Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-swprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-03T00:57:06.180Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

8 - A Consequential Court

The U.S. Supreme Court in the Twentieth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2013

By
Robert A. Kagan
Edited by
Diana Kapiszewski ,
Gordon Silverstein  and
Robert A. Kagan
Diana Kapiszewski
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Gordon Silverstein
Affiliation:
Yale Law School
Robert A. Kagan
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

To say that a constitutional court has played a significant role in governance of a nation implies that the court's decisions are consequential – that they make a difference, have an independent effect on politics, public policy, and power relationships, or on social or economic life, the treatment of minorities, criminal suspects, political or religious dissidents. This essay, accordingly, discusses the roles played by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century, asking to what extent and in what ways the Court was a consequential political actor.

Lawyers and legal scholars take it for granted that the U.S. Supreme Court, which has exercised the power of constitutional judicial review for more than 200 years, has been a politically consequential court. To many political scientists, however, the Court's actual influence is an unsettled empirical and theoretical question. Scholars often referred to as regime theorists argue that constitutional courts only rarely, if ever, have a powerful independent effect on government and society (Dahl, 1957; Rosenberg, 1991; Peretti, 1999; Pickerell & Clayton, 2004; Whittington, 2008). Regime theorists see high courts not primarily as politically powerful principals but as agents whose decisions in politically significant cases generally reflect the preferences of the political leaders who appointed them. Even if judges are personally inclined to make bold, politically unpopular rulings, it is argued, prudence usually impels them to act strategically, avoiding decisions that important political leaders are likely not only to denounce but to resist, reverse, or retaliate against (Epstein, Knight, & Shvetsova, 2001). In this view, therefore, when judicial decisions do have broad social or political consequences, it is because powerful political leaders or parties approve of (or at least accept) those decisions and – just as importantly – are willing to implement them. In regime theory, the judges may appear to be the engineer driving the legal or constitutional train, but political leaders have built the track and selected the engineers, thus deciding what direction they want the train to go.

Type
Chapter
Information
Consequential Courts
Judicial Roles in Global Perspective
 , pp. 199 - 232
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Bruce (1991) We the People, Volume I: Foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Armor, David J. (1980) “White Flight and the Future of School Desegregation,” in Stephan, Walter & Feagan, Joseph, eds., School Desegregation: Past, Present and Future. New York: Plenum Books, pp. 187–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armor, David J.. (1978) White Flight, Demographic Transition and the Future of School Integration. Santa Monica. Santa Barbara:RAND Institute Paper Series.Google Scholar
Badaracco, Joseph L. (1985) Loading The Dice: A Five Country Study of Vinyl Chloride Regulation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Bowen, William & Bok, Derek (1998) The Shape of the River: Long Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Craig (1993) The Failure of the Criminal Procedure Revolution. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Jim (2006) “The Story of Wickard v Filburn,” in Dorf, M., ed., Constitutional Law Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 69–118.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W. (1992) The Politics of Justice: The Attorney General and the Making of Legal Policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Coleman, C., Nee, L., & Rubinowitz, L. (2005) “Social Movements and Social-Change Litigation: Synergy in the Montgomery Bus Protest,” Law & Soc. Inquiry 30(4): 663–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, James et al. (1975) Trends in School Integration, 1968–1973. U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfare.Google Scholar
Cover, Robert (1975) Justice Accused: Antislavery & The Judicial Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Croley, Steven (2008) Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushman, Barry (1998). Rethinking the New Deal Court: The Structure of a Constitutional Revolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. (1957) “Decision-Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker,” Journal of Public Law 6: 279.Google Scholar
Dolbeare, Kenneth & Hammond, Philip (1971) The School Prayer Decisions: From Court Policy to Local Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dudziak, Mary (1988) “Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative,” Stanford L. Rev. 41: 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwyer, John (1990) “The Pathology of Symbolic Legislation,” Ecology Law Quarterly 17: 233.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. (2009) Making Rights Real: Activists, Bureaucrats, and the Creation of the Legalistic State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Charles R.. (1998) The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, LeeKnight, Jack & Shvetsova, Olga (2001) “The Role of Constitutional Courts in the Establishment and Maintenance of Democratic Systems of Government,” Law & Society Rev. 35: 117–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. (2007) “The Black Basis of Constitutional Development,” in Scheiber, Harry N., ed., Earl Warren and the Warren Court. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M. & Edward, Rubin (1998) Judicial Policy Making and the Modern State: How the Courts Reformed America's Prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, Lawrence M. (1993) Crime and Punishment in American History. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Finley, Lucinda (2004) “The Story of Roe v. Wade,” in Dorf, Michael, ed., Constitutional Law Stories. New York, NY: Foundation Press, pp. 359–406.Google Scholar
Garland, David (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garrow, David J. (1994) “Hopelessly Hollow History: Revisionist Devaluing of Brown v. Board of Education,” Virginia Law Review 80: 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gash, Alison & Gonzales, Angelo (2008) “School Prayer,” in Persily, N., Citrin, J., & Egan, P., eds., Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 62–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graber, Mark (1993) “The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary,” Studies in Amer. Pol. Dev. 7: XX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, Daniel & Quinn, Kevin (2010) “Did a Switch in Time Save Nine?” J. of Legal Analysis 2: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis-Brusky, Amanda (2011) “Support Structures and Constitutional Change: Teles, Southworth, and the Conservative Legal Movement,” Law & Social Inquiry 35: 516–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. (2007) “Globalization and Legal Change: The ‘Americanization’ of European Law?” Regulation & Governance 1: 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagan, Robert A.. (2001) Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson. (1983) “What if Abe Fortas Had Been More Discreet?” in Polsby, Nelson, ed., What If? Explorations in Social Science Fiction. Albany, GA: Lewis Publishing.
Keck, Thomas M. (2007) “Party, Policy, or Duty: Why Does the Supreme Court Invalidate Federal Statutes?” American Political Science Review 101: 321–38.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael (2007) Unfinished Business: Racial Equality in American History. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klarman, Michael. (2004) From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leo, Richard (2008) Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry (2006) “Motor Vehicle Mfgrs. Assn v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance,” in Strauss, P., ed., Administrative Law Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 334–397.Google Scholar
Mashaw, Jerry L. & Harfst, Daniel (1991) The Struggle for Auto Safety. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
McCubbins, Matthew, Noll, Roger, & Weingast, Barry (1989) “Structure and Process; Politics and Policy: Administrative Arrangements and the Political Control of Agencies,” Virginia Law Review 75: 431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, Kevin (2000) “Constitutional Vision and Supreme Court Decisions: Roosevelt on Race,” Studies in American Political Development 14: 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep (2010) “The Great Debate over the Civil Rights State,” paper prepared for delivery at the Western Political Science Association Meeting, San Francisco, April 1, 2010.Google Scholar
Mendeloff, John (1987) The Dilemma of Rulemaking for Toxic Substances. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Muir, W. K. (1973) Law and Attitude Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Murakami, Michael (2008) “Desegregation,” in Persily, N., Citrin, J., & Egan, P., eds., Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacelle, Richard L. (2003) Between Law & Politics: The Solicitor General and the Structuring of Race, Gender, and Reproductive Rights Litigation. College Station, TX: Texas A & M University Press.Google Scholar
Pager, Devah (2005) “Double Jeopardy: Race, Crime and Getting a Job,” Wisconsin L Rev 2005(1): 617–662.Google Scholar
Peretti, Terry Jennings (1999) In Defense of a Political Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Persily, Nathaniel, Citrin, Jack, & Egan, Patrick, eds. (2008) Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickerill, J. Mitchell & Clayton, Cornell (2004) “The Rehnquist Court and the Political Dynamics of Federalism,” Perspectives on Politics 2: 233–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polsby, Nelson, ed. (1983) What If? Explorations in Social Science Fiction. Albany, GA: Lewis Publishing.Google Scholar
Powe, Lucas A. (2000) The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Orfield, Myron, Jr. (1987) “The Exclusionary Rule and Deterrence: An Empirical Study of Chicago Narcotics Officers,” U. Chicago Law Rev. 54: 1016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald (1994) “Brown is Dead! Long Live Brown!: The Endless Attempt to Canonize a Case,” Virginia Law Review 80:161.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Gerald. (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rossell, Christine & Armor, David (1996) “The Effectiveness of School Desegregation Plans, 1968–1991,” American Politics Research 24: 267–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Martin (1988) Who Guards the Guardians? Judicial Control of Administration. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon (2009) Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. (2003) “Globalization and the Rule of Law: A Machine that Runs of Itself?” International Journal of Constitutional Law 1: 427–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Jonathan (2007) Governing Through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Richard (1975) “The Reformation of American Administrative Law,” Harvard Law Review 88: 1669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Peter (2006) “Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe – of Politics and Law, Young Lawyers and the Highway Goliath,” in Strauss, Peter, ed., Administrative Law Stories. New York: Foundation Press, pp. 258–332.Google Scholar
Sugrue, Thomas J. (2008) Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass (1999) One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven M. (2008) The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thernstrom, Abigail (1987) Whose Votes Count? Affirmative Action and Minority Voting Rights. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark (2006)“The Supreme Court and the National Political Order: Collaboration and Confrontation,” in Kahn, Ronald & Kersch, Ken, eds, The Supreme Court and American Political Development, Kansas U Press, pp. 117–138.Google Scholar
Walker, Samuel (1993) Taming the System: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950–1990. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittington, Keith (2008) Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Whitman, James (2005) Harsh Justice: Criminal Punishment and the Widening Divide between America and Europe. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, John Fabian (2007) Patriots and Cosmopolitans: Hidden Histories of American Law. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
Abingdon School District v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1964)
Aguilar v Texas. 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 794 (1969)
Browder v. Gale, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), affirmed, Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
California v. Robinson, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
Chimel v California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe
City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
DeFunis v Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Griggs v Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Grutter v. Bollinge, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1428 (1967)
Keyes v Denver School District 413 U.S. 189 (1973)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Milliken v Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n of the US v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins, Co, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937)
Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. __ (2007)
Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Pointer v Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Scenic Hudson Preservation Council et al v Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d. 608 (2nd Cir., 1965)
Schechter Poultry Corp v U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 469 (1944)
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940)
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Trop v Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1885)
U.S. v Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1882)
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Vieth v Jubilirer (2004) 541 U.S. 267
Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Ed, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944)
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
Abingdon School District v Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1964)
Aguilar v Texas. 378 U.S. 108 (1964)
Argersinger v Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972)
Barron v Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 794 (1969)
Browder v. Gale, 142 F. Supp. 707 (1956), affirmed, Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Brown v. Board of Education (Brown II), 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
California v. Robinson, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)
Chimel v California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)
Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe
City of Richmond v. Croson, 488 U.S. 469 (1989)
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883)
DeFunis v Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)
Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968)
Engel v Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Fay v. Noia 372 U.S. 391 (1963)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Gratz v Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
Griggs v Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971)
Grutter v. Bollinge, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1428 (1967)
Keyes v Denver School District 413 U.S. 189 (1973)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Mapp v Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Milliken v Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (1974)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
Monroe v. Pape 365 U.S. 167 (1961)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n of the US v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins, Co, 463 U.S. 29 (1983)
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)
N.L.R.B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U.S. 1 (1937)
Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. __ (2007)
Plessy v Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
Pointer v Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400 (1965)
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)
Regents of the University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Roe v Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Scenic Hudson Preservation Council et al v Federal Power Commission, 354 F. 2d. 608 (2nd Cir., 1965)
Schechter Poultry Corp v U.S., 295 U.S. 495 (1935)
The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 469 (1944)
Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940)
Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Ed., 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Trop v Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958)
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber 443 U.S. 193 (1979)
U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1885)
U.S. v Harris, 106 U.S. 629 (1882)
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)
Vieth v Jubilirer (2004) 541 U.S. 267
Wallace v Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937)
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)
Wygant v Jackson Bd. of Ed, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944)
Vitale, Engel v (1962); Abingdon School District v Schempp (1964)
Davis, Helvering v, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v Federal Power Commission (1965)
Motor Vehicle Mfrs Ass'n of the US v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co (1983)
Alabama, Powell v (1932)
Arizona, Miranda v (1966)
Texas, Aguilar v (1964); Chimel v California (1969)
Maryland, Benton v, 395 U.S. 784 (1969)
Louisiana, Duncan v (1968)
Texas, Pointer v (1965)
Hamlin, Argersinger v (1972)
Noia, Faye v (1963)
Pape, Monroe v (1961)
Gale, Browder v (1956)
Bradley, Milliken v (1974)
Odegaard, DeFunis v (1974)
Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers v EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986)
Local 93 International Association of Firefighters v City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986)
United States v Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)
Johnson v Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)
Jackson, Wygant v Bd of Ed., 476 U.S. 267 (1986)
City of Richmond v Croson (1989); Adarand Constructors v Pena (1995)
Bollinger, Gratz v (2003)
Bollinger, Grutter v., 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Carr, Baker v, 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
Sanders, Gray v, 372 U.S. 368 (1963)
Sanders, Wesbury v, 376 U.S. 1 (1964)
Sims, Reynolds v, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)
Jubilirer, Vieth v (2004)
Jaffree, Wallace v (1985)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×