Stewart served in World War II as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve aboard oil tankers from 1941 to 1945, attaining the rank of lieutenant junior grade.[5][6] In 1943, he married Mary Ann Bertles in a ceremony at Bruton Episcopal Church in Williamsburg, Virginia (at which his brother Zeph—also an initiate of Delta Kappa Epsilon and Skull and Bones, and eventually a professor of classics at Harvard—was the best man). They eventually had a daughter: Harriet (Virkstis), and two sons: Potter Jr. and David. He was in private practice with Dinsmore & Shohl in Cincinnati. During the early 1950s, he was elected to the Cincinnati City Council.
Stewart came to a Supreme Court controlled by two warring ideological camps and sat firmly in its center.[13][14][15] A case early in his Supreme Court career showing his role as the swing vote during that time is Irvin v. Dowd.
Stewart was temperamentally inclined to moderate, pragmatic positions,[16] but was often in a dissenting posture during his time on the Warren Court. Stewart believed that the majority on the Warren Court had adopted readings of the First Amendment Establishment Clause (Engel v. Vitale (1962), Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)), the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona (1966)), and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of Equal Protection with regard to voting rights (Reynolds v. Sims (1964)) that went beyond the framers' intention. In Engel, Stewart found no precedent to remove school sponsored prayer, and in Abington, Stewart refused to strike down the practice of school sponsored Bible reading in public schools; he was the only justice who took this position in both cases.[17] Stewart dissented in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) on the ground that, while the Connecticut statute barring the use of contraceptives seemed to him an "uncommonly silly law", he could not find a general "Right of Privacy" in the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
Before the appointment of Warren Burger as Chief Justice, many speculated that President Richard Nixon would elevate Stewart to the post, some going so far as to call him the front-runner. Stewart, though flattered by the suggestion, did not want again to appear before and expose his family to the Senate confirmation process. He also did not relish the prospect of taking on the administrative responsibilities that were delegated to the Chief Justice. Accordingly, he met privately with the President to ask that his name be removed from consideration.[18]
On the Burger Court, Stewart was seen as a centrist justice and was often influential. He joined the decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972), which invalidated all death penalty laws then in force, and he then joined in the Court's decision four years later, Gregg v. Georgia, which upheld the revised capital punishment legislation adopted in a majority of the states. Despite his earlier dissent in Griswold, Stewart changed his views on the right of privacy and was a key mover behind the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade (1973), which recognized the right to abortion under that right.[19] Stewart opposed the Vietnam War[20] and on a number of occasions urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari on cases challenging the constitutionality of the war.[21]
Stewart consistently voted against claims of criminal defendants in the area of federal habeas corpus and collateral review.[22] He was concerned about broad interpretations of the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses.[23]
He was the lone dissenter in the landmark juvenile law case In re Gault (1967). That case extended to minors the right to be informed of their rights and the right to an attorney, which had been granted to adults in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), respectively.
In the obscenity case of Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), Stewart wrote in his short concurrence that "hard-core pornography" was hard to define, but "I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."[24] Justice Stewart went on to defend the movie in question (Louis Malle's The Lovers) against further censorship. One commentator opined, "This observation summarizes Stewart's judicial philosophy: particularistic, intuitive, and pragmatic."[24]
Justice Stewart commented about his second thoughts about that quotation in 1981. "In a way I regret having said what I said about obscenity—that's going to be on my tombstone. When I remember all of the other solid words I've written," he said, "I regret a little bit that if I'll be remembered at all I'll be remembered for that particular phrase."[25]
Fourth Amendment
Before 1967, Fourth Amendment protections were mostly limited to notions of property: possessory geographical locations such as apartments or physical objects.[26]
Stewart's opinion in Katz v. United States established that the Fourth Amendment "protects people, not places."[26] Stewart wrote that the government's installation of a recording device in a public phone booth violated the reasonable expectation of privacy since the government was committing the "seizure" of callers' words.[26]Katz therefore extended the reach of the Fourth Amendment beyond just physical intrusions and would also protect against the seizure of incorporeal words.[26] In addition, the reach of the Amendment was no longer defined solely by property limits but now went as far as a person's reasonable privacy expectation.[26] The Katz case made government wiretapping by both state and federal authorities subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements.[26]
In Chimel v. California (1969), Stewart wrote an opinion stating that arresting a suspect in his house does not give the police the right to perform a warrantless search of the entire house, only the area surrounding the arrestee.[27]
In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), Stewart wrote that roving patrols of the United States Border Patrol must have some justifiable reason before stopping a car. They could not stop and search automobiles without probable cause merely because a stop was made within 100 nautical miles (190 km) from the international border.[28]
In Whalen v. Roe (1977), Stewart, in his concurrence,[29] objected to any broad establishment of a right to privacy. He said that prior Court decisions did not "recognize a general interest in freedom from disclosure of private information."[23]
Access to courts
Justice Stewart was a leader in trying to maintain access to federal courts in civil rights cases.[30] Stewart was one of the strongest dissenters in the trend of denying litigants access to the federal courts.[30]
In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968), Stewart extended the 1866 Civil Rights Act to outlaw private refusals to buy, sell, or lease real or personal property for racially-discriminatory reasons.[31] In 1976, Stewart extended the Act again in Runyon v. McCrary, which states that private schools open to all white students could no longer exclude black children, and all other offers to contract made to the general public were also made subject to the 1866 Act.[32]
In Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1965), Stewart held for the Court that police could not use an anti-loitering law to keep civil rights workers from standing or demonstrating on a sidewalk.[32]
In a dissenting opinion in Ginzburg v. United States, 383U.S.463 (1966), Stewart stated, "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime."[33]
In his opinion for San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, Stewart argues that while the funding method of public education is "chaotic and unjust"[34] it does not in the court's opinion, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
His opinion for Milliken v. Bradley states that because there was no evidence of de jure segregation implemented by the school districts in the Metropolitan Detroit area, that neither the school districts nor the state of Michigan were responsible for violating the Constitutional rights of Black Detroiters and thus could not be forced to desegregate their schools. [35]
Both cases have been cited as some of the worst decisions from the court. [36][37]
Retirement and death
Stewart announced his retirement from the Court on June 18, 1981,[38] and stepped down on July 3.[9] President Ronald Reagan nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to succeed Stewart; she would become the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court.[39]
Most of Stewart's personal and official papers are archived at the manuscript Yale University Library in New Haven, Connecticut, where they are now available for research. The files concerning Stewart's service were closed to researchers until all the justices with whom Stewart served had left the court; the last of these was Justice John Paul Stevens who considered him his judicial hero.[42] Additional papers also exist in other collections.[43]
^Friedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. page 291–292.
^Eisler, Kim Isaac (1993). A Justice for All: William J. Brennan, Jr., and the decisions that transformed America. page 159. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN0-671-76787-9
^ abJohn P. MacKenzie (December 8, 1985). "Potter Stewart is Dead at 70; Was on High Court 23 Years," NY TimesArchived December 2, 2016, at the Wayback Machine("The Court that Justice Stewart joined was closely divided on many of its most important questions, which often gave the junior member the deciding vote in his first few years.")
^Strassfeld, Robert M. "The Vietnam War On Trial: The Court-Martial of Dr. Howard Levy," 1994 Wisc. L. Rev.Archived June 24, 2016, at the Wayback Machine 839, 840 ("On June 19, 1974, the United States Supreme Court upheld the court-martial conviction of Dr. Howard B. Levy, and with it, the constitutional validity of Uniform Code of Military Justice ("UCMJ") Articles 1332 and 134.3 The Court's announcement of its decision in Parker v. Levy prompted an unusual display of ire; Justice Potter Stewart angrily read his dissenting opinion from the bench." [citations omitted])
^Lamb, Charles M., Stephen C. Halpern, eds. (1991). The Burger Court: Political and Judicial Profiles. Champaign-Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Chapter 6 by Phillip J. Cooper, "Justice William O. Douglas: Conscience of the Court," p. 169 ("The cases presenting challenges to the validity of the war in Vietnam came in many forms, often in litigation concerning the draft, but most of them also contained a foundation assertion that the legitimacy of the war itself was in question. Recalling this period, Douglas asserted: 'I wrote numerous opinions stating why we should take these cases and decide them. Once or twice, Potter Stewart or Bill Brennan joined me. But there was never a fourth vote.'") ISBN0252061357, ISBN9780252061356.
^Friedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 296.
^ abFriedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 304.
^ abcdefFriedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 292.
^ abcFriedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 297.
^Friedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Pages 298–299.
^ abFriedman, Leon. The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions, Volume V. Chelsea House Publishers. 1978. Page 299.
^Lukas, J. Anthony (February 1989). "Playboy Interview: Bob Woodward". Playboy. No. 36. p. 62.
Further reading
Abraham, Henry J., Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court. 3d. ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992). ISBN0-19-506557-3.
Barnett, Helaine M., Janice Goldman, and Jeffrey B. Morris. A Lawyer's Lawyer, a Judge's Judge: Potter Stewart and the Fourth Amendment. 51 University of Cincinnati Law Review 509 (1982).
Barnett, Helaine M., and Kenneth Levine. Mr. Justice Potter Stewart. 40 New York University Law Review 526 (1965).
Berman, Daniel M. Mr. Justice Stewart: A Preliminary Appraisal. 28 University of Cincinnati Law Review 401 (1959).
Frank, John P., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court: Their Lives and Major Opinions (Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, editors) (Chelsea House Publishers, 1995) ISBN0-7910-1377-4, ISBN978-0-7910-1377-9.
Frank, John Paul. The Warren Court. New York: Macmillan, 1964, 133–148.
Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992., ISBN0-19-505835-6; ISBN978-0-19-505835-2.
Martin, Fenton S. and Goehlert, Robert U., The U.S. Supreme Court: A Bibliography, (Congressional Quarterly Books, 1990). ISBN0-87187-554-3.
Urofsky, Melvin I., The Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Publishing 1994). 590 pp. ISBN0-8153-1176-1; ISBN978-0-8153-1176-8.
Yarbrough, Tinsley E. Justice Potter Stewart: Decisional Patterns in Search of Doctrinal Moorings. In The Burger Court: Political and Judicial Profiles, eds., Charles M. Lamb and Stephen C. Halpern, 375–406. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991.