Jump to content

Equal justice under law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.88.58.198 (talk) at 07:32, 28 May 2013 (→Following tradition known in ancient Greece: caption). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The front of the Supreme Court Building, including the West Pediment.

Equal justice under law is a phrase engraved on the front of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. It is also a societal ideal that has influenced the American legal system.

The phrase was authored by the building's architects, and then approved by judges of the Court in 1932. It is based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, and has historical antecedents dating back to ancient Greece.

Authored by architects and approved by judges

This phrase was first written in 1932 by the architectural firm that designed the building.[1] Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Justice Willis Van Devanter subsequently approved this inscription, as did the United States Supreme Court Building Commission which Hughes chaired (and on which Van Devanter served).[2][3]

The architectural firm that authored the phrase was headed by Cass Gilbert, though Gilbert himself was much more interested in design and arrangement, than in meaning.[4] Thus, according to David Lynn who at that time held the position of Architect of the Capitol, the two people at Gilbert's firm who were responsible for the slogan "equal justice under law" were Gilbert's son (Cass Gilbert, Jr.) and Gilbert's partner, John R. Rockart.[3]

In 1935, the journalist Herbert Bayard Swope objected to Chief Justice Hughes about this inscription, urging that the word "equal" be removed because such a "qualification" renders the phrase too narrow; the equality principle would still be implied without that word, Swope said. Hughes refused, writing that it was appropriate to "place a strong emphasis upon impartiality".[3]

This legal soundbite atop the Court is perceived differently by different people, sometimes as ostentatious, often as profound, and occasionally as vacuous.[5] According to law professor Jim Chen, it is common for people to "suggest that disagreement with some contestable legal proposition or another would be tantamount to chiseling or sandblasting 'Equal Justice Under Law' from the Supreme Court's portico."[5] The phrase may be perceived in a variety of ways, but it very distinctly does not say "equal law under justice", which would have meant that the judiciary can prioritize justice over law.[6]

Based upon Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence

Melville Fuller, Chief Justice of the U.S.

The words "equal justice under law" paraphrase an earlier expression coined by Chief Justice Melville Fuller.[7][8] In the case of Caldwell v. Texas in 1891, Fuller wrote on behalf of the Court as follows, regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: "the powers of the States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law."[9]

Neither this entire sentence, nor even the last seven words, would have fit on a pediment or architrave of the U.S. Supreme Court building, which may help explain why the architects would have wanted to shorten them. Later in 1891, Fuller's opinion for the Court in Leeper v. Texas again referred to "equal...justice under...law".[10] The opinions in Caldwell and Leeper were unanimous.[11] In the 1908 case of Ughbanks v. Armstrong, the Court yet again discussed the Fourteenth Amendment in similar terms, but this time mentioning punishments: "The last-named Amendment was not intended to, and does not, limit the powers of a State in dealing with crime committed within its own borders or with the punishment thereof, although no State can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.[12]

Justice Harlan was the sole dissenter in Ughbanks, and the Court would later reject the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment does not limit punishments (see the 1962 case of Robinson v. California). In the years since moving into their new building, the Supreme Court has often connected the words "equal justice under law" with the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, in the 1958 case of Cooper v. Aaron, the Court said: "The Constitution created a government dedicated to equal justice under law. The Fourteenth Amendment embodied and emphasized that ideal."[13][14]

Following tradition known in ancient Greece

The term "equal justice" dates back at least to the dawn of western civilization. In the funeral oration that he delivered in 431 BC, the Athenian leader Pericles discussed — and encouraged belief in — equal justice under law.[15] Thus, Chief Justice Fuller was by no means writing on a clean slate when he referred to "equal ... justice under ... law" in Caldwell v. Texas.[16] There are several different English translations of the relevant passage in Pericles' funeral oration, three of which are quoted below.

Pericles, Greek statesman and general

Here is Pericles discussing "equal justice" according to the English translation by Richard Crawley in 1874:

Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition.[17]

Here is Pericles discussing "equal justice" according to the English translation by Benjamin Jowett in 1881:

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our neighbours, but are an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscurity of his condition.[18]

And here is Pericles discussing "equal justice" according to the English translation by Rex Warner in 1954:

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbors', but is an example to them. It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while there exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty an obstacle, but a man may benefit his country whatever the obscurity of his condition.[19]

The funeral oration by Pericles was published in Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, of which there are several other English translations. Pericles said that a person's wealth or prominence should not determine public employment or influence private justice. Similarly, Chief Justice Hughes defended the inscription "equal justice under law" by referring to the judicial oath of office, which requires judges to "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich".[3] Decades later, Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall made a similar point: "The principles which would have governed with $10,000 at stake should also govern when thousands have become billions. That is the essence of equal justice under law."[20][21]

See also

References

  1. ^ Pusey, Merlo. Charles Evans Hughes, Volume 2, p. 689 (Columbia University Press 1963).
  2. ^ West Pediment Information Sheet via U.S. Supreme Court web site.
  3. ^ a b c d McGurn, Barrett. "Slogans to Fit the Occasion", pp. 170-174, United States Supreme Court Yearbook (1982).
  4. ^ Goodwin, Priscilla. "A Closer Look at the Bronze Courtroom Gates", Supreme Court Quarterly, Vol. 9, p. 8 (1988).
  5. ^ a b Chen, Jim. "Come Back to the Nickel and Five: Tracing the Warren Court's Pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law", Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 59, pp. 1305-1306 (2002).
  6. ^ Ball, Milner. Lying Down Together: Law, Metaphor and Theology, p. 23 (Univ. of Wisconsin Press 1985).
  7. ^ Cabraser, Elizabeth. "The Essentials of Democratic Mass Litigation", Columbia Journal of Law & Social Problems, Vol. 45, p. 499 (Summer 2012).
  8. ^ Peccarelli, Anthony. "The Meaning of Justice", DuPage County Bar Association Brief (March 2000), via Archive.org.
  9. ^ Caldwell v. Texas, 137 U.S. 692 (1891).
  10. ^ Leeper v. Texas, 139 U.S. 462 (1891). Fuller's opinion in Leeper stated: "It must be regarded as settled that....by the Fourteenth Amendment the powers of States in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, except that no State can deprive particular persons, or classes of persons, of equal and impartial justice under the law; that law in its regular course of administration through courts of justice is due process, and when secured by the law of the State the constitutional requirement is satisfied; and that due process is so secured by laws operating on all alike, and not subjecting the individual to the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice."
  11. ^ Aside from Fuller, the members of the Court in 1891 were as follows: Joseph P. Bradley, Stephen Johnson Field, John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, Samuel Blatchford, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, David Josiah Brewer, and Henry Billings Brown. The Court later quoted these statements from Caldwell and Leeper in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 (1900).
  12. ^ Ughbanks v. Armstrong, 208 U.S. 481 (1908).
  13. ^ Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958).
  14. ^ Mack, Raneta and Kelly, Michael. Equal Justice in the Balance: America's Legal Responses to the Emerging Terrorist Threat, p. 16 (U. Mich. Press 2004).
  15. ^ Rice, George. Law for the Public Speaker: Legal Aspects of Public Address, p. 171 (Christopher Pub. House, 1958).
  16. ^ See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886): "Though the law itself be fair on its face and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and an unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons in similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution."
  17. ^ Thucydides, The History of the Peloponnesian War, Written 431 B.C.E, Translated by Richard Crawley (1874), retrieved via Project Gutenberg.
  18. ^ Jowett, Benjamin. Thucydides, translated into English, to which is prefixed an essay on inscriptions and a note on the geography of Thucydides, Second edition, Oxford, Clarendon Press (1900), via classicpersuasion.org.
  19. ^ Pericles's Funeral Oration, translated by Rex Warner (1954), via wikisource.
  20. ^ Pennzoil v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1 (1987)(Thurgood Marshall, concurring in the judgment).
  21. ^ "How To Handle A Texas-sized Lawsuit", Chicago Tribune (April 11, 1987).

Statue of Thurgood Marshall featuring "Equal Justice Under Law".

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equal_justice_under_law&oldid=557135970"