoever to do with Indian law. The Okanogan Tribe is barely mentioned at all in the Court's unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Edward Sanford, which ultimately concluded that the pocket veto is a constitutional exercise of presidential authority. The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case explores the underlying tension between congressional authority and the executive prerogative. Especially today, with such tension very much in evidence, it becomes all the more important to understand how and why the Constitution actually appears to encourage it. Studying Okanogan et al. v. United States and use of the pocket veto provides an excellent example of the tension between Congress and the president.

In this biographical study of the only American ever to have been both President and Chief Justice of the United States, Jonathan Lurie reassesses William Howard Taft's multiple careers, which culminated in Taft's election to the presidency in 1908 as the chosen successor to Theodore Roosevelt. By 1912, however, the relationship between Taft and Roosevelt had ruptured. Lurie re-examines the Taft-Roosevelt friendship and concludes that it rested on flimsy ground. He also places Taft in a progressive context, taking Taft's own self-description as 'a believer in progressive conservatism' as the starting point. At the end of his biography, Lurie concludes that this label is accurate when applied to Taft.