The Wit of the Supreme Court

One of the perks of being a law student, and specifically a law student studying constitutional law, is the frequent contact with the entertaining and clever language of the Supreme Court.   As you’ll see below, I compiled some of my favorite quotations from the highest court in the land. Citations are included so you can have the pleasure of reading the full opinions.

Justice O’Connor’s first line of Board of Airport Com’rs of City of Los Angeles v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.:

“The issue presented in this case is whether a resolution banning all “First Amendment activities” at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) violates the First Amendment.” 482 U.S. 569 (1987)

Justice Scalia in the concurrence in Conroy v. Aniskoff, as usual, arguing against reasoning based on legislative intent:

“That is not merely a waste of research time and ink; it is a false and disruptive lesson in the law.” 507 U.S. 511 (1993)

That dissent was responded to in footnote 12 in the majority opinion by Justice Stevens:

“In his 11-page opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice SCALIA suggests that our response to respondents’ reliance on legislative history “is not merely a waste of research time and ink,” but also “a false and disruptive lesson in the law.” Post, at 1567. His “hapless law clerk,” post, at 1571, has found a good deal of evidence in the legislative history that many provisions of this statute were intended to confer discretion on trial judges.”

Justice Scalia in the dissent to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:

“It claims authority to engage in this sort of “judicious balancing” from Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), a case involving …the withdrawal of disability benefits! ” (emphasis in original) 542 U.S. 507 (2004)

Justice Souter in the dissent in Ashcroft v. Iqbal concerning the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 pleading standard:

” The sole exception to this rule lies with allegations that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff’s recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel.” 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009)

Justice Scalia’s condescending opening line in his dissent in Michigan v. Bryant earlier this year:

“Today’s tale—a story of five  officers conducting successive examinations  of a dying man with the primary purpose, not of obtaining and  preserving his testimony regarding  his killer, but of protecting him, them, and others from a murderer somewhere on the loose—is so transparently false that professing to believe  it demeans this institution” (emphasis added)  131 S.Ct. 45 (2011)

Justice Kagan’s hypothetical in the dissent in Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett which struck down an Arizona public campaign financing law earlier this year:

“Pretend you are financing your campaign through private donations. Would you prefer that your opponent receive a guaranteed, upfront payment of $150,000, or that he receive only $50,000, with the possibility—a possibility that you mostly get to control—of collecting another $100,000 somewhere down the road? Me too.” 131 S.Ct. 2806 (2011)

Justice Roberts’ conclusion in FCC v. AT&T also decided earlier this year:

“We reject the argument that because “person” is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase “personal privacy” in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well. The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations. We trust that AT & T will not take it personally.”  131 S.Ct. 1177 (2011)

Justice Jackson in an opinion that still resonates over half a century later in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer:

“There are indications that the Constitution did not contemplate that the title Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy will constitute him also Commander-in-Chief of the country…” 343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Robert Bork came just short of serving on the Supreme Court but his prose did manage to make it into the opinion by Justice Ginsburg in Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation:

“This familiar parade of dreadfuls calls to mind wise counsel: “Judges and lawyers live on the slippery slope of analogies; they are not supposed to ski it to the bottom.” R. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law 169 (1990).” 525 U.S. 182 (1999)

This final quotation isn’t from an opinion but it should give comfort to any law student who is struggling with his or her legal analysis.

“Assume I’m very ignorant, which isn’t too far from the truth.”

Those were the words of Justice Stephen Breyer, January 11, 2011, during oral argument in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro.   If you ever feel confused by how the Constitution should apply to a fact pattern before you, you’re in good company.