Justice Harlan and the Uses of Dissent

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1085-1104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Loren P. Beth
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Direct Descendant ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Obvious Reason ◽  
John Marshall

The appointment of John M. Harlan of New York to the Supreme Court bench came not only as something of a surprise, but as a rather timely and significant one. It is not merely that he is the first justice who is a direct descendant of a previous member of the Court, but that in a fitting sense his appointment may be regarded as a long-overdue tribute to the services his grandfather rendered to the Court and to the nation, and to the causes which the elder Harlan so ably represented.Of all the more prominent justices in Supreme Court history, John Marshall Harlan of Kentucky has been, for no obvious reason, the most neglected. The recently published biography of Justice William Johnson has restored to his place in history the only other justice who perhaps could compete with Harlan in the lack of attention paid a significant career.

The Constitutionality of Involuntary Civil Commitment of Opiate Addicts

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Involuntary Treatment ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Narcotic Trafficking ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Opiate Addicts ◽  
The 1960S

This paper deals with the constitutionality of involuntary treatment of opiate addicts. Although the first laws permitting involuntary treatment of opiate addicts were enacted in the second half of the nineteenth century, addicts were not committed in large numbers until California and New York enacted new civil commitment legislation in the 1960s. Inevitably, the courts were called upon to decide if involuntary treatment was constitutional. Both the California and New York courts decided that it was. These decisions were heavily influenced by statements made by the United States Supreme Court in Robinson v. California. The Robinson case did not actually involve the constitutionality of involuntary treatment; it involved the question of whether it was constitutional for a state to make addiction a crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declared (in a dictum) that a state might establish a program of compulsory treatment for opiate addicts either to discourage violation of its criminal laws against narcotic trafficking or to safeguard the general health or welfare of its inhabitants. Presumably because the Robinson case did not involve the constitutionality of involuntary treatment of opiate addicts, the Supreme Court did not go into that question as deeply as it might have. The California and New York courts, in turn, relied too much on this dictum and did not delve deeply into the question. The New York courts did a better job than the California courts, but their work too was not as good as it should have been.

John Marshall and the Heroic Age of the Supreme Court

2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 519
Author(s):  
Peter S. Onuf ◽  
R. Kent Newmyer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
John Marshall
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document