John Marshall Harlan II
John Marshall Harlan II | |
---|---|
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States | |
In office March 28, 1955 – September 23, 1971 | |
Nominated by | Dwight D. Eisenhower |
Preceded by | Robert H. Jackson |
Succeeded by | William Rehnquist |
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | |
In office February 10, 1954 – March 27, 1955 | |
Nominated by | Dwight D. Eisenhower |
Preceded by | Augustus Noble Hand |
Succeeded by | J. Edward Lumbard |
Personal details | |
Born | John Marshall Harlan May 20, 1899 Chicago, Illinois, U.S. |
Died | December 29, 1971 Washington, D.C., U.S. | (aged 72)
Resting place | Emmanuel Church Cemetery, Weston, Connecticut, U.S. |
Spouse |
Ethel Andrews (m. 1928) |
Children | 1 |
Parent |
|
Relatives | John Marshall Harlan (grandfather) |
Education | Princeton University (AB) Balliol College, Oxford New York Law School (LLB) |
Military service | |
Allegiance | United States |
Branch/service | |
Years of service | 1943–1945 |
Rank | Colonel |
This article is part of a series on |
Conservatism in the United States |
---|
John Marshall Harlan (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an
Harlan was a student at
Harlan is often characterized as a member of the conservative wing of the
Early life and career
John Marshall Harlan was born on May 20, 1899, in
In his younger years, Harlan attended
Between 1925 and 1927, Harlan served as
As a trial lawyer Harlan was involved in a number of famous cases. One such case was the conflict over the estate left after the death in 1931 of
In 1937, Harlan was one of five founders of a eugenics advocacy group called the Pioneer Fund, which had been formed to introduce Nazi ideas on eugenics to the United States. He had likely been invited into the group due to his expertise in non-profit organizations. Harlan served on the Pioneer Fund's board until 1954. He did not play a significant role in the fund.[13][14]
During World War II, Harlan volunteered for military duty, serving as a
Personal life
In 1928, Harlan married Ethel Andrews, who was the daughter of Yale history professor Charles McLean Andrews.[6] This was the second marriage for her. Ethel was originally married to New York architect Henry K. Murphy, who was twenty years her senior. After Ethel divorced Murphy in 1927, her brother John invited her to a Christmas party at Root, Clark, Buckner & Howland,[15] where she was introduced to John Harlan. They saw each other regularly afterwards and married on November 10, 1928, in Farmington, Connecticut.[6]
Harlan, a
John and Ethel Harlan had one daughter, Evangeline Dillingham (born on February 2, 1932).
Second Circuit service
Harlan was nominated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 13, 1954, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated by Judge Augustus Noble Hand. Harlan knew this court well, as he had often appeared before it and was friendly with many of the judges.[9] He was confirmed by the United States Senate on February 9, 1954, and received his commission on the next day. His service terminated on March 27, 1955, due to his elevation to the Supreme Court.[19]
Supreme Court service
Harlan was nominated by President Eisenhower on January 10, 1955, as an
Harlan's nomination came shortly after the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in
On the Supreme Court, Harlan often voted alongside Justice Felix Frankfurter,[4] who was his principal mentor on the court.[15] Some legal scholars even viewed him as "Frankfurter without mustard", though others recognize his own important contributions to the evolution of legal thought.[4] Harlan was an ideological adversary—but close personal friend—of Justice Hugo Black,[28] with whom he disagreed on a variety of issues, including the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause.[3]
Justice Harlan was very close to the
Justice Harlan is remembered by people who worked with him for his tolerance and civility. He treated his fellow Justices, clerks and attorneys representing parties with respect and consideration. While Justice Harlan often strongly objected to certain conclusions and arguments, he never criticized other justices or anybody else personally, and never said any disparaging words about someone's motivations and capacity.
His thinking threw light in a very introspective way on the entire process of the judicial function. His decisions, beyond just the vote they represented, were sufficiently philosophical to be of enduring interest. He decided the case before him with that respect for its particulars, its special features, that marks alike the honest artist and the just judge.[30]
Jurisprudence
Harlan's jurisprudence is often characterized as conservative. He held
Harlan believed that most problems should be solved by the
These decisions give support to a current mistaken view of the Constitution and the constitutional function of this court. This view, in short, is that every major social ill in this country can find its cure in some constitutional principle and that this court should take the lead in promoting reform when other branches of government fail to act. The Constitution is not a panacea for every blot upon the public welfare nor should this court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought of as a general haven of reform movements.[32]
However, Harlan was not a social conservative.[33] He wrote the plurality opinion in Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, ruling that photographs of nude men are not obscene, one of the first major victories for the early gay rights movement.[34] Despite Harlan's conservatism, he opposed the Vietnam War and along with Justices William O. Douglas, Potter Stewart and William J. Brennan Jr. unsuccessfully pushed for the Court to hear challenges to its legality.[35]
Equal Protection Clause
The Supreme Court decided several important equal protection cases during the first years of Harlan's career. In these cases, Harlan regularly voted in favor of civil rights—similar to his grandfather, the only dissenting justice in the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case.[36]
He voted with the majority in
Due Process Clause
Justice Harlan advocated a broad interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. He subscribed to the doctrine that the clause not only provided procedural guarantees, but also protected a wide range of fundamental rights, including those that were not specifically mentioned in the text of the Constitution.
Harlan set forth his interpretation in an often cited dissenting opinion to
The same law was challenged again in
Harlan's interpretation of the Due Process Clause attracted the criticism of Justice Black, who rejected the idea that the Clause included a "substantive" component, considering this interpretation unjustifiably broad and historically unsound, one of the few issues in which Black was more conservative than Harlan. The Supreme Court has agreed with Harlan, and has continued to apply the doctrine of substantive due process in a wide variety of cases.[3]
Incorporation
Justice Harlan was strongly opposed to the theory that the Fourteenth Amendment "incorporated" the Bill of Rights—that is, made the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.[47] His opinion on the matter was opposite to that of his grandfather, who supported the full incorporation of the Bill of Rights.[48] When it was originally ratified, the Bill of Rights was binding only upon the federal government, as the Supreme Court ruled in the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore.[49] Some jurists argued that the Fourteenth Amendment made the entirety of the Bill of Rights binding upon the states as well. Harlan, however, rejected this doctrine, which he called "historically unfounded" in his Griswold concurrence.[42]
Instead, Justice Harlan believed that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause only protected "fundamental" rights. Thus, if a guarantee of the Bill of Rights was "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Harlan agreed that it applied to the states as well as the federal government.
Harlan's approach was largely similar to that of Justices
The Supreme Court has eventually adopted some elements of Harlan's approach, holding that only some Bill of Rights guarantees were applicable against the states—the doctrine known as selective incorporation. However, under Chief Justice Earl Warren during the 1960s, an increasing number of rights were deemed sufficiently fundamental for incorporation (Harlan regularly dissented from these rulings). Hence, the majority of provisions from the Bill of Rights have been extended to the states; the exceptions are the Third Amendment, the grand jury clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment. Thus, although the Supreme Court has agreed with Harlan's general reasoning, the result of its jurisprudence is very different from what Harlan advocated.[47]
First Amendment
Justice Harlan supported many of the Warren Court's landmark decisions relating to the
In many cases, Harlan took a fairly broad view of First Amendment rights such as the freedom of speech and of the press, although he thought that the First Amendment applied directly only to the federal government.[50] According to Harlan the freedom of speech was among the "fundamental principles of liberty and justice" and therefore applicable also to states, but less stringently than to the national government. Moreover, Justice Harlan believed that federal laws censoring "obscene" publications violated the free speech clause.[50] Thus, he dissented from Roth v. United States,[54] in which the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a federal obscenity law. At the same time, Harlan did not believe that the Constitution prevented the states from censoring obscenity.[55] He explained in his Roth dissent:
The danger is perhaps not great if the people of one State, through their legislature, decide that Lady Chatterley's Lover goes so far beyond the acceptable standards of candor that it will be deemed offensive and non-sellable, for the State next door is still free to make its own choice. At least we do not have one uniform standard. But the dangers to free thought and expression are truly great if the Federal Government imposes a blanket ban over the Nation on such a book. ... The fact that the people of one State cannot read some of the works of D. H. Lawrence seems to me, if not wise or desirable, at least acceptable. But that no person in the United States should be allowed to do so seems to me to be intolerable, and violative of both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.[54]
Harlan concurred in
When Harlan was a Circuit Judge in 1955,[59] he authorized the decision upholding the conviction of leaders of the Communist Party USA (including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn) under the Smith Act. The ruling was based on the previous Supreme Court's decisions, by which the Court of Appeals was bound. Later, when he was a Supreme Court justice, Harlan, however, wrote an opinion overturning the conviction of Communist Party activists as unconstitutional in the case of Yates v. United States.[60] Another such case was Watkins v. United States.[61]
Harlan penned the majority opinion in Cohen v. California,[62] holding that wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "Fuck the Draft" was speech protected by the First Amendment. His opinion was later described by constitutional law expert Professor Yale Kamisar as one of the greatest ever written on freedom of expression.[9] In the Cohen opinion, Harlan famously wrote "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric," a quote that was later denounced by Robert Bork as "moral relativism".[63]
Justice Harlan is credited for establishing that the First Amendment protects the freedom of association.
Criminal procedure
During the 1960s the Warren Court made a series of rulings expanding the rights of criminal defendants. In some instances, Justice Harlan concurred in the result,[68] while in many other cases he found himself in dissent. Harlan was usually joined by the other moderate members of the Court: Justices Potter Stewart, Tom Clark, and Byron White.[4]
Most notably, Harlan dissented from Supreme Court rulings restricting interrogation techniques used by law enforcement officers. For example, he dissented from the Court's holding in Escobedo v. Illinois,[69] that the police could not refuse to honor a suspect's request to consult with his lawyer during an interrogation. Harlan called the rule "ill-conceived" and suggested that it "unjustifiably fetters perfectly legitimate methods of criminal law enforcement." He disagreed with Miranda v. Arizona,[70] which required law enforcement officials to warn a suspect of his rights before questioning him (see Miranda warning). He closed his dissenting opinion with a quotation from his predecessor, Justice Robert H. Jackson: "This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added."[70]
In Gideon v. Wainwright,[68] Justice Harlan agreed that the Constitution required states to provide attorneys for defendants who could not afford their own counsel. However, he believed that this requirement applied only at trial, and not on appeal; thus, he dissented from Douglas v. California.[71]
Harlan wrote the majority opinion in
Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. United States[73] set forth the test for determining whether government conduct constituted a search. In this case the Supreme Court held that eavesdropping on the petitioner's telephone conversation constituted a search in the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and thus required a warrant.[4] According to Justice Harlan, there is a two-part requirement for a search: (1) that the individual have a subjective expectation of privacy; and (2) that the individual's expectation of privacy is "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'"[73]
Voting rights
Justice Harlan rejected the theory that the Constitution enshrined the so-called "
Then, in Wesberry v. Sanders,[77] the Supreme Court, relying on the Constitution's requirement that the United States House of Representatives be elected "by the People of the several States," ruled that congressional districts in any particular state must be approximately equal in population. Harlan vigorously dissented, writing, "I had not expected to witness the day when the Supreme Court of the United States would render a decision which casts grave doubt on the constitutionality of the composition of the House of Representatives. It is not an exaggeration to say that such is the effect of today's decision."[77] He proceeded to argue that the Court's decision was inconsistent with both the history and text of the Constitution; moreover, he claimed that only Congress, not the judiciary, had the power to require congressional districts with equal populations.[74]
Harlan was the sole dissenter in
This Court, limited in function in accordance with that premise, does not serve its high purpose when it exceeds its authority, even to satisfy justified impatience with the slow workings of the political process. For when, in the name of constitutional interpretation, the Court adds something to the Constitution that was deliberately excluded from it, the Court, in reality, substitutes its view of what should be so for the amending process.[32]
For similar reasons, Harlan dissented from Carrington v. Rash,
Retirement and death
John M. Harlan's health began to deteriorate towards the end of his career. His eyesight began to fail during the late 1960s.[80] To cover this, he would bring materials to within an inch of his eyes, and have clerks and his wife read to him (once when the Court took an obscenity case, a chagrined Harlan had his wife read him Lady Chatterley's Lover).[20] Gravely ill, he retired from the Supreme Court on September 23, 1971.[5]
Harlan died from
Despite his many dissents, Harlan has been described as one of the most influential Supreme Court justices of the twentieth century.[84] He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1960.[85] Harlan's extensive professional and Supreme Court papers (343 cubic feet) were donated to Princeton University, where they are housed at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library and open to research.[86] Other papers repose at several other libraries. Ethel Harlan, his wife, outlived him by only a few months and died on June 12, 1972.[87] She suffered from Alzheimer's disease for the last seven years of her life.[15]
See also
- List of justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
- List of United States Supreme Court justices by time in office
- List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 9)
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Burger Court
- Clay v. United States (1971)
- Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight (2013 television film)
Notes
- ^ a b c d e Yarbrough, 1992, pp. 10–11
- ^ a b c d e "John Marshall Harlan Papers". Princeton University Library. Archived from the original on June 22, 2007. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
- ^ a b c d Yarbrough, 1989, Chapter 3, The bill of rights and the states
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Vasicko, 1980
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Dorsen, 2002, pp. 139–143
- ^ a b c d Yarbrough, 1992, pp. 33–35, 41.
- ^ a b c d e Leitch 1978, pp. ?
- ^ a b Yarbrough, 1992, pp. 13–16
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Oeslner, Lesley (December 30, 1971). "Harlan dies at 72; on Court 16 years". The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2009. (subscription required)
- ^ Yarbrough, 1992, pp. 41–51
- ^ 288 N.Y. 280, 43 N.E.2d 43 (1942)
- ^ a b c Yarbrough, 1992, pp. 52–53
- ^ Tucker, 2002, pp. 6, 51–53
- SSRN 313820.
- ^ a b c Lamb, Brian (1992). "Interview with Tinsley Yarbrough, the author of John Marshall Harlan: Great Dissenter of the Warren Court". National Cable Satellite Corporation. Archived from the original on November 15, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- ^ "Maud Dillingham, Cesar Becerra Jr". New York Times. July 13, 1997. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016. Retrieved April 15, 2009.
- ^ "Amelia Newcomb, Christian Science Monitor", International Reporting Project, archived from the original on April 2, 2016
- ^ Matt Trevithick Archived March 24, 2012, at the Wayback Machine. Boston University Terrier Athletics.
- ^ a b "Harlan, John Marshall - Federal Judicial Center". www.fjc.gov. Archived from the original on November 5, 2018. Retrieved November 4, 2018.
- ^ a b Rosenbaum, David E. (September 24, 1971). "A lawyer's judge; John Marshall Harlan". The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2009. (subscription required)
- ^ McMillion, Barry J. (January 28, 2022). Supreme Court Nominations, 1789 to 2020: Actions by the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, and the President (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved February 19, 2022.
- ^ "Justices 1789 to Present". Washington, D.C.: Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved February 19, 2022.
- ^ 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
- ^ Dorsen, 2006
- ^ "United States Senate. Nominations". United States Senate. Archived from the original on April 7, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
- ^ Epstein, 2005
- ^ Ravo, Nick (June 9, 1999). "J. Edward Lumbard Jr., 97, Judge and Prosecutor, Is Dead". The New York Times. New York. Archived from the original on November 8, 2021. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
- ^ Oyez.org. Archivedfrom the original on September 16, 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
- ^ Dorsen, 2002, pp. 147, 156, 162.
- ^ a b Staff writer (June 10, 1972). "The Judges' Judge". Time. Archived from the original on October 22, 2010. Retrieved April 15, 2009.
- ^ Dripps, 2005, pp. 125–131
- ^ a b c d 377 U.S. 533, 589 (1964), Harlan J., dissenting
- ISBN 9780465015146. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
- ^ "Manual Enterprises, INC. v. Day". Oyez. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
- ^ Schoen, Ronert. "A Strange Silence: Vietnam and the Supreme Courft" (PDF). Texas Tech University. Retrieved August 15, 2022.
- ^ 163 U.S. 537, 552 (1896), Harlan J., dissenting
- ^ 358 U.S. 1, 4 (1958)
- ^ 364 U.S. 339 (1960)
- ^ 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
- ^ Wildenthal, 2000, p. 1463
- ^ 431 U.S. 494, 544 (1977), White, B., dissenting
- ^ a b c d 381 U.S. 479, 501 (1965), Harlan, J., concurring in the judgment
- ^ a b 367 U.S. 497, 522 (1961), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ Dripps, 2005, p. 144
- ^ 410 U.S. 113 (1972)
- ^ 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
- ^ a b Cortner, 1985
- ^ Wildenthal, 2000
- ^ 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
- ^ a b c d e O'Neil, 2001
- ^ 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
- ^ 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
- ^ 393 U.S. 97, 114 (1968), Harlan, J., concurring
- ^ a b 354 U.S. 476, 496 (1957), Harlan, J., concurring in the result in No. 61, and dissenting in No. 582
- ^ O'Neil, 2001, pp. 63–64
- ^ 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
- ^ 394 U.S. 576 (1969)
- ^ Abrams, 2005, pp. 15–16
- ^ "Banken und Finanzprodukte im Vergleich - BankVergleich.com". BankVergleich.com. Archived from the original on October 12, 2008. Retrieved April 15, 2009.
- ^ 354 U.S. 298, 300 (1957)
- ^ 354 U.S. 178 (1957)
- ^ 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
- ^ "Conversations: Robert Bork says, Give me liberty, but don't give me filth". Christianity Today. May 19, 1997. Archived from the original on September 7, 2008. Retrieved April 12, 2009.
- ^ 357 U.S. 449 (1958)
- ^ 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
- ^ 383 U.S. 131, 151 (1966), Mr. Justice Black, with whom Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Stewart join dissenting
- ^ 393 U.S. 503, 526 (1969), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ a b 372 U.S. 335, 349 (1963), Harlan, J., concurring
- ^ 378 U.S. 478, 492 (1964), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ a b 384 U.S. 436, 504 (1965), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ 372 U.S. 353, 360 (1963), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ 395 U.S. 6 (1969)
- ^ a b 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
- ^ a b Hickok, 1991, pp. 5–7
- ^ 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946)
- ^ a b 369 U.S. 186, 266 (1962), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ a b 376 U.S. 1, 20 (1964), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ a b 380 U.S. 89, 97 (1965), Harlan, J., dissenting
- ^ 383 U.S. 663, 680 (1966)
- ^ a b Dean, 2001
- ^ "Christensen, George A. (1983) Here Lies the Supreme Court: Gravesites of the Justices, Yearbook". Archived from the original on September 3, 2005. Retrieved November 24, 2013. Supreme Court Historical Society at Internet Archive.
- S2CID 145227968..
- ^ a MetNews staff writer (October 31, 2002). "Justice Lillie Remembered for Hard Work, Long Years of Service". Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Archived from the original on September 6, 2008. Retrieved August 16, 2008.
- ^ Yarbrough, 1992
- ^ "Book of Members, 1780–2010: Chapter H" (PDF). American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 8, 2018. Retrieved April 15, 2011.
- ^ "John Marshall Harlan Papers, 1884-1972 (mostly 1936-1971) - Finding Aids". findingaids.princeton.edu. Retrieved October 5, 2022.
- ^ Staff (June 13, 1972). "Mrs. John Marshall Harlan, 76, Widow of Supreme Court Justice". New York Times. Archived from the original on January 14, 2012. Retrieved April 15, 2009.
References
- Abrams, Floyd (2005). "The Pentagon papers case". Speaking Freely. New York: ISBN 978-0-670-03375-1.
- Cortner, Richard (1985). "The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights: An Overview" (PDF). American Political Science Association and American Historical Association. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 29, 2020. Retrieved July 19, 2020.
- Dean, John (2001). "2". The Rehnquist Choice. Free Press. ISBN 978-0-7432-2607-3.
- Dorsen, Norman; Newcomb, Amela Ames (2002). "John Marshall Harlan II: Remembrances by his Law Clerks". Journal of Supreme Court History. 27 (2): 138–175. S2CID 144526140. Archived from the originalon January 5, 2013.
- Dorsen, Norman (2006). "The selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 4 (4): 652–663. .
- Dripps, Donald A. (2005). "Justice Harlan on Criminal Procedure: Two Cheers for the Legal Process School" (PDF). Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. 3: 125–168. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 21, 2010. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
- Epstein, Lee; Segal, Jeffrey A.; Staudt, Nancy; Lindstädt, Rene (2005). "The role of qualifications in the confirmation of nominees to the U.S. Supreme court" (PDF). Florida State University Law Review. 32: 1145–1174. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 29, 2008.
- Goldman, Jeremy. "Harlan, John M." Oyez.org. Archivedfrom the original on September 16, 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
- Hickok, Eugene W. Jr. (1991). "Representation By Quota: The Decline of Representative Government in America". The Heritage Lectures. Washington, D.C.: ISSN 0272-1155.
- Leitch, Alexander (1978). A Princeton Companion. Princeton: ISBN 0-691-04654-9. Archivedfrom the original on April 27, 2019. Retrieved April 13, 2009.
- Mayer, Martin (1968). Emory Buckner. New York: Harper & Row. (Harlan arranged for Mayer to write this book about his mentor Emory Buckner and wrote the book's Introduction.)
- Oeslner, Lesley (December 30, 1971). "Harlan dies at 72; on Court 16 years". The New York Times. Retrieved April 17, 2009.(subscription required)
- O'Neil, Robert M. (2001). "The neglected first amendment jurisprudence of the second justice Harlan" (PDF). NYU Annual Survey of American Law. 58: 57–66. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 29, 2008.
- Tucker, William H. (2002). The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund. ISBN 978-0-252-02762-8.
- Vasicko, Sally Jo (1980). "John Marshall Harlan: neglected advocate of federalism" (PDF). Modern Age. 24 (4): 387–395. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 29, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2008.
- Wildenthal, Bryan H. (2000). "The Road to Twining: Reassessing the Disincorporation of the Bill of Rights" (PDF). Ohio State Law Journal. 61: 1457–1496. Archived(PDF) from the original on October 29, 2008. Retrieved October 8, 2008.
- Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (1989). Mr. Justice Black and his critics. ISBN 978-0-8223-0866-9.
- Yarbrough, Tinsley E. (1992). John Marshall Harlan: Great Dissenter of the Warren Court. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-506090-4.
Further reading
- Abraham, Henry J. (1992). Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (3rd ed.). Oxford, Oxfordshire: ISBN 0-19-506557-3.
- Cushman, Clare (2001). The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789–1995 (2nd ed.). (ISBN 1-56802-126-7.
- Frank, John P. (1995). Friedman, Leon; Israel, Fred L. (eds.). The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions. ISBN 0-7910-1377-4.
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. (1992). The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505835-6.
- Martin, Fenton S.; Goehlert, Robert U. (1990). The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography. Washington, D.C.: ISBN 0-87187-554-3.
- Shapiro, David L. (1969). The Evolution of a Judicial Philosophy: Selected Opinions and Papers of Justice John M. Harlan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Urofsky, Melvin I. (1994). The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: ISBN 0-8153-1176-1.
- ISBN 978-0-380-52183-8.
External links
- John Marshall Harlan II at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges, a publication of the Federal Judicial Center.
- Ariens, Michael. "John Marshall Harlan II". www.michaelariens.com. Archived from the original on May 16, 2008. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
- John M. Harlan Papers at the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library, Princeton University
- Harlan, Louis R. "Harlan Family In America: A Brief History". Harlan Family in America. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved October 9, 2008.
- Fox, John, Capitalism and Conflict, Biographies of the Robes, John Marshall Harlan II. Public Broadcasting Service.
- Supreme Court Historical Society, "John Marshall Harlan II." Archived April 15, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
- Booknotes interview with Tinsley Yarbrough on John Marshall Harlan: Great Dissenter of the Warren Court, April 26, 1992.
- John Marshall Harlan II at Find a Grave