Three Memorable Opinions
![handle is hein.journals/judica94 and id is 9 raw text is: Reminiscences o
JUSTICE STEVE S
by his faw cferks
Three
memorable opinions
by CarofLee
My coclerk Jeff Lehman
and I felt that we had the
best clerkship in the build-
ing. We were the ones who
worked for Justice Stevens,
whom we and all the other
clerks admired greatly for
his intellect and his
lawyerly, intellectually hon-
est approach to the law.
Since there were just two of
us, it was a chambers meet-
ing every time the Justice
came into our office, sat
down in the sagging black
leather armchair by the
door, and started to talk.
We didn't have to write
bench memos. We weren't
part of the cert pool, so we
didn't have to write cert
memos about petitions that
weren't going to be dis-
cussed at conference. We
had the privilege of work-
ing with an incredibly
smart, thoughtful Justice
with an interesting mind
and a remarkable memory.
Justice Stevens wrote his
own opinions in his own
distinctive voice. The 1982
Term opinions that I find
Judicature invited thi
law clerks from thr
periods to share
of the Justice-Caro
in 1982-1983, Nar
clerked in 1990-1992,
who clerked ii
most memorable are two concurrences and an opinion
respecting the denial of certiorari. Karcher v. Daggett' was a
challenge to the bizarrely-shaped congressional districting
map created by the New Jersey legislature on a straight
party-line vote. In his concurring opinion, Justice Stevens
restated his view that egregious political gerrymandering is
unconstitutional because the Equal Protection Clause pro-
hibits discrimination against political groups.
1. 462 U.S. 725 (1983).
2. 460 U.S. 226 (1983).
3. 426 U.S. 833 (1976).
One of the districts,
including parts of seven
counties, was shaped like
a swan with appendages
stretching into distant
parts of the state. Another
district along the coast
was contiguous only for
yachtsmen. To show how
far the districts departed
from compactness and
contiguity, Justice Stevens
decided that a color map
should be included in the
U.S. Reports. The chief jus-
tice objected that it would
be too expensive. Justice
Stevens responded that
the extra printing cost was
less than the amount that
he saved the Court by hav-
ing only two law clerks.
Another memorable
opinion wasJustice Stevens'
concurrence in EEOC v.
DENNIS BRACK Wyoming The state asserted
ee former Stevens that the Tenth Amendment,
as interpreted in National
'ee different time League of Cities v. Usery? pre-
reminiscences cluded the application of
Lthe federal age discmina-
1 IeW o lre tion statute to state fish and
icy Marder, who game wardens.Justice Bren-
nan was able to assemble a
andJamal Greenet, majority that rejected the
ri 2006-2007. state's position on the basis
that National League of Cities
was distinguishable on the facts. Although the justice
joined the majority, his concurrence took a bolder position
on the law. He declared that National League of Cities was so
plainly incorrect that, stare decisis notwithstanding, the law
would be well served by a prompt rejection of [its] modem
embodiment of the spirit of the Articles of Confederation.
He explained his position in sweeping historical terms:
the Commerce Clause was the Framers' response to the
central problem that gave rise to the Constitution itself.
Over the course of history, the Court had occasionally given
a miserly construction to the Commerce Clause, but it
had later repudiated those cases to allow federal regulation
Volume 94, Number 1 july-August 2010 JUDICATURE 9](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/judica94&div=8&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Three Memorable Opinions
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most