|Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court|
February 18, 1988
|Nominated by||Ronald Reagan|
|Preceded by||Lewis Powell|
|Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
May 30, 1975 – February 18, 1988
|Nominated by||Gerald Ford|
|Preceded by||Charles Merrill|
|Succeeded by||Pamela Rymer|
|Born||Anthony McLeod Kennedy
July 23, 1936
Sacramento, California, U.S.
|Alma mater||Stanford University
London School of Economics
Harvard Law School
Anthony McLeod Kennedy (born July 23, 1936) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Since the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy has often been the swing vote on many of the Court's 5–4 decisions.
- 1 Personal history
- 2 Appointment
- 3 Supreme Court tenure
- 4 Analysis of Supreme Court tenure
- 5 Outside activities
- 6 See also
- 7 References
- 8 Further reading
- 9 External links
Kennedy was born and raised in Sacramento, California, the son of Anthony J. Kennedy, an attorney with a reputation for influence in the California legislature, and Gladys (née McLeod), who participated in many local civic activities. As a boy, Kennedy came into contact with prominent politicians of the day, such as California Governor and later U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren. He served as a page in the California State Senate as a young man. He is not a descendant of Patrick Kennedy.
Kennedy graduated from C. K. McClatchy High School in 1954. He was an undergraduate student at Stanford University from 1954–58, graduating with a B.A. in Political Science, after spending his senior year at the London School of Economics. He earned an LL.B from Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude in 1961.
Kennedy was in private practice in San Francisco from 1961 to 1963. In 1963, following his father's death, he took over his father's Sacramento practice, which he operated until 1975. From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at McGeorge School of Law, at the University of the Pacific. He continues to teach law students at seminars during McGeorge's European summer sessions in Salzburg, Austria. He remains Pacific McGeorge's longest-serving active faculty member.
Kennedy has served in numerous positions during his career, including the California Army National Guard in 1961 and the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987 to 1988. He also served on two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities (subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct) from 1979 to 1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979 to 1990, which he chaired from 1982 to 1990.
On March 3, 1975, upon Reagan's recommendation, President Gerald Ford nominated Kennedy to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had been vacated by Charles Merton Merrill. Kennedy was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on March 20, 1975, and received his commission on March 24, 1975.
Kennedy is married to Mary Davis and has three children.
On November 30, 1987, Kennedy was nominated to the Supreme Court seat that had been vacated by Lewis F. Powell, Jr.. His nomination came after Reagan's failed nominations of Robert Bork, who was rejected by the Senate, and Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew his name from consideration after admitting to marijuana use. Kennedy was then subjected to an unprecedentedly thorough investigation of his background, which he easily passed.
In a lower court dissent that Kennedy had written before joining the Supreme Court, he had criticized police for bribing a child into showing them where the child's mother hid drugs. Considering such conduct offensive and destructive of the family, Kennedy had written that "indifference to personal liberty is but the precursor of the state's hostility to it." Kennedy had written an article the year before, however, about judicial restraint, and the following excerpt from it was read aloud at his confirmation hearing:
One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution. The Due Process Clause is not a guarantee of every right that should inhere in an ideal system. Many argue that a just society grants a right to engage in homosexual conduct. If that view is accepted, the Bowers decision in effect says the State of Georgia has the right to make a wrong decision—wrong in the sense that it violates some people's views of rights in a just society. We can extend that slightly to say that Georgia's right to be wrong in matters not specifically controlled by the Constitution is a necessary component of its own political processes. Its citizens have the political liberty to direct the governmental process to make decisions that might be wrong in the ideal sense, subject to correction in the ordinary political process.
Kennedy said about Griswold v. Connecticut (a privacy case regarding contraceptives), "I really think I would like to draw the line and not talk about the Griswold case so far as its reasoning or its result." He also discussed "a zone of liberty, a zone of protection, a line that's drawn where the individual can tell the Government, 'Beyond this line you may not go.'" When his nomination was voted upon, Kennedy received bipartisan support. Maureen Hoch of PBS has written that he "virtually sailed through the confirmation process and was widely viewed by conservatives and liberals alike as balanced and fair". The United States Senate confirmed him on February 3, 1988, by a vote of 97 to 0. Kennedy received his commission on February 11, 1988.
Supreme Court tenure
Though appointed by a Republican president, Kennedy is not easily pigeonholed ideologically. He has tended to look at cases individually instead of deciding them on the basis of a rigid ideology. As Kennedy said at a reunion of his law clerks, "We always tried to get it right." Conservative pundit George Will and Georgetown University Law Center professor Randy Barnett have described Kennedy's jurisprudence as "libertarian," although other legal scholars have disagreed.
Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor have been swing votes in many 5–4 and 6–3 decisions on the Rehnquist and Roberts courts. On issues of religion, he holds to a less separationist reading of the Establishment Clause than did O'Connor, favoring a "Coercion Test" that he detailed in County of Allegheny v. ACLU. He also provided an opinion in Town of Greece v. Galloway case, concluding that "The town of Greece does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by opening its meetings with secterian prayer that comports with America's tradition and doesn't coerce participation by nonadherents".
Kennedy has supported adding substance to the "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which means he supports a constitutional right to abortion in principle, though he has voted to uphold several restrictions on that right, including laws to prohibit partial-birth abortions. He is "tough on crime" and opposes creating constitutional restrictions on the police, especially in Fourth Amendment cases involving searches for illegal drugs, although there are some exceptions, such as his concurrence in Ferguson v. City of Charleston. He also takes a very broad view of constitutional protection for speech under the First Amendment, invalidating a congressional law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography in the 2002 decision, Ashcroft v. ACLU.
In Hodgson v. Minnesota (1990), Kennedy upheld a restriction on abortion for minors that required both parents to be notified about the procedure.
In 1992, he joined O'Connor's plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which reaffirmed in principle (though without many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy had stated at least as early as 1989 that, in order to uphold precedent, he might not vote to overturn Roe. According to court insiders, Kennedy had reportedly considered overturning Roe, but in the end decided to uphold restrictions while affirming the Roe precedent.
In later abortion decisions, it became apparent that Kennedy thought Casey had narrowed Roe and allowed more restrictions. Owing to the Court's altered composition under President Clinton, Kennedy was no longer the fifth vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Hence, O'Connor became the justice who defined the meaning of Casey in subsequent cases, while Kennedy was relegated to dissents in which he sought to explain what he thought Casey meant. For example, Kennedy dissented in the 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down laws criminalizing partial-birth abortion.
After the judicial appointments by President George W. Bush, Kennedy again became the needed fifth vote to strike down abortion restrictions. Since Kennedy's conception of abortion rights is narrower than O'Connor's, this led to a slightly more lenient view of abortion restrictions after 2006. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in 2007's Gonzales v. Carhart, which held that a federal law criminalizing partial-birth abortion did not violate Casey because it did not impose an "undue burden." The decision did not expressly overrule Stenberg, although many commentators saw it as having that effect.
Gay rights and homosexuality
Kennedy's concept of liberty has included some protections for sexual orientation. He wrote the Court's opinion in the 1996 case Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims. In 2003, he wrote the Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal laws against homosexual sodomy on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, overturning the Court's previous ruling in 1986's Bowers v. Hardwick. In both cases, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court. The decision in Lawrence also controversially cited foreign laws, specifically ones enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and a decision of the European Court of Human Rights, in partly justifying the result.
On October 19, 2009, Kennedy temporarily blocked Washington state officials from releasing the names of people who signed petitions calling for a referendum ballot measure that would repeal a gay rights domestic partnership law, but joined the subsequent majority decision in Doe v. Reed, which stated the Washington law permitting signature release was constitutional, but remanded the matter to the lower court to determine whether the release of this particular petition's signatures was constitutional.
In the 2010 case Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court held that a public law college's policy requiring that all student organizations allow any student to join was constitutional. The Christian Legal Society wanted an exemption from the policy because the organization barred students based on religion and sexual orientation. Hastings College of Law refused to grant the exemption. The Court found that Hastings' policy was reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Kennedy wrote a concurrence joining the majority.
On August 4, 2010, Dahlia Lithwick wrote about Judge Vaughn R. Walker's ruling that overturned California's Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage, Walker "is not Anthony Kennedy. But when the chips are down, he certainly knows how to write like him. I count—in his opinion today—seven citations to Justice Kennedy's 1996 opinion in Romer v. Evans ... and eight citations to his 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas ... In a stunning decision this afternoon, ... Walker trod heavily on the path Kennedy has blazed on gay rights." The next day, Lithwick said on ABC's Good Morning America that "Walker's ruling that California's ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional was aimed at one man: Justice Anthony Kennedy."
On June 26, 2013, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was held unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor. In the majority opinion on this case, Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."
With the Court's majority in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, Kennedy agreed that the execution of the mentally ill and those under 18 at the time of the crime was unconstitutional. In Kansas v. Marsh, however, he declined to join the dissent, which questioned the overall "soundness" of the existing capital punishment system.
In 2008, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Kennedy v. Louisiana. The opinion, joined by the court's four more liberal justices, held that "[t]he Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death." The opinion went on to state, "The court concludes that there is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder, on the one hand, and non-homicide crimes against individuals, even including child rape, on the other. The latter crimes may be devastating in their harm, as here, but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, they cannot compare to murder in their severity and irrevocability." The opinion concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."
On June 26, 2008, Kennedy joined the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. At issue was whether Washington, D.C.'s ban violated the right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals—as opposed to state militias—from having guns in their homes. Kennedy sided with the conservatives on the Court, holding that the Second Amendment recognized an individual's right to keep and bear arms. (The decision came the day after the Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana, a capital punishment decision written by Kennedy, in which he sided with the liberal justices.) In McDonald v. Chicago, Kennedy voted to extend the decision in Heller to the states.
Kennedy wrote the majority decision in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009), which involved an Alaskan mining company that planned to extract new gold from a mine that had been closed for decades using a technique known as “froth-flotation.” This technique would produce approximately 4.5 million tons of “slurry,” a thick waste product laced with toxic elements such as lead and mercury. The company intended to dispose of the waste in a nearby lake, which would eventually decrease the depth of the lake by fifty feet and flood the surrounding land with contaminated water. While federal law forbids “[t]he use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system,” Kennedy’s decision stated that pollutants are exempt from this law so long as they have “the effect of . . . changing the bottom elevation of water.” Justice Ginsburg's dissent stated that such a reading of federal law “strains credulity” because it allows “[w]hole categories of regulated industries” to “gain immunity from a variety of pollution-control standards.”
On June 12, 2008, Kennedy wrote the 5–4 majority opinion in Boumediene v. Bush. The case challenged the legality of Lakhdar Boumediene’s detention at the Guantanamo Bay military base as well as the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006. Kennedy was joined by the four more liberal judges in finding that the constitutionally guaranteed right of habeas corpus applies to persons held in Guantanamo Bay and to persons designated as enemy combatants on that territory. They also found that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 failed to provide an adequate substitute for habeas corpus and that the MCA was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.
The Court also concluded that the detainees are not required to exhaust review procedures in the court of appeals before seeking habeas relief in the district court. In the ruling, Kennedy called the Combatant Status Review Tribunals "inadequate." He explained, “to hold that the political branches may switch the constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, 'say what the law is.'” The decision struck down section seven (7) of the MCA but left intact the Detainee Treatment Act. In a concurring opinion, Justice Souter stressed the fact that the prisoners involved have been imprisoned for as many as six years.
Strip searches of detainees
In a 5–4 decision, Florence v. County of Burlington (2012), the Supreme Court ruled that people detained and admitted to the general jail population for any offense may be subjected to strip searches without a reason to suspect contraband. Kennedy, joined by the court's conservative wing, wrote, "Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed," and that "undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from the more invasive search procedures at issue absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon or other contraband." According to Kennedy, "people detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," and cited examples including Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and a September 11 hijacker, who were both stopped for traffic violations shortly before committing their respective crimes.
On October 25, 2011, Richard L. Hasen wrote that in the 2012 election super PACs "will likely replace political parties as a conduit for large, often secret contributions, allowing an end run around the $2,500 individual contribution limit and the bar on corporate and labor contributions to federal candidates." According to Hasen, the rise of super Pacs dates to a sentence in Kennedy’s opinion in Citizens United: "We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Kennedy also wrote in his opinion that he was not concerned if higher expenditures by people or corporations were viewed as leading to corruption, stating that "... the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.”
On the issue of the limits of free speech, Kennedy joined a majority to protect flag burning in the controversial case of Texas v. Johnson (1989). In his concurrence, Kennedy wrote, "It is poignant but fundamental that the flag protects those who hold it in contempt."
Kennedy has joined with Court majorities in decisions favoring states' rights and invalidating federal and state affirmative action programs. He ruled with the majority on Equal Protection grounds in the controversial 2000 Bush v. Gore case that halted continuing recounts in the 2000 presidential election and ended the legal challenge to the election of President George Bush.
In the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case, he joined the liberal members of the Court (along with conservative Justice Scalia) in permitting the federal government to prohibit the use of medical marijuana, even in states where it is legal. Several weeks later, in the controversial case of Kelo v. City of New London (2005), he joined the four more liberal justices in supporting the local government's power to take private property for economic development through the use of eminent domain.
In Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers (2003), Kennedy wrote a partial dissent in which he argued that railroad workers who had contracted asbestosis from their employment should not be entitled to recovery for the emotional pain and suffering from their increased risk of cancer.
A December 2011 article in the Huffington Post noted that Kennedy dissented on an interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses, where a lab tech who created a forensic report on a case is required to testify at trial if called. His dissent, joined by Roberts, Breyer, and Alito, claimed that the rule would place a burden on understaffed labs. However, in Williams v. Illinois, Kennedy sided with Scalia's interpretation of the amendment.
Analysis of Supreme Court tenure
Kennedy has reliably issued conservative rulings during most of his tenure, having voted with William Rehnquist as often as any other justice from 1992 to the end of the Rehnquist Court in 2005. In his first term on the court, Kennedy voted with Rehnquist 92 percent of the time—more than any other justice.
After 2005, when Sandra Day O'Connor, who had previously been known as the court's "swing vote", retired, Kennedy began to receive the title for himself. Kennedy is more conservative than former Justice O'Connor was on issues of race, religion, and abortion, and intensely dislikes being labeled a "swing vote".
On the Roberts Court, Kennedy often decides the outcome of a case. In the 2008–2009 term, he was in the majority 92 percent of the time. In the 23 decisions in which the justices split 5-to-4, Kennedy was in the majority in all but five. Of those 23 decisions, 16 were strictly along ideological lines, and Kennedy joined the conservative wing of the court 11 times; the liberals, 5.
In the 2010–2011 term, sixteen cases were decided by a 5–4 vote, and Kennedy joined the majority in 14 of the decisions.
According to legal writer Jeffrey Toobin, starting in 2003, Kennedy became a leading proponent of the use of foreign and international law as an aid to interpreting the United States Constitution. Toobin sees this consideration of foreign law as the biggest factor behind Kennedy's occasional breaking with his most conservative colleagues. The use of foreign law in Supreme Court opinions dates back to at least 1829, though according to Toobin, its use in interpreting the Constitution on "basic questions of individual liberties" began only in the late 1990s. A profile of Kennedy in the Los Angeles Times on June 14, 2008, focused on his internationalist perspective. According to David Savage, Kennedy had become a strong proponent of interpreting the guarantees of liberty and equality in line with modern human rights law: "lawyers and judges have come to believe the basic principles of human rights are common to the peoples of world."
According to legal reporter Jan Crawford Greenburg, Kennedy attracts the ire of conservatives when he does not vote with his more rightist colleagues. In 2005, Tom DeLay criticized Kennedy for his reliance on international law and for conducting his own Internet research. According to legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, some conservatives view Kennedy's pro-gay-rights and pro-choice rulings as betrayals. According to Greenburg, the "bitter" quality of some movement conservatives' views on Kennedy stems from his eventual rethinking of positions on abortion, religion, and the death penalty (which Kennedy believes should not be applied to juveniles or the mentally challenged).
A short 2008 law review article by retired lawyer Douglas M. Parker in the legal journal The Green Bag charged that much of the criticism of Kennedy was based upon "pop psychology", rather than careful analysis of his opinions. Kennedy himself responds to concerns about judicial activism this way: "An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like."
Kennedy has been active off the bench as well, calling for reform of overcrowded American prisons in a speech before the American Bar Association. He spends his summers in Salzburg, Austria, where he teaches international and American law at the University of Salzburg for the McGeorge School of Law international program and often attends the large yearly international judges conference held there. Defending his use of international law, in 2005 Kennedy told The New Yorker's staff writer Jeffrey Toobin, "Why should world opinion care that the American Administration wants to bring freedom to oppressed peoples? Is that not because there’s some underlying common mutual interest, some underlying common shared idea, some underlying common shared aspiration, underlying unified concept of what human dignity means? I think that’s what we’re trying to tell the rest of the world, anyway.”
- Anthony Kennedy from Notable Names Database
- Bravin, Jess, Court Conservatives Prevail June 28, 2011. Retrieved June 18, 2013.
- Jeffrey Toobin, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (2010) p 198
- Steffen W. Schmidt et al. American Government & Politics Today (2008) p 547
- Jeffrey Rosen, "Courting Controversy", Time June 28, 2007
- "Anthony M. Kennedy". Oyez. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
- Christopher L. Tomlins (2005). The United States Supreme Court. Houghton Mifflin. Retrieved October 21, 2008.
- "LII: US Supreme Court: Justice Kennedy". Archived from the original on February 21, 2009. Retrieved January 10, 2009.
- "Biographies of Current Justices of the Supreme Court". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved January 25, 2012.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Pages 53–60.
- Greenhouse, Linda. (1987, November 30). "Nursing the Wounds From the Bork Fight". The New York Times.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 55.
- Kennedy, Anthony (July 24 – August 1, 1986). "Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint.". Address to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Legal Studies, Stanford University. Palo Alto, California. p. 13. Archived from the original on June 27, 2008. (Also quoted at p. 443 of Kennedy's 1987 confirmation transcript).
- Kennedy Confirmation Hearing, page 164. (1987).
- "The Questions Begin: 'Who Is Anthony Kennedy?'", New York Times (December 15, 1987).
- Greenhouse, Linda. Becoming Justice Blackmun. Times Books. 2005. Page 189.
- Hoch, Maureen (March 9, 2007). "Justice Anthony Kennedy: In 1988, President Reagan needed a rock-solid Supreme Court Justice nominee after two previous nomination attempts failed.". PBS. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
- 'This Week,' ABC, July 1, 2012 and Barnett, Randy (July 10, 2003) Kennedy's Libertarian Revolution, National Review, retrieved April 9, 2010
- Shapiro, Ilya, Book Review: A Faint‐Hearted Libertarian At Best: The Sweet Mystery Of Justice Anthony Kennedy, 33 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 333 (Winter 2010).
- Calabresi, Massimo "What Will Justice Kennedy Do?" article at Time Magazine June, 2012
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 655–667 (1989) (Kennedy, J., dissenting and concurring in parts). Found at Cornell Law School website and FindLaw.com. Both retrieved February 28, 2012.
- "Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union et al.". FindLaw. June 29, 2004. Archived from the original on May 15, 2011. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 80.
- James Savage, Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court 1993. pp 268–269, 288, 466–471
- Frank J. Colucci, Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence: the full and necessary meaning of liberty (2009) p 58
- "05-380 – Gonzales v. Carhart ( April 18, 2007)" (PDF). Retrieved May 4, 2011.
- Colucci, Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence p 38
- Colucci, Justice Kennedy's jurisprudence ch. 4
- Dahlia Lithwick (August 4, 2010). "A Brilliant Ruling". Slate. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
- "Proposition 8 Ruling Takes Aim at Justice Kenedy". ABC News. Retrieved March 23, 2012.
- "Supreme Court of the United States". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved June 26, 2013.
- "Opinion of the court, authored by Kennedy – Part IV-A paragraph 7". Law.cornell.edu. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
- Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court: Gitmo detainees have rights in court". Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 22, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008. "The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate." mirror
- Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "Terror suspects can challenge detention: U.S. Supreme Court". Globe and Mail (Canada). Archived from the original on June 14, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
- Mark Sherman (June 12, 2008). "High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again". Monterey Herald. Archived from the original on June 24, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008.
- James Oliphant (June 12, 2008). "Court backs Gitmo detainees". Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on June 14, 2008. Retrieved June 12, 2008. mirror
- "Stuck with Guantánamo". The Economist. June 19, 2008. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
- "Boumediene et al. v. Bush—No. 06–1195" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. June 12, 2008. Archived from the original on June 27, 2008. Retrieved June 15, 2008.
- Liptak, Adam (April 2, 2012). "Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip Searches for Any Arrest". The New York Times.
- Richard L. Hasen (Oct 25, 2011). "Super-Soft Money". Slate. Retrieved 6 April 2012.
- E.J. Dionne (Oct 11, 2010). "Shadowy Players in a New Class War". The Washington Post. Retrieved 12 March 2014.
- Eisler, Kim Isaac (1993). A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America. Page 277. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-76787-9
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 17.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 18.
- "Norfolk & Western R.&Nbsp;Co. V. Ayers". Supct.law.cornell.edu. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
- Andrew Cohen. "At The Supreme Court It's Kennedy's World". CBS News. Retrieved 11 April 2012.
- Sacks, Mike (December 6, 2011). "Justice Anthony Kennedy Confronts Sixth Amendment Case, Hints At Change Of Heart, Cites Hamlet". The Huffington Post. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 162.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 85.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Page 177.
- Liptak, Adam (July 1, 2009). "Roberts Court Shifts Right, Tipped by Kennedy". The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2010.
- Toobin, Jeffrey (January 7, 2009). "Annals of Law: Swing Shift". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved May 4, 2011.
- Savage, David G. (June 14, 2008). "A justice's international view". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- Greenburg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Control of the United States Supreme Court. 2007. Penguin Books. Pages 86, 162.
- "DeLay slams Supreme Court Justice Kennedy: Lashes out at other judges, calling them 'judicial activists'". MSNBC. Associated Press. April 20, 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2012.
- Justice Kennedy: The Swing Justice and his Critics, 11 Green Bag 317 (2008)
- Matt Sedensky, "Justice questions way court nominees are grilled" at the Wayback Machine (archived June 5, 2010), Associated Press, May 14, 2010, accessed May 14, 2010.
- "Anthony Kennedy". University of the Pacific. Retrieved October 29, 2013.
- Jeffrey Toobin (September 12, 2005). "Swing Shift". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on July 19, 2010. Retrieved June 20, 2010.
- "Religious affiliation of Supreme Court justices" Justice Sherman Minton converted to Catholicism after his retirement.
- Colucci, Frank J. Justice Kennedy's Jurisprudence: The Full and Necessary Meaning of Liberty (University Press of Kansas, 2009) ISBN 978-0-7006-1662-6. online review
- Knowles, Helen J. The Tie Goes to Freedom: Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Liberty (Rowman & Littlefield, 2009) ISBN 0742562573.
- Toobin, Jeffrey. "Swing Shift: How Anthony Kennedy’s passion for foreign law could change the Supreme Court," The New Yorker (2005). online
- Schmidt, Patrick D. and David A. Yalof. "The 'Swing Voter' Revisited: Justice Anthony Kennedy and the First Amendment Right of Free Speech," Political Research Quarterly, June 2004, Vol. 57 Issue 2, pp 209–217.
|Wikisource has original works written by or about:
|Wikiquote has quotations related to: Anthony Kennedy|
- Anthony Kennedy at Judgepedia
- Issue positions and quotes at OnTheIssues
- Transcript of Senate Confirmation Hearing, 1987.
- "Kennedy's Benchmarks" by Mark Trapp, American Spectator (July 14, 2004).
- Jonah Goldberg, "Justice Kennedy's Mind: Where the Constitution resides," 2005.
- Time magazine coverstory: What Will Justice Kennedy Do? also pre-article June 7, 2012
|Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
|United States order of precedence (ceremonial)|
as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
|Order of Precedence of the United States
as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court